Wei Di, head of the Chinese Football Association, has spoken. China wants the 2026 World Cup. Given China’s explosion over the past decade, it might be hard to say no to the world’s most populous nation, even with the recent corruption scandals in Chinese soccer.

According to Wei, “It really moved us to see all the social benefits South Africa got from hosting the World Cup.”

And by social benefits, we should probably assume that he also means financial and publicity benefits.

Wei continued, “Everyone has been debating whether China should bid for the World Cup or when to bid, but seeing how successfully South Africa hosted it, I have to say that China has no reason not to bid and now is the best time.”

And there you go.

So prepare yourself for forty-nine year old Shakira with an umbrella under the hot Beijing sun singing an English version of some Chinese song over and over again in the summer of 2026 if the Chinese bid is successful. But first, there is a bid process to navigate.

Now the World Cup bidding process is fascinating and everything, but aren’t you getting the feeling that we’ll be seriously discussing bids for the 2046 World Cup come January? The dates for bid submissions and the final decision to award the tournament sometimes occur so far in advance of the event that it’s hard to even forecast what countries might look like, especially now that FIFA is beginning to look past the usual suspects. The duration of the process is particularly interesting for developing nations given that they are more susceptible to political, social and economic developments drastically changing their national landscapes over a few short years. The fact that nations must decide to start the internal process of preparing their bids far in advance of the deadline for bid submissions further opens the door to significant landscape shifting during this long and arduous road.

Over the years, the time between announcing the host and the start of the tournament has varied. South Africa had six years from winning the right to host the World Cup to delivering the tournament. This December, FIFA will be voting on who wins the right to host the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. The year 2026 may seem far away, but in FIFA time, 2026 is right around the corner.

But can we even begin to fathom what nations will look like in 2026? That would be like the U.S. starting the 1994 World Cup bidding process in 1978. The twelve year period between 2010 and 2022 also isn’t exactly a negligible window. Whether it’s twelve or sixteen years, we’re talking about a different audience, different country demographics, different leaders, different wars, and a host of different, unforeseeable challenges.

Applying a twelve to sixteen year gap to other countries highlights the different permutations of these projections. Think back to what China was like twelve to sixteen years ago, or even South Africa or Russia or India. Twelve to sixteen years is enough time for a familiar world to become unrecognizable.

On average, FIFA has announced the World Cup host 6.6 years in advance of the tournament. Only three times since the first World Cup in 1930 has FIFA selected the host country twelve years or more ahead of time. In 1966, FIFA awarded the 1978 World Cup to Argentina and the 1982 World Cup to Spain. In 1974, FIFA awarded the 1986 World Cup to Colombia (although Colombia withdrew as hosts in 1982). And this December, FIFA will be determining the host country for the 2022 World Cup, a tournament twelve years down the road.

Could there be a such thing as allowing too much time between the bid and the tournament?  Perhaps. But apparently that’s not too much of a concern for the power brokers at FIFA. And as long as FIFA is okay with it, everyone else will be too. Maybe Sudan should start preparing its bid for 2030, filled with assurances of good behavior by the time the event date rolls around.

Anyway, while many of us are hotly debating who will win the right to host the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, the wheels are already spinning for 2026. Aside from China, other nations, thus far, that have expressed an interest in hosting the 2026 World Cup include Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Peru and Turkey. FIFA giving South Africa the World Cup and South Africa successfully pulling off the tournament has clearly inspired some new faces to dream about one day hosting one of the world’s greatest spectacles.

Although many of these countries bring a range of unique challenges to the table, the prospect of opening new doors is intriguing. Maybe a longer period between bidding and hosting ensures that some of the newer prospective hosts on the scene have sufficient time to get things right if they win.

But for 2026, China must already feel good about their position, having already hosted the Summer Olympics. In 2026, if China has its way, the world will be landing on its shores for a month of soccer. Given China’s drastic changes over the past sixteen years, we can only imagine what a China 2026 World Cup would look like. But especially after the South African World Cup, it’s not hard to imagine that China 2026, or even a World Cup in Colombia, Ecuador, India, Peru or Turkey would be an eye opening spectacle for the world.

