The English football season started off with Steve Bruce wondering what the hell Twitter was when a media storm broke following Darren Bent’s expression of frustration on his then-stalled move to Sunderland from Spurs in the summer. “Someone says Darren has been Twittering,” Bruce told the Sunderland Echo. “I don’t even know what that is, but I have seen a few things in the papers about it.”

Bruce now knows very well what Twitter is, as he commented to the Daily Mail on the power of the social internet earlier this month: “It never used to get out of the dressing room. The manager would get hold of you and there would be a fight every other week. The number of fights I’ve seen . . . that’s the way it’s gone, with the media spotlight, Twitter, it spreads like wildfire.”

2009 has been the year of Twitter, and its impact on the football world was similar to its impact on the rest of the world: as a new go-to spot for real time news on big events, for its unprecedented peeks into  our hero’s and heroine’s lives, for an explosion in viral marketing and for its ability to connect people around the world.

Let’s take a look at four key Twitter trends from 2009 reflecting those four aspects of the service’s impact, and consider what’s in store for us in 2010.

1) @DBtheTruth and @JozyAltidore17
Bent dominated Twitter in English football, provoking the first major tweet-induced controversy with his comments about Spurs chairman Daniel Levy: “”Do I wanna go Hull City NO. Do I wanna go stoke NO do I wanna go sunderland YES so stop f****** around, Levy. Sunderland are not the problem in the slightest.” Bent’s original account, @DB10theTruth, was quickly closed when word spread, but he soon reemerged as @DBtheTruth, now boasting over 26,000 followers. Another of his tweets hit the headlines recently, as his mention of racial abuse of his mother made the headlines (an arrest was later made).

Like Bent, Jozy Altidore’s use of Twitter illustrated the issue teams are having controlling the flow of information about their own club. Altidore was fined for revealing on Twitter that he had been dropped from Hull’s squad for being late, with Hull manager Phil Brown saying “That for me is information that stays in house. The reason he wasn’t on the bench was our business.”

Communications directors and coaches across the football world will have to deal with more and more of this kind of issue. Information that was once in house can much less consistently be kept there. Teams are trying to educate their players about what they can and can’t say on their public accounts, but now a player can instantly tell a practically unlimited number of people anything they want as easily as sending a text message, and that’s not going to be possible to tightly control. We will all find out more about the stars of football than we might ever even have wanted to know.

2) #confedcup
The Confederation Cup now provides something of a dress rehearsal for the World Cup the following year, and in the Twitterverse, South Africa in 2009 was a tiny taste of the insanity we can expect in June when the big event arrives there. The flow of tweets about the tournament was considerable given its relatively low profile, trending on Twitter several times, and giving a big publicity boost to the US team with their unexpected run to the final.

Tim Howard was a trending topic at the Confederations Cup, and expect him to be one again come June 12th, when Twitter will explode on both sides of the Atlantic as the US takes on England. Michael Jackson’s death almost broke Twitter, and one could imagine that if we have another Zidane-like incident, the World Cup just might do so too. The magnification lens and chatter on any and every incident will be unprecedented in the history of sport.

3) @womensprosoccer
On November 22nd, Womens Professional Soccer hit 100,000 followers. As of today, that had exploded to 185,713. One of the world’s newest professional leagues is cleaning up in new media savvy in the soccer world; the world’s oldest league, for example, England’s Football League, have (as of right now) 185,394 less followers than WPS: that’s right, just 319 people follow @football_league. The Premier Legue? I just spent ten minutes on google and their official site trying to find out if they even have an official Twitter account (anyone know?).

WPS’ teams have also been in the forefront in using Twitter for marketing, as we commented back in March about the Chicago Red Stars, with the low-cost ability to reach people a big boost for lower income teams. Still, it’s also worth thinking about just how much impact even this relatively small investment actually has on the bottom line: consider this tweet from Chicago Red Stars Director of Sponsorship and Marketing Pat McNamara a few weeks ago: “A typical WPS Suburban Soccer Fam is not on Twitter. We put a lot into SMM. Stay the course & grow into it or divert resources?”

The rest of the football world, though, will be playing catch-up, especially as their target audiences most definitely are on Twitter. In 2010, expect a new emphasis on Twitter from new media laggards like the Premier League and MLS (already working on it with @MLS_Insider tweeting regularly and growing its following substantially in recent weeks).

4) @CharlieDavies9
News of the American forward’s terrible car crash broke quickly on Twitter in October, with speculation spreading even more widely than fact. It was odd to see many of Davies’ teammates write about their fears for Charlie almost immediately. Davies’ own Twitter following suddenly grew enormously in the weeks after his crash, with over 15,000 following his recovery. His near two-month silence was recently broken, and he recently tweeted “I’m truly blessed to have survived and have people that care. I’m doing much better and I’m able to walk. Rehab is going very well.”

