Free For All?

Continued gnashing of teeth over England's lost bid for the 2018 World Cup. It appears that the English bid wasn't beyond the odd bit of deal making though. Including on the issue of free-to-air sport on TV:

The BBC and ITV were set to join forces to battle a secret government decision that could have handed Sky the chance to air the 2018 World Cup. It has emerged that the government guaranteed to football body Fifa that it was prepared to waive listed events regulations for the 2018 tournament as part of England’s failed bid to host the event. Under current rules, the World Cup is on the Crown Jewels TV sports list, meaning that it can only be shown live on free-to-air television. However, at the request of Fifa, England’s 2018 World Cup bid document contained a promise to allow pay-TV companies, such as BSkyB and Disney-owned ESPN, the chance to bid for rights. Neither the BBC nor ITV – which traditionally share coverage of the World Cup – were aware of the guarantee at the time of England’s bid.

Seems it wouldn't have extended to the whole tournament. But it does show that for all the moaning and outrage that followed Fifa's decision the English bid team and the government were not completely naive about how these things work.

And they were prepared to dilute one of the country's great sporting shared experiences to get their way.

You can find an interesting analysis of all this on Twohundredpercent.

The Scottish Football Blog News Feed

Morrisons v FIFA: More Moaning For Less

Most of us can accept that FIFA is - I'll not say corrupt - lacking a certain transparency in its decision making processes.

And we can probably accept that Sepp Blatter, to quote Rob over at Left Back In The Changing Room, "is a fucking clown."

But how many of us thought that it would be the supermarket chain Morrisons that would grasp the sword of truth and attempt to slay football's governing dragon?

A Morrisons spokeman has announced:

"On behalf of our customer we are disappointed that the merits of the bid were not recognised by Fifa, which clearly was intent on locating the 2018 World Cup in an emerging country.

"As we think the decision-making process was unfair, we have instructed lawyers in Switzerland to examine our options under Swiss law.

"We hope Fifa will do the right thing and offer £1m to be invested in grass-roots football."

Good luck with that one, chaps.

Quick question to Morrisons though. Why not spend the money on grassroots football in the first place?

The, ahem, "intricacies" of FIFA's bid process were hardly a secret before England launched their bid. I'm guessing Morrisons would have been happy to ignore these concerns if the English bid had succeeded.

Nor is the 2012 Olympic project a shining example of England's ability to articulate how a major sporting event will have direct grassroots benefits.

And, come to think of it, how did the 10 year old school children who benefited from the legacy of Euro 96 fare in South Africa this summer?

I'm sure Morrisons think this is a nice PR campaign. Unfortunately, like many in the FA, they are now coming across as unbelievably naive or like terribly bad losers.

Time to move on.

Vote for Scottish Football Blog at Top Ten Scottish Football Web Awards

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: Money matters

An excellent infographic on www.knowyourmoney.co.uk dealing with the economics of the World Cup.

In light of yesterday's budget you wonder how this British government can support England's 2018 bid.

And, given the money that has been spent, Sepp Blatter and FIFA should be hunted down - haunted even - if just one of their claims about the legacy in South Africa is not acted upon.

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

Ears to you, Gary

Who'd have thought we'd be applauding Gary Lineker?

The jug-eared ladies man who has managed to turn insipid blandness into a lucrative second career.

The rather smug purveyor of obesity inducing fried snacks who made a funny face when Paul Gascoigne cried in 1990.

Suddenly he's a hero.

Well, not quite. But Lineker's decision to quit his column at the Sunday version of a newspaper that sounds very like the Waily Wail should be applauded.

The Match of the Day autocue reader has felt the need to act after the distasteful sting operation on Lord Triesman and the ensuing fall out for England's 2018 World Cup bid.

I've no great interest in England hosting the 2018 World Cup.

But I've got some sympathy for Triesman. A man guilty of stupidity perhaps but not much more than that. Stupid for talking out of turn and stupid for being the sort of man who is attracted to the sort of woman - even if only platonically - who takes a tape recorder in her handbag when she's going for a meal.

A question for the Mail on Sunday though. Is "uncovering" that stupidity in the public interest? I fail to see how. And will the Mail on Sunday take any responsibility if the England bid fails? Or will they simply blame the committee that they have done so much to undermine?

An English story with no relevance to a Scottish football blog? Perhaps. But it's my blog.

And there is a knock on effect. The level of distrust between those involved in sport and the media will only grow while we sit back and leave this "journalism" to fester.