If early selection is what it takes to make the list of World Cup hosts more inclusive, I’m all for it. Of course, early selection, particularly with certain countries, is more risky than with others. But we’ve seen what the trade off is in South Africa. The reward for hosting World Cups in new countries is that it might be the most efficient way to educate a public that largely wears blinders when it comes to seeing many parts of the world. The World Cup in South Africa didn’t create a new new generation of African historians, but it did introduce many people to a part of the world and customs that were previously completely unfamiliar. And that can only be a good thing.

Educating the world, even if only for a month, might be South Africa’s World Cup legacy, and if that’s the case, it may be time to take the World Cup show on the road. Whether to China or Peru, whether we need to plan 6 years in advance or 16, the ultimate return may well be worth it.

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

Related posts:

1. FIFA 2018 & 2022 World Cup Bids: The Transparency Vacuum
2. FIFA’s Great Conundrum: Traditional African Medicines?
3. Louis Vuitton Puts a Stranglehold on FIFA World Cup Marketing

As their teams go by the wayside, soccer fans often find themselves needing to regroup and find another team to support, lest they risk isolating themselves from the euphoria that is the World Cup.  Rather than relying on sport related reasons when choosing another team to support, some soccer fans choose to go beyond the game and delve into history.  These fans offer some of the most illogical (and often humorous) reasons for their decisions.

While watching the Germany v. Netherlands semifinal match, a fan told me (tongue-in-cheek of course) that he would root for the Dutch because he felt that they have been more contrite in their guilt over colonization, unlike other European powers like the French, Spanish and British.  Mind you, this same fan who makes colonization a centerpiece of his rationale, doesn’t find it hard to cheer for a nation whose colonization of the host nation led to the evils of Apartheid.

Another casual soccer observer was elated by the Dutch triumph over Germany.  When asked why, she jokingly said that she didn’t want the Germans to win because of the sins of Nazi Germany.

Another fan billed the Netherlands v. Spain Final as the battle of Apartheid v. the Spanish Inquisition.  With such choices, he joked that he was stuck and couldn’t in good conscience cheer for either side.

While these historical moments in time are far from funny, holding soccer players accountable for them borders on humorous.  Although the logic is clearly lacking, the level of creativity is not.  How else can one explain pinning the brutality of the Spanish Inquisition on David Villa or the evils of Nazi Germany on Miroslav Klose or the sins of Apartheid on Wesley Sneijder? Never mind the fact that they weren’t even born when these horrors took place. In the court of football opinion, they must be held accountable and made to suffer the excruciating humiliation of losing a soccer match.  Then, and only then, can we reconcile the sins of the past and make things right.

Although these rationalizations are often made jokingly, one has to wonder how heartfelt these statements are in reality.  The truth may actually lie somewhere in between.  Soccer is a rather complex sport because it enables people around the world to interact with one another on and off the pitch.  Because of this unique quality, on the international level, a game of soccer is often more than just a game.  It is a game that is played with the weight of history, with the baggage of politics and culture never far behind.  That’s why the World Cup is observed with such passion. We’re allowed to live out our Old World and New World grudges, whether rational or not, through soccer games, complete with their militaristic anthems. Teams and their fans cloak themselves in nationalist sentiments, and with that comes the good, the bad and sometimes the very ugly from years gone by, a ready-made cocktail for amateur historical commentators eager to display their wit.

The amazing part of such tongue-in-cheek reasoning is that otherwise perfectly rational, logical people arrive at such conclusions.  From doctors to lawyers and teachers, it appears no one is immune from such crafty logic when faced with the prospect of not having a team to support.  It seems that the pull of being a fan and being emotionally invested in a game trumps the need to make sense, which makes sense, since being a fan is more about faith than rational decision making. And I suppose it’s easier to have faith in one team when the other team is guilty of, say, the Spanish Inquisition.

Logic aside, these rationalizations do make for some truly memorable banter while watching a match.  Without them, the World Cup experience just wouldn’t be the same.  And that’s all good, so long as people are aware that they may sound insane.

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

Related posts:

1. Did Brazil’s World Cup Loss to the Netherlands Break Twitter?
2. Nike’s Netherlands Jacket – Supplementing Your World Cup Wardrobe
3. South Korea, You Win the Most Dedicated World Cup Supporter Prize

The World Cup thus far has been less about the Beautiful Game on the field and more about the inexplicable refusal of Sepp Blatter and his clan to uphold FIFA’s own Fair Play Code of Conduct.  In the wake of recent controversial decisions (or indecision –  you make the call), the pressure is mounting on FIFA to stop making nonsensical excuses and step into the 21^st Century and embrace the use of technology by game officials.