U.S. supporters used Twitter to coordinate their 9th minute tribute to Davies on October 15th against Costa Rica at RFK stadium, and it has been touching to see the American soccer community — from players to fans — come together online over such a serious trauma for one of their own.

Perhaps this is a reminder of why we use Twitter; to be better connected to more people, to be part of a community. The good, the bad and the controversial of the soccer world will only be tweeted by us ever more in 2010.

Confederations Cup Trophy

As we look forward to an unexpected final between Brazil and the United States in the 2009 Fifa Confederations Cup we look at how the competition was established and developed.  Has a tournament with a troubled history finally ‘made it’?

The Artemio Franchi Trophy and the King Fahd Cup

The precursors of the Confederations Cup as intercontinental international trophies were the Artemio Franchi Trophy and the King Fahd Cup. Neither managed to establish themselves as prominent fixtures in international consciousness, but both — along with the Afro-Asian Cup — did embed the idea of regular competition between continental champions.

The first Artemio Franchi Trophy, contested by the European and South American champions, was won by France (winners of Euro ’84), who beat Uruguay (winners of Copa America ’83) 2-1 in 1985 at Parc des Princes, Paris. It’s fair to say the trophy was not a resounding success, with just over 20,000 showing up in Paris, and a repeat affair not taking place for another eight years. In 1993, Argentina (Copa America ’91) beat Denmark (Euro ’92) on a penalty shoot-out after a 1-1 tie, in front of 34,683 in Argentina.

At the same time, the Afro-Asian Cup had been developing as a contest between the Asian and African champions. It was first held in 1978 between Iran and Ghana, though never completed as political problems in the former country led to cancellation of the second leg. It wouldn’t reappear until 1985, but was then played regularly until 1997, when a dispute between the two confederations led to a decade-long hiatus.

Competitions such as these showed some demand for intercontinental contests, but it was the King Fahd Cup, inaugurated in 1991, that first showcased intercontinental competition including more than two confederations (if we exclude the “Little World Cup” of 1980, a somewhat different one-off conception deserving of its own post).

The King Fahd Cup — or “Intercontinental Championship” — was first held in 1992, featuring Argentina (Copa America ’91), the United States (CONCACAF Gold Cup, ’91), the Ivory Coast (African Nations Cup, ’92) and the hosts, Saudi Arabia (Asian Cup ’88). The local crowd flocked to see Saudia Arabia’s two games, a 3-0 win over the U.S. in the “semi-final” (also the opening round!) and a 3-1 defeat to Argentina in the final in front of 75,000.  There was less interest in the other semi-final, attended by 15,000 as Argentina crushed the Ivory Coast 4-0, or in the third place play-off, won by the U.S. in front of under 10,000 spectators.

King Fahd II Stadium, Riyadh

The tournament was a minor success and, bankrolled again by King Fahd’s kingdom, it returned in 1995. It was expanded to six teams, to accommodate the European champions Denmark as well and to allow Saudi Arabia to enter as hosts, since Japan had won the previous Asian Cup. Also participating were African champions Nigeria and Gold Cup winners Mexico. Two groups of three gave the tournament added longevity, with Denmark and Argentina advancing to the final. In a half-full King Fahd II stadium, the Laudrups of Denmark led the Europeans to a 2-0 victory.

The FIFA Confederations Cup

Fifa sniffed a commercial prospect and took over the contest from 1997 on, though for the final time, it was played in Saudi Arabia that year, with the cumbersome double title of the FIFA/Confederations Cup for the King Fahd Trophy. For the first time, every Fifa Confederation was represented, with Oceania (represented by Australia) appearing for the first time. The tournament was expanded to eight teams, with the previous World Cup winner (Brazil) also invited along with the Asian Cup runners-up UAE (presumably because Asian Cup winners Saudi Arabia already had automatic entry as hosts). Brazil crushed Australia 6-0 in the final, the latter having somehow squeaked that far despite winning only one of their five games in regulation time.

The Fifa Confederations Cup (as it would from now on simply be known as) had been established on the international stage, but it still lacked a solid purpose, and the refusal of certain continental champions to participate undermined its legitimacy over the next decade (Germany opted out in ’97 and ’03 and France in ’99). The always shifting qualification procedures confused the public, such as Mexico’s entry into the ’03 tournament based on their win in the Confederations Cup two years earlier.

