South Africa, Danny Jordaan and Obama

Interesting article in today’s New York Times about Danny Jordaan, South Africa’s World Cup chief organizer.

Jordaan flew into New York for meetings this week and happened to land here right as the United States was electing their first African-American President, Barack Obama.

Considering South Africa’s delicate history with race and apartheid, it was an interesting time for Jordaan to be in New York.

According to the article, Obama’s election reminded him of the time South African Nelson Mandela was let out of prison in 1990.

It was a strange evening to be landing in New York. Jordaan, the chairman of the South African committee that will stage the World Cup of soccer in 2010, watched the celebration on CNN and compared the mood in America to the mood in South Africa on Feb. 11, 1990, the day Nelson Mandela walked out of prison after 27 years.

“The majority celebrated,” recalled Jordaan, who had worked against apartheid without going to prison or into exile. “But many people did not celebrate,” he recalled. “You have to be magnanimous.”

Obama has long expressed his respect for Mandela, saying he had been inspired by a visit to Mandela’s former prison cell on Robben Island. In turn, Mandela sent a message to Obama on Wednesday, saying, in part, “Your victory has demonstrated that no person anywhere in the world should not dare to dream of wanting to change the world for a better place.”

While much of the world sees Obama’s victory as a new symbol of hope, a successful 2010 World Cup in South Africa would be equally satisfying to many.

Jordaan is assuring people that everything will be ready in approximately 600 days’ time.

Joseph S. Blatter, the president of FIFA, once mentioned a Plan B for the World Cup, then amended his remarks to say they referred only to natural disaster. But Jordaan knows there is skepticism about the stadiums, the hotels, the transportation, the security.

Just about every major sports tournament around the world is dogged by tardiness, incompetence, graft, repression, you name it. The tear gas from civil unrest had barely been cleared before the 1988 Summer Games in Seoul, and they were a success. The trolley lines and expressways had barely been opened in Athens in time for the 2004 Summer Games.

“And we finished half an hour before the first game,” Sunil Gulati, the president of the United States Soccer Federation, said about the 1994 World Cup in the U.S.

But a tournament for 32 national teams, including the woeful national team of South Africa, automatically invited as host, is a huge task from a nation still only 14 years past gigantic change. A caretaker government is in charge at the moment, awaiting a new election in 2009, but Jordaan suavely noted that Germany had a change of parties as well as chancellors shortly before the highly successful 2006 World Cup.

South Africa will be fine. Obama will do great things. And in 2010, the world will have something else to celebrate: the wonderful experience of an African World Cup …

Written by Darkvader on November 7th, 2008 with no comments.
Read more articles on Danny Jordaan and South Africa and United States.

USA ‘94: Not that bad??

We (ok, me … ) here at Road to 2010 have been watching football for a mere 11 years as an avid fan.

Call me a neophyte but it’s been long enough to have seen some incredible European finals (my team Valencia in 2000, the ‘05 classic in Istanbul between Liverpool and AC Milan), some wicked goals (Zidane in 2002, David Bentley’s smacker today), some awesome World Cup games (Italy-South Korea in ‘02) and the ultimate - Spain winning Euro 2008.

Before that, I didn’t follow football. Sure, it was here and there, popping up on TV now and again. But here in the USA, we watch American football and baseball, basketball and pro wrestling.

‘Soccer’ is for the rest of the world … and let them have it, for all we care.

That changed for a month in 1994 when the USA hosted the biggest tournament in world sports - the World Cup.

Honestly, not that many people in the States cared. Sure, the Italian-Americans in New York and the … Irish-Americans in New York (I’m in New York, by the way) cared.

But the rest were focused on the impending baseball strike and the upcoming NFL season.

For this and many other reasons, USA ‘94 is considered one of the worst World Cups in history.

But wait … today’s Guardian Unlimited has an interesting article from writer Rob Smyth saying the ‘94 Cup wasn’t quite as bad as we imagined …

Maybe he’s right. I wouldn’t remember. I watched Brazil win a putrid final against Italy in the heat of the Rose Bowl in California and thought, ‘What’s all the hub bub about?’

Now look at me … obsessed, in love and totally consumed by ’soccer’. Funny how time makes us think differently about things …

Here’s a small excerpt from the article. Clink the little blue line for more.