With Blatter’s apology to the football federations of Mexico and England yesterday, it appears that FIFA is finally bowing to pressure and common sense.  Mind you, I wouldn’t be surprised if Sepp sticks to his guns after the uproar dies down.  It is imperative that fans hold the governing body accountable, since the players and their respective federations have done very little to affect change.

Even with his apology and admission of guilt, the FIFA head refused to back down from his refusal to allow instant replay.

“The only principle that we are going to bring back now for discussion is the goal-line technology.”

To limit the debate to goal-line technology doesn’t make sense.  Sepp’s stubborn refusal to uphold the credibility of the game is perplexing.  Why bother with an apology to Ireland and Mexico for blown calls, if you’re not going to do anything sensible about rectifying egregious calls?  How can a champion be crowned if many doubt the legitimacy of the officiating?

Watching this issue unfold has been like watching a car crash in slow motion.  The last World Cup was remembered for the ‘head-butt’ and the controversial decision to send Zinedine Zidane off the field since many questioned if the officials saw the incident in question in real time. Now this World Cup, little more than half over, is going to be marred by similar controversy.  To date, there have been at least four cases of noticeably bad officiating in South Africa.  The sad thing is not that referees are fallible, but that FIFA has steadfastly refused to improve the level of officiating.  When Ireland was wrongfully denied an opportunity to compete in this World Cup by Thierry Henry’s hand ball, FIFA looked the other way when it should have acted, and acted decisively.  When will soccer’s governing body wake-up and join the global sports standard?  Every major professional international sport from car racing to tennis and even cricket has embraced some form of video replay without issue.  Why is it that the world’s most popular sport cannot get its act together?  All they seem to offer are excuses.

FIFA’s stance that technology would slow down game play is plain hypocritical.  Diving slows down game play but some way, somehow, it has been permitted to continue unabated.  FIFA’s inaction on this issue has led players to cheat at every opportunity.  Long gone are the days when it was admirable for players to stay on their feet.  Now it is all about conning the referee.  In light of this shift in player sentiment, FIFA should have acted quickly to quell the unsportsmanlike behavior and help referees, however they elected to make illogical excuses that only benefit controversy.  Instead of rectifying clear mistakes, they elected to make referees the scapegoats of their failure of leadership.

It is somewhat ironic that it took England being hard done for FIFA to step forward and do the right thing. Why is it that FIFA does nothing when so called ‘lesser soccer powers’ suffer injustice?  South Africa was victimized by a dive in their second group game.  The US team could have failed to qualify for the elimination round due to a disallowed goal against Slovenia.  An undermanned Chile should have been awarded a penalty in their match against Spain, however the call was never made.  How about acknowledging these obvious mistakes?

Actually, FIFA should forgo the apologies and begin working on a sensible solution to the present day issue of better officiating.  It is abundantly clear that referees need additional help.  Like all human beings, they are far from perfect and prone to error.  FIFA needs to be fair not only to the competitors, but to the referees as well.

If FIFA were to fairly evaluate their own rules, they would see that they are asking a bit too much from officials.  The linesmen have to be in position to judge if offensive players are offside while at the same time keeping an eye on the ball prior to the pass that plays that player through.  On top of that, officials are supposed to be at the goal-line to judge if a goal is legitimate or not.  Not to mention that referees are responsible for policing the countless acts of unsportsmanlike behavior that goes on in today’s game.

The introduction of technological assistance for officials has been long overdue. Without it, FIFA’s claim to be champions of Fair Play appears cynical.  After all, a competition like the World Cup should not be left to chance, it should be decided by the players between the lines.  Let’s hope that FIFA recognizes that the beauty of the game lies not in controversy but in the legitimacy of the winner.  Till then, let the game of chance resume.

