When Two Become Three

I remember once going to watch my brother play football. It was a long, long time ago and it was the sort of Scottish day that was as wet as it was cold.

The sort of day that threatens to drown a diminutive full back and turn a skinny left winger a very unhealthy shade of blue.

The sort of day that might make you despair of a nation that sends ten and eleven year old boys out to play football in such conditions.

The referee obviously didn't share the convinction of the coaches that the game should go ahead.

He pondered, he checked the pitch. And then he set upon a compromise:

"What we'll dae is we'll play three halves instead of two."

The game went ahead. The players had two breaks in which to coax the blood flow back to their extremities. Unfortunate fatalities were avoided.

I was put in mind of this yesterday when I read this:

Michael Beavon, a director of Arup Associates, the company developing the zero-carbon solar technology that can cool the 12 stadiums to be built for the World Cup, told delegates at a Qatar Infrastructure Conference in London that air-cooling could maintain a temperature of around 24 degrees Celsius in the stadiums.


"There is a moderate risk of heat injury to the players between 24C-29C but if you go above that you have high and extreme risk of injury," said Beavon. "The one thing FIFA do say, although it is for guidance, is if it's 32C they will stop a match and play three 30-minute thirds rather than two 45-minute halves.(ESPN)

From the playing field of Midlothian in the 1980s to Qatar's World Cup in 2022.

That's progress. Unless you actually care about the spectacle of the game.

> Fifa have apparently moved to distance themselves from this latest lunacy - a change that would require alterations to the laws of the game. It seems Beavon was floating a balloon and Blatter's battalion have shot it down.

Two breaks would double the amount of time for adverts though. Craven commercialism wrapped up neatly in concern for the health of the players. There will be somebody in the governing body who thinks is an idea worth considering.

England, Russia, Qatar and FIFA

Russia and Qatar. The 2018 and 2022 World Cups will be going where no World Cup has gone before.

I was fairly unmoved by the whole shebang surrounding the bidding process. Certainly a fair few English noses have been put out of joint.

And many English journalists are now ranting and raving about the power of money and the questionable attitudes of the two countries to human rights and media freedom.

Fair points. But they miss crucial parts of the story.

FIFA now looks to me to be an institution so corrupt it is beyone redemption, certainly it seems beyond the jurisdiction of anyone that might like to heal the sickness that Sepp Blatter and, before him, Joao Havelange have left at its heart.

Of course, money talks to FIFA. It screams in FIFA's face. And FIFA love it.

And FIFA, like the Olympics, is brilliant at what we might call "flingin' a deefie" to anything that might be political. Of course both organisations are among the most political on the planet. And, like all politicians, the movers and shakers are brilliant at ignoring anything that they consider to be the wrong kind of politics.

Few of the journalists acting as bid cheerleaders for England would have been as quick to point out these problems had they got what they wanted. C'est la vie.

And the World Cup makes us all culpable in FIFA’s deceit. We want to watch the football so we ignore everything else. We’ll do the same again in 2018 and 2022.

England probably deserve the World Cup. They'd provide the stadiums and they'd provide the fans. But the bid got off to a bad start. And, nothing to do with media investigations or playing a typically English straight bat, England - all four home nations - just don't have enough friends at football's top table now.

A heady mix of Eton, royalty, politicians and brand Beckham was never going to change that.

And, as far as the football goes, Russia is not a totally crazy choice. It’s a massive country with an appetite for the game. The choice is consistent with others FIFA have made. And, of course, it offers a carnival of capitalism in a market that didn’t exist for FIFA 30 years ago. Growing the game is about making FIFA richer. Russia can deliver on that.

It’s the 2022 decision that is more interesting. This is a change in FIFA’s selection policy. Yes, Qatar delivers a new market and takes the tournament to the Middle East for the first time.

It’s the size thing that amazes me. World Cups have got bigger and bigger. That’s not always a good thing. But it makes the idea of a country with less than half population of Scotland hosting the tournament all the more remarkable.

There also seems little football heritage. The national team is ranked 113th in the world, 16th in Asia and have managed to beat only Yemen in their last five games. They have never played in a World Cup. It's not hard to make the argument that FIFA have been influenced by a reasons outwith football.

It’s an intriguing bid and it obviously caught the imagination of the suited and booted middle aged men who run world football. A victory, as Zinedine Zidane has said, for the Arab world.

Qatar have guaranteed that the heat will not be a problem, that stadiums will be climate controlled. They’re even likely to allow alcohol for thirsty fans.

Changing the temperature. Changing laws. FIFA have a long list of demands on any host country. A small country like Qatar, complete with an absolute monarchy, can offer complete compliance with every FIFA whim. This apparent leftfield choice could become the blueprint for the future.

But as strange a choice as it seems it reflects badly on us to dismiss it, 12 years out from the tournament, as a moment of FIFA madness.

Yet cynicism persists. FIFA are committed to breaking new footballing frontiers. The hope is that the World Cup doesn't get lost in the desert.