Then there were the little details, the one-liners that embellish the plot. In what may turn out to be the longest paragraph ever, we’ll attempt to list them. The late kick-off times in England, nirvana for the freaks, geeks and insomniacs; Barry Davies doing his only World Cup final; Martin Dahlin and Andersson proving that direct football could be both thrilling and classy (Sweden were the tournament’s top scorers with 15); the haircuts, from Yordan Letchkov legitimising baldness to Alain Sutter’s uber-Fabio mane, Tony Meola’s Shep-from-Fargo greaseback, the Happy Days side-parting of Mexico’s Zague, Alexi Lalas’s - well what exactly was that? - and, of course, future Reading keeper’s Borislav Mikhailov’s syrup; Romania, the World Cup’s best loose cannons since ever (and to think it could have been Wales); the Americans’ cool but hangover-baiting home kit and their hideous away kit; Rashidi Yekini’s throatlump-inducing celebration after scoring Nigeria’s first World Cup goal; a dead rubber given significant life by the record-breaking of Roger Milla, the oldest World Cup goalscorer, and Oleg Salenko, the first man to score five goals in one World Cup game; the story of Italy, who went closer to the precipice than James Bond in almost every game but kept surviving; Clive Tyldesley’s absurdly extravagant pronunciation of ‘Dooooooomidrescu’; Romario slithering magisterially through a non-existent space between two defenders only to eventually have his shot cleared off the line in the semi-final against Sweden; the bravest decision in managerial history, by Arrigo Sacchi, when he took Roberto Baggio off after Gianluca Pagliuca was sent off against Norway; the magnificent certainty of Dunga’s spot-kick, the eighth and penultimate in the final, which put Brazil in the lead for the first time and was the first example of the ‘captain’s penalty’; the glorious meltdown of John Aldridge and Jack Charlton; the brutality and Hitchcockian suddenness of Leonardo’s elbow on the USA’s Tab Ramos, an incident that has become more unfathomable as we have got to know him subsequently; Greece being so inept that they allowed Argentina to have a four-on-one attack in the second minute of their first-ever World Cup game; Viola’s 14 minutes of fame; a group of death so tight that Mexico, Italy, Ireland and Norway finished on the same points and with the same goal difference; the forgotten contribution of Daniele Massaro, the only non-Baggio to score for Italy in the tournament and the other man besides Baresi and Baggio to miss in the final shoot-out; and a performance of such comic ineptitude from the referee Jamal Al Sharif in the Mexico v Bulgaria match that even Trevor Brooking eased himself away from the splinters of the fence to call it: “(An) absolute scandal … I cannot find words to find the stupidness of that decision”.

It wasn’t all bad, was it.

Written by Darkvader on October 29th, 2008 with no comments.
Read more articles on 1994 World Cup and United States.

USA World Cup in 2010?

Since the time FIFA president Sepp Blatter announced that the 2010 World Cup would be staged in South Africa, people have wondered whether the Cup would actually be held in the African country.

Will South Africa be able to host the World Cup? Will people travel to a country riddled with crime problems for the biggest sporting event in the world? Will companies invest in the African nation?

2010 World Cup organizing committee chief Danny Jordaan has worked hard to squash negative assumptions, assuring everyone the World Cup in South Africa (SA) will be a huge success.

Still, Blatter has again stirred controversy by saying that SA could still lose the rights to host the 2010 World Cup in the event of a catastrophe. MY POV: What catastrophe?

However, Jordaan downplayed the concerns.

“I have spoken to Blatter and he reaffirmed that only God can prevent South Africa staging the World Cup in 2010,” Jordaan said. “Blatter has gone out of his way to bring the 2010 World Cup to South Africa. It makes no sense for him to say he has another plan. Obviously FIFA must have a plan if we suffered a major natural catastrophe, but that is all.”

Yet, Blatter keeps talking about a contingency. And there are problems.

According to the Zimbabwean, ‘a group of committed and professional Zimbabwean journalists and friends from around the world who have come together to start the first physical newspaper for Zimbabweans in exile’, there are growing fears that Zimbabwe’s economic and political crisis could impact negatively on the 2010 FIFA World Cup.

This is the warning of analysts who believe the problems in President Robert Mugabe’s country could spill into South Africa and the rest of the region, and thus make the region volatile ahead of the global football fiesta.