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

Related posts:

1. FIFA’s Great Conundrum: Traditional African Medicines?
2. No MLS Referees At World Cup: Steps to Improve Standard Raise Eyebrows
3. Random Weekly Football Review: Around The World In 90 Minutes (3.14.2010)

Related posts:

1. The South Africa Series: Part I
2. Is The Rainbow Nation a “Winner” in the 2010 WC Sweepstakes?
3. The Sputtering Engine Room of Ghana’s Black Stars

Your friendly developers at Google Earth have put together 3-D renderings of all ten soccer stadiums that will host games at this year’s World Cup.  Aside from the over the top drumbeat, these 3-D models of the stadiums are quite impressive.  The tour also shows the cityscape of all nine-host cities.  If like most football fans, you can’t make it to South Africa to see the stadiums and the country, here is your opportunity to get up close and personal with the stadiums’ architecture and South Africa’s urban planning prowess.  For a more detailed look click here.  And don’t worry, Google takes your privacy seriously.

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

Related posts:

1. Soccer’s Obama Moment: South Africa’s World Cup In Context
2. Barra Bravas Go To South Africa
3. Rewarding Dedication With A World Cup: Randomness, Awesomeness and Identity In Africa

Since the fall of apartheid, the South African government has initiated a massive effort to improve the housing situation of millions of its marginalized citizens.  South Africa’s commitment to housing was presumably such a priority that the Bill of Rights in the South African Constitution (1996) embodies this commitment:

1.    Everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing.

2.   The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realization of this right.

3.   No one may be evicted from their home, or have their home demolished, without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances. No legislation may permit arbitrary evictions.

Over the subsequent years, many township residents have lost faith in the government’s efforts to fulfill the goals stated in the Constitution.   Residents have grown weary of the repeated promises to improve services and perform site upgrades.  In the past few months, riots have broken out in several townships in response to this government failure.

Things are so bad that many live in squalid conditions with no access to clean water, sanitation and electricity.  Residents have increasingly voiced their displeasure with the government’s effort (or lack thereof) to change their living conditions. Just two months ago, residents of Mamelodi East (40 miles from Soccer City Stadium in Pretoria) and Oukasie (60 miles north of Johannesburg) took to the streets to protest.  This protest and others like it have turned violent with clashes between protesters and police forces.  The protests now threaten to spill over in the weeks ahead, possibly jeopardizing the carefully crafted image of the host nation during the World Cup.

Many blame the World Cup for the government’s misplaced priorities.  In their opinion, the country would have been better off spending the funds allocated to the massive build up for the World Cup on the aforementioned housing-related issues.  Instead, residents of the townships and settlements have been told to wait and be patient.  Unfortunately, many are skeptical and openly question the change that has been promised by the post-apartheid ANC government.  To the poor, these new stadiums and roadways are an epic waste of public funds; funds that would have been better spent on fulfilling government promises of better housing and services.  Their frustration is understandable.  Imagine being within walking distance of a new state of the art athletic facility, while living in a shanty town with no access to clean water, electricity or sanitation.  As the twentieth anniversary of the fall of apartheid fast approaches, many are beginning to question the commitment of the government towards the issues of the poor.

As if the decision to build new stadiums wasn’t bad enough, construction of new stadiums has resulted in the displacement of people previously living on the some of the sites.  This displacement is compounded by FIFA’s refusal to relax their ban on local merchants selling their goods within close proximity to the stadiums.  FIFA claims that this is to protect the advertisers that have paid millions to become official sponsors of the games.  Unfortunately, this negatively impacts the ability of these merchants to earn a living.  Prior to the World Cup, these merchants had been selling their wares outside the stadiums without much of a fuss.  It’s easy to see where the frustration is coming from.

This is not to say that the government has ignored housing issues all together.  In fairness, the South African government has made significant inroads in constructing millions of dwellings, even though there are plenty of complaints that the dwellings are sub-par.  As many governments in the throes of massive housing generation have discovered, it is difficult to build enough adequate housing.  Not surprisingly, the South African government has fallen well short of their target of building 300,000 dwellings a year.  Surely, at least in the short term, the World Cup has not helped.  It appears that the government has focused far too much on the construction of new housing as opposed to focusing on site improvement and upgrades.  Far too often, various governments have had to learn the hard way that they alone cannot provide an adequate level of housing for all their citizens.  It is imperative that South Africa not repeats the mistakes of the past.