> An irony in attacking the BBC, and others, for highlighting corruption concerns at FIFA and attacking Russia for having a questionable on press freedom.

> David Beckham could teach many involved in the England bid a thing or two about diplomacy with his dignified reaction to defeat. Those that are throwing their toys out of the pram and attacking FIFA should be prepared to answer questions about why they were prepared to spend so much money trying to host the World Cup. FIFA’s problems don’t begin and end with Thursday’s voting.


> Let's not all turn into international relations experts. But 2022 is a long way off. Situations change, tense situations worsen. Could Qatar's defence concordat with Iran cause FIFA problems in the next decade? The combined concerns about the Qatar bid might explain the Australian's dignified acceptance of defeat - if Qatar can't host the 2022 World Cup I'm sure the Aussies will be waiting in the wings.

2010 World Cup: England v USA

Hate these Saturday nights. There you are sat watching Doctor Who wondering why you'll never get the chance to go time travelling with Amy Pond when suddenly you realise the neighbours are having a party.

What do you do? Ignore it, gatecrash it, call the police? Or just sit silently fuming, hoping they have a really bad night?

Or reflect on your inability to have had a party of your own for about 12 years while acquainting yourself with a bottle of Scotch?

I suppose you could always just raise your glass and wish them all the best before getting on with your life.

Just one of those decisions that we all sometimes have to make. A ramble which, strangely enough, brings me all the way around to this evening's game in the World Cup.

England v USA. USA v England. Do you think folk in Canada wear ABUS t-shirts?

I've got a little preview of the game below written by Annette Lyndon. This is a World Cup fixture with a sixty year history. There's already US politicians involved. There might even be a certain frisson of excitement added by the stushie over BP.

As Annette explains the game might also provide a boost for the campaign to get the World Cup back to the States in 2018 or 2022. Given their rabid media the stakes are probably even higher for England.

I asked on Twitter for a preview from England but none were forthcoming so Annette's got a free run.

Me? I just want to see a good game. I'll still be thinking about Amy Pond anyway.

Tonight the United States of America face off against England in the Group C FIFA World Cup opening round. The game against England will initiate a 3 game round robin qualifier with in a group with Algeria and Slovenia. Each team will be competing for a spot in the Round of 16. While the USA has never played Slovenia or Algeria, they do have a history with England – having beaten them 60 years ago in a 1-0 upset victory in 1950 Brazil. You can bet England will be looking to settle the score this year in South Africa.

However, the United States is led by Coach Bob Bradley, who is determined to focus all of his energy and attention on the team in order to give them the best possible chance at winning. A former athlete himself, he focuses and trains just as hard, if not harder, than a lot of active athletes. He leads by example. He believes he has the USA team prepared for battle against England and whatever else the games might bring their way. If they win, it will be because of the hard work he’s put into coaching his team. If they lose, he’ll blame nobody but himself.

2002 proved to be the best U.S. finish in a World Cup since the tournament's inception in 1930. In 2006 they were eliminated in the first round. This year they are confident in their ability to perform against the competition in their group. They have high expectations to reach the Round of 16. While England is ranked 8th in the world, the U.S. is ranked 14th while Slovenia ranks 25th and Algeria ranks 30th.

The World Cup win against England in 1950 may arguably have been the greatest American soccer victory ever. With no other win capturing such a place in history in 60 years, the argument reinforces the notion that soccer has never really been America's sport and popularity amongst Americans never really picked up speed. However, in recent years soccer has earned a much larger following in the States with the growing popularity of U.S. Major League Soccer.

Additionally, U.S. fans have a lot to look forward to this year in light of recent revelations.

Americans recently found out that the United States is being considered as the host country for the 2018 World Cup. The last time the World Cup was hosted on American soil (1994), the event was attended by a total of 3.6 million people – a record despite the game's expansion since then. It was the highest attended single-sporting event in U.S. history.

Further excitement comes to USA fans as President Clinton and his top counselor, Doug Band, have accepted invitations to join the Board of Directors of the USA Bid Committee in an attempt to bring the World Cup to the US in 2018 or 2022. Adding them to the committee should increase the chance that the U.S. has at winning the bid since Bill Clinton and Doug Band are known worldwide for their international philanthropic initiatives, through the Clinton Global Initiative, thus improving the relationship the U.S. has with over 170 foreign countries.

With this news, a new fire has been lit amongst soccer enthusiasts throughout the American nation. The sense of pride that Americans are showing towards their team has experienced a boost that will surely be exemplified on Saturday when millions of Americans raise their red, white and blue flags, put on their war paint, and tune in to watch the USA battle England hoping to repeat history, 60 years later.

Thanks once again to Annette. If pushed I've got to say I fancy England but, given slow starts are now an English tradition to rival warm beer, cricket on the green and fawning over the Top Gear trio, the USA will fancy their chances of shutting up shop at the back and nicking something up front. I'll be ensconced in the pub but will try to Tweet during the game @ScotFootBlog