That robs the fans of insight and it increases the distance between punter and player. That is not healthy for any of us.

So hat's off to Gary Lineker. A principled stand that deserves a little recognition.

Before he annoys the hell out of me during the World Cup.

What he says

You can read Linker's explanation for quitting here.

Again I've no real interest one way or the other in how England perform in South Africa. But Linker's point about the press "undermining" the build-up to big tournaments is valid. There's a schizophrenic element to the English media that I find fascinating to observe. Almost wholly destructive, yet uniquely critical, any success that an English sporting team has is despite the attentions of their media. Given the role they think they hold at the centre of national life it is a bizarre position for journalists and editors to pursue. England's welcome to them.

What they say

Roy Greenslade has blogged on the, fully deserved, backlash against the Mail On Sunday on The Guardian's media site:

The MoS is trying to escape from its responsibilities in this matter. It made a severe error in publishing a story obtained from a woman who, as the London Evening Standard revealed, was recently treated for mental health problems.

David Bond, incidentally, raises all sorts of questions about the story's provenance in his Monday blog that require answers.

The MoS would do well to own up to its mistaken editorial judgment. Its readers, and England's football fans, deserve an apology.

States of soccer

I remember Alan Hansen saying during the 1994 World Cup that he hoped football never caught on in the United States. The reason: they'd end up being better than us.

We might have reached that point. The US are preparing for their sixth World Cup on the bounce. Scotland are missing out for the third time in a row.

2010 will be the tenth US appearance at the finals, we've only made eight. Three times they've escaped the group stages. You know the rest...

But the impression lingers that the US somehow doesn't get football. We retain a certain aristocratic aloofness when we look at their attempts to "do soccer."

We should reassess. They have a decent national side, a strong grassroots and - my anecdotal evidence would suggest - have a thriving network of bloggers and other media spreading the word.

In the Scottish Football Blog's first guest post, and with the World Cup only weeks away, Annette Lyndon looks at the growth of football in the States:

The 2010 South African FIFA World Cup is fast approaching. Fans from all over the globe will be flocking to South Africa to watch their countries compete. Excitement is building as the opening match approaches (June 11th). Football, or soccer, is the world’s sport, and mounting anticipation can only be expected. However a high level of enthusiasm is coming from an unlikely nation this year, the USA.

While sports are an integral part of American culture, soccer never really gained popularity as a primary spectator sport. For many years soccer was accepted as a popular team sport for youths and never caught on in the mainstream arena. But recently soccer has taken flight and is becoming more than recognized as part of the American sports lineup. Major League Soccer (MLS) was founded in 1993 and today has 16 major league teams. The sport has also attracted a large number of individuals from many backgrounds. Soccer teams and clubs are increasing in popularity in US inner cities. Role models, like Cobi Jones from the LA Galexy, have demonstrated minority involvement within the sport and are encouraging youths from different ethnicities to adopt playing it as well. Soccer has also developed as an important sport for women. In the US, 35% of all soccer players are female, one of the highest percentages of women participants around the world. Soccer in America is helping to cross racial, as well as gender, lines.

While the United States has their own teams, fans are broadening their horizons and watching international play as well. Many American soccer fans have begun to follow popular foreign teams like Spain’s Real Madrid and England’s Manchester United. Yet, when the World Cup begins, you can be sure that the majority of the country will be supporting the USA.

As of March 31st, the USA ranks 16th out of the total 204 world teams who entered to take part in the games and qualified for the tournament. The USA is scheduled to play its first match against England on the 12th of June. An overwhelming number of American fans are traveling to South Africa to see the US play. It is reported that Americans stand second after South Africans as primary ticket holders for the tournament.

While American fans may have to fly overseas this year to attend the festivities, in the future they may not have to leave their own backyard. The United States is being considered as the host country for the 2018 World Cup. Former President Clinton’s top counselor, Doug Band, has accepted an invitation to join the Board of Directors as a member of the USA Bid Committee in an attempt to bring the World Cup to the US in 2018 or 2022.

Adding him to the committee should increase the chance that the U.S. has at winning the bid since Doug Band is known worldwide for his international philanthropic initiatives, thus improving the relationship the U.S. has with over 170 foreign countries. Ultimately, the hope is that the committee effort will continue to boost soccer enthusiasm in the US and bring the nation to the forefront as a serious contender for the bid to host the 2018 or 2022 World Cup.

Annette is a contributing writer at Your Source 4 Sports and Sports A La Mode.