Government as Providers of Housing

Historically, government intervention in housing has produced mixed outcomes.  In the 70’s and 80’s governments in developing countries would plan and build housing estates on their own as a subset of the government apparatus.  Often this approach proved unsuccessful because governments would aim too high in their efforts to build housing they were proud of.  Essentially, they would commit one of the cardinal sins of real estate development; they would build without carefully assessing demand.

Time and time again, the role of government as housing provider for the poor has been unsuccessful, mainly due to government’s lack of expertise in the field of housing finance, development planning and construction. Frequently, governments would worsen the problems of the people they were trying to help, often engaging in slum clearance and displacement from central locations, and disruption of social and economic networks.  But most importantly, governments could not meet, or even come close to meeting, their own self-imposed targets for housing creation because their approach was unsustainable.

To a certain extent South Africa is learning this lesson now. As many are starting to realize, the ANC’s failed promise of adequate housing for all (a lofty and difficult goal under any circumstance) is sowing the seeds of frustration.

To help mitigate this frustration, the South African government should stop imposing ineffective and expensive top- down housing model and focus more attention on implementing more cost effective bottom up consensus building measures.  This would curtail the resentment that some residents feel as a result of the governments focus on the World Cup.

Instead of promising new housing and under-delivering, it would be more prudent and effective if the government became more of a facilitator and approached the development agenda from a more holistic viewpoint.  Since they cannot house the poor, they should be enablers and make it easier for the poor to help house themselves.

This would be a win-win scenario for everyone.  The enabler role would allow the government to curtail spending, spread aid so that it reached more people, and better focus their aid at the people in need (the poor).  The poor will in turn feel empowered and be able to better improve their living condition.

If the South African government can afford to spend so lavishly in preparation for the World Cup, and mobilize so quickly in order to meet FIFA deadlines, surely it can do the same when it comes to implementing better housing strategies.

A house is more than just a home; it is the foundation upon which many things are built, from better health to education.  If South Africa is serious about correcting the ills of the past it is imperative that the government fulfill its promise to help the poor.

Pick up a Nutmeg Radio t-shirt in our store!

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

Related posts:

1. Paradoo Wins the Right to Host 2018 World Cup
2. Is the World Cup the New Measuring Stick for Public Officials?
3. Soccer’s Obama Moment: South Africa’s World Cup In Context

Leave Giuseppe Rossi alone.

Holding an American passport doesn’t mean you can’t call your best friend in Sao Paulo anymore, nor does it come with a requirement to cut your ancestral ties.  As Americans, especially in today’s political environment, there’s a premium on loving America, even though no one ever really explains what that means or how to properly love the homeland.  From what I can gather, there’s a camp that emphasizes love and respect for the tangential, focusing on flags, moments of silence, pins, abstract freedom, guns and random citizens who take it upon themselves to protect our borders.  This strain of political thought often elevates love of objects over ideas, such as loving the physical flag rather than the freedoms that the flag is supposed to represent.

On the appreciation to love spectrum, most Americans probably fall in a safe zone when it comes to the exercise of allegiance.  But is loving America meant to completely encompass one’s entire being?  Are people supposed to develop amnesia regarding generations of family abroad, generations whose actions and sacrifices ultimately enabled present generations to be American?  There’s a lot of room for patriotism between recent immigrants and the purveyors of rigid Americanness.  To be American means nothing and everything.  Americanness is the freedom to be difficult to define.  Whether people accept it or not, Giuseppe Rossi’s decision to play for Italy is rooted in what it means to be American.

Born and bred in New Jersey, Giuseppe Rossi grew up just like many Americans.  He went to a regular school, played suburban soccer, and like many Americans, has parents who were born overseas.  Sounds pretty average so far.  But Rossi’s soccer ability wasn’t average.  At the age of thirteen, Rossi’s exceptional ability led his family back to Italy where he joined the youth set up at Parma.  From there, Rossi went on to Manchester United, then off on loan spells to Newcastle and Parma, finally ending up in Spain at his current club, Villarreal.  While meandering around the old continent, twenty-three year old Rossi found his way to the front door of the Italian World Cup squad after years of rejecting advances from the U.S. to join the Stars and Stripes.  Rossi’s decision to shun America and represent Italy has unfortunately drawn the ire of many an American, sometimes to the extent of questioning Rossi’s patriotism.

