Duralite Daily Deal

South America dominates for the first time in a long time, in a decades long World Cup soccer rivalry between South America and Europe.

Argentina Fans by Ali Brohi

In world cup soccer, there is a rivalry that most US College Football fans should be able to relate to. It is the rivalry between the two most successful national soccer conferederations, UEFA (Europe) and CONMEBOL (South America). The rivalry can be closely compared to what is seen between the SEC and the PAC 10 in college football. One group, (Europe/SEC) is generally considered to have the best quality of football in the world (like how I used “football” in a double meaning there?)  the other (South America/Pac 10) believe that they are just as good as the other, but are dealing with a (European/East Coast) bias.

When it comes to College Football, the problem lies in getting a bid for the National Championship, or a second bid for the BCS, in soccer the issue is entries into the World Cup. As far as the Europeans are concerned, South America has too many bids because their confederation has only 10 teams but can earn as many as five entries into the tournament, or 50%. Europe usually gets 12-13 bids, but has 53 members, or about 25%. South America, however, feels that they have the best players in the World and that their confederation does not include tiny countries with no shot to win the Cup, like Luxembourg or Latvia, so they should get more bids.

Over the past several World Cups, Europe has proven their argument by knocking out South American teams in droves, leaving Brazil and Argentina to hold the South American banner. This year however, the South American teams have not only fought back, they have put together one of the soundest thumpings of any confederation in history. Of the five teams that qualified for the World Cup in 2010, all five reached the elimination round, and only one (Chile) lost its round of 16 game. Who beat Chile? Brazil, another South American team. This, of course means that four of the eight remaining teams in the World Cup are from South America, and the remaining bracket makes it possible, albeit unlikely, that the final four teams could all hail from South America.

The results of this World Cup will not lead to added bids for CONMEBOL, but it certainly makes a sound case that they deserved the five they got, despite what their rivals in Europe might say.

Arjen Robben hits a stinging shot to stun Slovakia in what would eventually be a 2-1 win for the Netherlands in the World Cup round of 16.

Arjen Robben – Netherlands vs Slovakia (World Cup)

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton has been named honorary chairman of the U.S. bid to host the World Cup in 2018 or 2022. The question is; can a political, and more than likely part-time, figure like Clinton compare with a passionate and committed figure like David Beckham for England’s bid?

An active Clinton could make the difference for the US World Cup bid

Clinton’s reasons for entering the fold are obvious, especially after he stated the following, “That means that if we get the (World Cup) there will be an economic stimulus estimated between $400-$600 million per host city. That will be very good for a lot of families that are still hurting, a lot of communities that are still digging out from under the current economic crisis.”

A former President really has only one thing on their mind once they leave office and that is to cement their legacy. Helping to improve the economy by bringing what may be the world’s greatest event to American soil, could only help him in that effort.

In order to get this bid through, will he do for the US what a passionate soccer legend like David Beckham will do for England? President Clinton is obviously a very influential figure and there is no doubt that he could have a major influence on what happens with this bid, just adding his name to it helps. But what if he was more than just an honorary figure? What if he scratched out just a few visits to some key decision makers and a press conference here or there? He could absolutely make a huge difference.

The two biggest arguments against the United States having a world cup are first; that the country doesn’t need it. It’s true that the United States is in a recession, but the country is still considered to be in comparatively good shape by the rest of the world. The second argument is that the US hosted a world cup only 16 years ago. When the US hosted the 1994 World Cup, the country was still a fairly virgin territory in regards to soccer. Sure, kids played in the leagues across the land and Pele and Beckenbauer stopped by in their twilight years, but at the time there was no pro league and it was predominantly considered a kid’s sport. The World Cup went a long way toward changing that and it has resulted in a boom of excitement in regards to soccer in the United States. The other potential host countries will point that out and say that the US is not in need of another World Cup so soon.

The First shot at a North American Pro League starred Beckenbauer, Pele and Chinaglia.

So the US needs the help of a heavy hitter like Clinton, but they need more than his name. They need his charm, his effort and his action. With a suave and charismatic speaker like Clinton reminding key decision makers, in person, of the financial boom that soccer saw internationally after the US World Cup in 1994, the United States has not only a better shot at securing the tournament, but quite possibly a game winning shot. But will the former President give the time?

With the bidding process for the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cups well under way, the country of Australia considers itself to be a major candidate and worthy option for the world’s greatest soccer event. In 2018 the country has a very slim chance, as European powers such as England, Russia, Belgium & The Netherlands (combined bid) and Spain & Portugal (combined bid) are all eligible to receive that bid. But in 2022, the country has a fair shot. European teams would be ineligible (should one receive the 2018 bid) leaving Australia’s competition for that bid as the United States, Japan, South Korea, Qatar and Indonesia.

Australia may turn out to be a good choice for FIFA as the country is a major tourist destination and is located in an area that has never hosted World Cup Play before. Additionally, the country is notoriously fond of athletics, has a sound economy but has not, as of yet, seriously embraced soccer. A bid for the country should ignite and excite a “virgin” population of over 20 million people to buy into the sport and further its growth.

But despite all of this positive news, Australia has one teeny tiny complication. The World Cup falls smack dab in the middle of the Australian Rules Football (AFL) season. Aussie Rules Football, or “Footy” is an extremely popular sport down under and while the AFL has shown complete support for the country’s bid, FIFA is requiring that no other major sports leagues play at the same time as the World Cup Finals, which does not suit the AFL whatsoever. So Australia is trying to get an exemption from FIFA, believing that precedents exist that would allow other competitions to continue (i.e. Major League Baseball continuing play during the 1994 World Cup in the United States). Along with the proposed exemption would be a an entire relocation plan that would move AFL, Rugby and Cricket games to different locations during World Cup play so as not to compete.

Whether or not FIFA would allow such an exemption in a market as small and competitive as Australia we have yet to see, but one thing is for sure, this is one commited country. I can already see the laughter that would burst out if the United States Soccer Federation asked Jerry Jones to move the Cowboys out of Dallas for a month while soccer players take over Cowboys Stadium.

by andreasnilsson1976

The Chilean National team avoided a possible expulsion from the World Cup yesterday, when one of the country’s club teams, the Rangers, dropped a court case contesting its disputed demotion to the second division of the national soccer league.

The dispute was over the teams relegation from the nation’s first division to its second division. Apparently the Rangers fielded six foreign players even though the league has a rule which limits teams to playing five. As the Rangers were winners of that game, the league removed three points from their season total, resulting in relegation.

Now, while it seems clear that the national league did the correct thing here as, innocent mistake or not, the Rangers violated a league rule, why did FIFA threaten to ruin the football hopes of an entire country over an internal matter? Did the national league asked for FIFA’s help? Don’t get me wrong, the court case is truly ridiculous, but it seems to me that kicking the National team out of the World Cup because a local club team is bickering over a case they can’t win, is overkill and frankly, also a bit ridiculous.

But hey, I guess it worked… of course it worked.