Zimbabwe Exiles Forum (ZEF) director Gabriel Shumba said the prevailing situation did not bode well for the hosting of a successful event.

“The possibility of a civil war is very high (in Zimbabwe), which can only mean that the Zimbabwe issue will in practice impact massively on the region as a threat to regional peace,” he said.

So where does the USA fit into all this?

According to boston.com, the USA could step in should South Africa be declared unable to host the Cup. (Yes, I’m having a little fun with the picture above … I am American, by the way.)

“I would be a very negligent president if I didn’t have a Plan B ready for the 2010 World Cup,” Blatter said in an interview in Vienna Sunday.

A decision on confirming South Africa as the first African country to play host to the World Cup will be made following the Confederations Cup, scheduled for June 14-28, 2009.

Eight countries will participate - Brazil (South American champion), Egypt (Africa), Iraq (Asia), Italy (World Cup), South Africa (host), Spain (Europe), the US (CONCACAF), and an Oceania representative.

Stadium construction delays and security fears have raised concerns that South Africa might not be capable of hosting the event.

“We will decide after the test of the Confederations Cup and only a catastrophe would put the alternative plan into effect,” Blatter said. “The World Cup is a logistical challenge and South Africa wants to shows the world it is able to do it.”

The US is among the few countries capable of hosting a World Cup on short notice.

MY POV: I understand Blatter’s need to make contingency plans for the Cup. But does he need to talk about it every month?

Does he really think this instills confidence in the people of South Africa?

Look, we all know the problems hosting a World Cup in South Africa present.
From SA crime to regional difficulties, everyone involved knew hosting a Cup in SA wouldn’t be easy.

But as Jordaan has said many times in rebuttal to Blatter’s comments, the money is streaming in, the stadiums are being built and the infrastructure is growing.

Why harp about the need for contingency in every public comment about the 2010 Cup? How come Blatter didn’t do this with Germany 2006 or Korea/Japan 2002? Why haven’t we heard criticism of Brazil 2014? Brazil’s soccer federation and soccer infrastructure is in shambles. Crime is just as rampant in the South American nation. Why no talk of a contingency there?

If FIFA wanted SA to prove their worth in 2009 with the Confederations Cup, I wish they had just named the USA the host of the 2010 Cup from the beginning.

I see SA having to pass a ‘quiz’ in 2009 as a slap in the face. They’re doing what needs to be done. Why keep examining every fiber of their build-up? Does anyone in FIFA have confidence in SA?

What do you think? Please leave comments and opinions.

Written by Darkvader on July 3rd, 2008 with no comments.
Read more articles on Danny Jordaan and FIFA and South Africa and United States and Zimbabwe.

USA World Cup 2022? Warner Says So …

“My message to the USA - and they don’t have to listen - is to try to make a deal for 2022.”

With those words, FIFA vice-president Jack Warner effectively ended all hopes of a 2018 USA World Cup. Warner presumably wants to leave 2018 open for an English bid to host the coveted soccer tournament.

Warner, the president of CONCACAF, which covers North and Central America and the Caribbean and has three of the 24 votes in the bidding process, is broadly supportive of England’s bid but admits it would be “political suicide” for him not to back a US campaign first.

However Warner believes the US would do better bidding for 2022 - FIFAwill decide on both hosts at the same time in 2011 - and should agree a deal to stand aside.

In an interview with BBC Radio Five Live, Warner said: “I have to convince them not to bid. It is easier for me to convince America to wait until 2022. I don’t think they will be able to get as many of the votes as they will need [in 2018] for all kinds of reasons. I have said to England that until America gets knocked out that’s where my vote will have to go.

“My message to the USA - and they don’t have to listen - is to try to make a deal for 2022 and I’m quite sure that would have universal support. The kind of discussion I would have between England and the US is ‘Will you support me in 2022?”‘

Warner’s backing for England was cemented by the friendly against his home country Trinidad and Tobago over the weekend. He said the challenge for 2018 was to do the same in other parts of the world.

He added: “England left behind a positive impression that will last for decades and they have to replicate that in other areas.”

Warner had previously accused the hierarchy at the English FA of being “faceless” and “cold” while urging it to increase its political pro activity and to tap into David Beckham’s celebrity to help secure the tournament for the first time in over half a century.