Rossi’s decision has nothing to do with appreciating America.  Last time I checked, rooting for another country or even deciding to compete for another country in sport doesn’t amount to treason.  Representing another country in sport also doesn’t mean that you lack affection for your birth country.  These are stances that should be able to co-exist in American life today.

Americans seemed quite welcoming when German-born Thomas Dooley, Netherlands native Ernie Stewart, and Preki, born in the former Yugoslavia, decided to represent the Stars and Stripes.  At that point, there wasn’t much of a focus on patriotism.  We just checked to make sure the paperwork was in order in time to compete.  The American soccer community has always been relatively welcoming of foreign-born players who want to play for the U.S.  But as the first U.S.-born player to have a legitimate chance of playing for a world soccer power, Rossi is different.  He’s doing the reverse commute.  That’s why his decision cuts so deeply for some U.S. supporters.

Given the same option, you wonder whether other U.S. youth players would decide to play for France, England, Argentina or Brazil if they had a shot at being full internationals, particularly if they had deep family connections to any of these traditional soccer powers.  Would we condemn these players as traitors?  I hope not, because doing so incorrectly presupposes that a person can only have one home.  In practice, particularly in the United States, we know that not to be true.

Like Rossi, many American citizens have connections that extend beyond our borders.  Some connections are distant, requiring people to go back several generations to find their roots, but for others, relationships to another motherland are much closer.  Disassociating oneself from an ancestral home can be challenging when close family relationships still exist.  These aren’t connections that one easily discards with the acquisition of a passport, whether by birth or naturalization.

The dirty little secret is that we Americans, we’re not all the same.  We didn’t all become American in the same way, yet we’re often expected to be the same kind of pre-packaged American.  But America is no longer just baseball and apple pie.  America is also risotto and bolognese, choripan and empanadas, and masala and roti.  There is no American purity; it’s a myth.  Our entire national existence is infused with external influences. Although some seem to view Americanness as involving a singular love, a singular interest, and a longing for the traditional, America 2.0 is, in reality, multi-faceted, fluid and culturally confusing.  One of the implications of living in this sort of America is that sometimes professionals like Rossi have multiple, often conflicting identities and allegiances.  And that should be fine, especially in sport.

Is it feasible that Giuseppe Rossi may have longed for Italian football while watching generations of successful Italian national teams with his Italian family?  Absolutely.  American families sit around and root for their ancestral homeland all the time.  It’s a pastime that’s as American as, well, Sbarro Pizza.  Should we let Rossi back in the country?  Sure, he’s a citizen, born and bred in Jersey.  But if he comes back, say in a 2018 or 2022 World Cup in an Italian National Team jersey, he deserves stick just like any other member of the Italian side.  However, I won’t take it to questioning his Americanness, simply because being American is complicated.  The traitor talk needs to be reserved for life and death matters, not sport.  It’s America’s liberties that give Rossi the freedom to be American, hold on to his roots and explore opportunities in whatever way he sees fit under the law.

These are the narratives that make international soccer so exciting.  But the Rossi situation is particularly interesting because rarely in U.S. soccer do we have to deal with the problem of losing world class talent.  Our issue has been that we’ve had a hard time developing it.  Rossi is part of the first wave of potentially world class players to choose to take their talents elsewhere, but it’s unlikely he will be the last.  America’s multiculturalism is what makes the country so great, but it is also what will open the door to more and more players considering playing for other nations as the level of play in the U.S. continues to improve.  That’s the reality. American soccer may not have inspired a sufficient number of players to discard their dreams of playing for their ancestral homeland for putting on the red, white and blue yet, especially when their ancestral homelands are world powers with histories of legendary teams and globally-recognized, talismanic figures.

Rossi believes he is good enough to play on a side capable of winning a World Cup now.  His Italian connection is not just a random selection based on a tenuous relationship, but a connection tied to a country that holds his family’s roots. He may be the only American player in his generation with a realistic chance of playing on a World Cup winning side.  Could we have used him?  Without question.  But I can’t hate his decision given the context. His behavior is not that of an international mercenary.  This is the behavior of a player who latched on to ancestry and a once in a lifetime opportunity.  Who knows whether we would have made the same decision given the opportunity, but at the end of the day, I respect his choice and wish him the best of luck, that is, until he comes up against the U.S. … again.  If that ever happens, for me, he’s Italian for the day, just like he was during the 2009 Confederations Cup when he scored two goals against the U.S.  But that’s another story, and one I don’t like to think about.

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

Related posts:

1. The Pitfalls of Latino Generalizations in American Soccer: A Story of African-American Quarterbacks and Playmakers
2. Racism in Italian Football Causes Team to Abandon Match
3. UEFA Champions League on Fox: The Emergence of the American Fan

Old Firm Rivalry On Foreign Soil

In an effort to match or possibly top the outdoor NHL Winter Classic at Fenway Park earlier this year, the Fenway Sports Group is in talks to bring Boston sports fans one of the greatest rivalries in all of sports, Celtic v Rangers.  It is the equivalent to the Yankees v Red Sox, except 10 times more intense and steeped in religious and political history.  Should the good folks in Boston make this happen, it would be the first time the two clubs face each other outside of Scotland and it would be the most unfriendly ‘friendly’ ever played.  With all the pre and post-season soccer friendlies coming our way, this one should be worth the price of admission.

(Via The Boston Globe)

A Threat By Any Other Name

A Serbian judge dropped charges against six soccer hooligans that chanted death threats at television reporter Brankica Stankovic.  Her crime?  She dared report that hooligan leaders were involved in criminal activities.  The court ruled that the reporter was insulted but not threatened.  Umm, why not ask the reporter in question or better yet, as news anchor Warner Wolf would say, let’s go to the videotape.  Video footage showed hooligans chanting threats and disparaging remarks and to top things off, puncturing her in effigy.  If that was an insult, what would a threat look like?

(Via USA Today)

The Lost Generation

As if the sex scandal that has rocked French football weren’t bad enough, French football legend Michel Platini pulled no punches in stating that this current crop of French footballers weren’t up to the task of winning the World Cup in South Africa. According to Monsieur Platini, “There are some good players in that squad, but let’s be clear, there are no great players. I simply think France have lost a great generation.”  Just when French football needed a quick pick me up, the UEFA president pretty much started digging the ditch to bury them.

(Via NY Times)

Chinese Automaker Signs Leo

In a sign of China’s newfound automotive muscle (recently crowned the # 1 car market in the world), their number one domestic manufacturer, Chery Automobile, has signed Argentine football star Lionel Messi as the new face of their brand.  The timing couldn’t be better; the two emerging powers in their respective areas of expertise are joining forces.  Specifically, Leo will be the face of their premium brand, Riich.  Got to love the name.  I see that the marketing people elected to not mince words.

(Via BBC)

Florida Soccer Mom Helps Improve Lives With Hippo Rollers

Soccer mom Amy Allen created a non-profit charged with helping the world’s poor by improving access to clean water and sanitation.  Her organization, Global Change Inc., recently awarded their first grant in the amount of $10,500 to folks in South Africa’s Limpopo region.  The grant purchased 100 Hippo Rollers, an invention that helps transport large quantities of water that will alleviate the need for women and girls (often charged with water collection) with making multiple trips to watering holes to carry water jugs that weigh up to 45 pounds.

Click here to visit the Global Change website.

Click here to visit the Hippo Roller Project website.

(Via PR.com)

Could Have, Should Have, Would Have

Could former Nebraska Cornhuskers and recently drafted Detroit Lions defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh have been a soccer star?  Perhaps, but unfortunately, we will never know.  His dad played semi-professionally in Germany and his older sister is a midfielder on the Cameroon Women’s National Team.  Ndamukong could have followed in their footsteps were it not for pesky soccer officials.  The college football standout played soccer up until his eighth grade year and quit because he felt referees were unfairly treating him since he was being carded too frequently (probably due to his size).  Sounds to me like Claudio Reyna, Technical Director of Youth Soccer for the U.S. Soccer Federation, better get moving on his plan to get referees to chill out on the whistle blowing.  If U.S. soccer is to get better, we need to retain the best athletes and not lose them to other sports due to over-officiating.

(Via Detroit Free Press)

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

Related posts:

1. Random Weekly Football Review: Around The World In 90 Minutes (3.21.2010)
2. Random Weekly Football Review: Around The World In 90 Minutes (3.28.2010)
3. Random Weekly Football Review: Around The World In 90 Minutes (4.4.2010)