MY POV: What does one make of this? One day he’s for the USA bid, the next he’s not.
I don’t know. Either way, I’d love to see the tournament here again. So we go from South Africa to Brazil to England and then here … what about Asia? I guess the rotation system is dead in the water, eh?

Written by Darkvader on June 4th, 2008 with no comments.
Read more articles on FIFA and United States.

USA World Cup 2018?

As the soccer community prepares for a USA-England friendly today at Wembley Stadium, word comes out that the United States may be prepared to bid for the 2018 World Cup finals.

England travel to Trinidad tomorrow before Sunday's friendly. The primary motivation behind the trip is to get on FIFA vice-president Jack Warner's good side and back the FA's (England's Football Association) World Cup bid.

Warner is also president of the North, Central American and Caribbean Confederation (CONCACAF). Warner has long indicated that he would prefer to see the tournament held in his region, and confirmation that the US is preparing its own bid to host the finals appears to damage the FA's prospects.

"We will be making a decision in the next two or three months, but we are looking very seriously at (making a bid)," said US Soccer Federation president Sunil Gulati yesterday.

"I can't think of any reasons why we wouldn't bid for the tournament. We've done this before (1994) and been successful at doing it before. The bid process has become very competitive and whether playing a game in Trinidad has anything to do with that I am not sure. But I think the FA are more sophisticated than to think they are going to get Jack Warner's vote on the back of playing one game. There aren't any CONCACAF bidders at this point, and Mr Warner is the president of CONCACAF."

Only last year Warner described England as "an irritant" in an interview conducted with the BBC's World Service and said he'd "fight" moves to bring the competition to England for the first time since 1966. "Nobody in Europe likes England," he said.

He was more conciliatory in interviews earlier this year, but his long-standing belief that the 2018 tournament should be held in the CONCACAF region would suggest he will side with any bid mounted by the US.

While Major League Soccer (MLS) is just coming to prominence, the United States clearly boasts the infrastructure to host the finals with Gulati confident all rival bids from Europe can be deflected. "Clearly England will have a very strong bid, Spain and Germany would be formidable candidates," he said. "But we are going to focus on the quality in the US. There is no country in the world in a better position in terms of stadium facilities and size than us.

"We have got 50 stadia of 70,000 capacities capable of hosting the World Cup. We could have hosted the competition in 1998 in stadiums that didn't even exist in 1994, and the same goes for 2002 and not use any stadiums that existed in 1998.

"We are determined to finish what we started in 1994. We are the most diversified nation in the world. If Nigeria and Ghana played each other, it would sell out. If Australia played Costa Rica, it would sell out. When we staged a third-place play off between Sweden and Bulgaria in 1994 there were 85,000 people there. My point is that it is not a question of fearing any country. We think we'd have a great bid, great structure and a great landscape."

Gulati also hinted at the intriguing possibility that the Community Shield, the traditional curtain-raiser to the new Premier League season, could be held in the US in the future. Such a plan would reopen the furious debate over the Premier League's controversial scheme to play a 39th league match abroad, though it remains a possibility attractive to the American game.

"We hosted the Italian equivalent of the Community Shield in the mid-1990s," added Gulati. "It would be very different to holding a Premier League game, but we would consider it and be open to the idea."

MY POV: Interesting comments by Gulati. Looks like the USA is very adamant that they (we?) have the infrastructure, the manpower and the money to host the '18 tournament.

As an American, I'd love to see the World Cup in my backyard. Certainly, Gulati is spot on when it comes to comments regarding the stadia and the fact about our diversity.

Speaking of the Community Shield, it was announced today that the Italian Supercoppa between Roma and Inter Milan will be played at Giants Stadium this August. The game was played at Giants Stadium in 2003.

Still, one must think England will be strong competitors for the finals. What do you think? Who would you like to see hosting the 2018 finals?

Written by Darkvader on May 28th, 2008 with no comments.
Read more articles on England and English Premiership and FIFA and Major League Soccer and United States.

Castrillion scores a goal against United States to save some prestige of Colombia in Copa America

Written by Sudip Kafle and Sujan Kafle on July 5th, 2007 with no comments.
Read more articles on Colombia and Jaime Castrillion and United States and copa america.