That 1999 tournament saw the Cup moved away from Saudi Arabia for the first time, and the switch to Mexico proved to be a rousing success: almost one million attended the matches, at an average of 60,625, almost triple the average of two years previously. A goalfeast – 3.44 goals per game, and stellar performances by Ronaldinho, Cuauhtémoc Blanco and Saudi Marzouq Al-Otaibi with 6 goals each — certainly helped matters. Mexico’s epic 4-3 win over Brazil in the final was watched by 110,000 at the legendary Estadio Azteca.

Yet it still wasn’t entirely clear why the tournament was taking place when and where it was. Why was it held every two years, and where would it go next?  In 2001, the eventual long-term solution was found, as South Korea and Japan co-hosted the Cup as a dry run for their role as World Cup hosts the next year. Crowds were down somewhat, with a 557,191 total attendance (34,824 per match), though most matches saw stadia close to capacity – helped by Japan’s surprising run to the final, where they were defeated by France.

Perhaps as reward for winning the ’01 tournament, France were chosen as hosts for the ’03 event. This tournament, though, would mark the low point in the history of the event, as Cameroon’s Marc-Vivien Foé died on the pitch of heart failure during their semi-final with Colombia. His death sparked a debate about the demands the international calendar placed on top players, and the value of the Confederations Cup. Sepp Blatter hardly helped matters by immediately stating the final would go ahead three days later with many questioning whether Cameroon should play at all. Though Fifa initially promised to consider renaming the event after Foé, nothing came of that (there will be a brief ceremony before tomorrow’s final remembering the Cameroonian).

Marc-Vivien Foé

The Confederations Cup did return two years later, once again as World Cup dress rehearsal, this time in Germany. A pretty impressive turnout — 603,106 (37,694 per match) — saw a run to the semis by the hosts, who were beaten by eventual champions Brazil, who in turn defeated Argentina in the final 4-1.

For the first time, the Confederations Cup was not held two years later, and Fifa announced it had settled on a definitive formula: the Cup would be held every four years by the next World Cup hosts. All six confederation champions, the host nation and the reigning World Cup winner would be the entrants — though for the South American and European champion only, participation remains optional.

It seems this formula, along with Fifa’s smart decision to package the rights to the Confederations Cup with the World Cup, has finally established the tournament as a serious proposition. The opportunity for nations to compete at the next World Cup’s venue and for the host themselves to get a meaningful warmup and operational dress rehearsal gives it practical purpose. And it’s a fine carrot for the less prestigious continental championships to offer their winners.

Perhaps most importantly, there is finally a sense that the world cares and is watching. As U.S. forward Charlie Davies posted on his Twitter account today ahead of the final,  “off too [sic] training, We gotta do it big tomorrow on ESPN!!!! Shock the world part II”.

The Rattle

The first popular noisemaker in football — and one that made a sound to make even a vuvuzela wince — was the wooden rattle in Britain.

Though appearing as early as 1900, the rattle became the ubiquitous din to football matches in Britain after the world war. They had been popularised during the war as a way of warning people of gas attacks: their simple noise making capacity saved many lives. Holding the handle and spinning the rattle made a loud clacking noise, and this was soon transported to the terraces.

Football rattles fell into disuse in the 1960s in English football, as the cloth cap-era of working class support began to morph into something trendier, and supporters began to create their own songs and chants that rendered the use of the rattle obsolete.

Writing in the Guardian, Simon Burnton hoped that “perhaps South Africa can learn from the loud wooden rattles that soundtracked British football in the post-war era – and fell out of favour when everyone realised just how annoying they were. I can only hope that one day soon a similar fate will befall the vuvuzelas.”

Yet it was a shift in the entire base of fan culture, rather than a simple realisation that rattles were annoying, that removed the rattle from the terraces.

The Thunderstick

The thunderstick emerged in the 1990s in Korea, and quickly spread to North America at baseball, football and political rallies. The air chambers inside the inflated plastic baton amplifies the sound of the sticks clapped together, meaning even a child can create quite a racket. The advantage of thundersticks from a commercial standpoint is that, unlike rattles, they are large enough to feature a prominent company logo and can be produced cheap enough to mass distribute for free before games.

The marketing spiel of one company selling them explains their simple use and appeal:

Sports fans around the world love these best-selling noisemakers. When inflated, fans hit them together for loud cheering fun while yielding a low cost, large marketing impression. Thunder Stick are the ideal promotional product for giveaways at basketball, hockey, soccer, football, and lacrosse games. Candidates love to use them to produce crowd energy at political rallies. Packaged in pairs for easy distribution and cleanliness, Thunder Stick are made from 100% recycled PE.

Many Major League Soccer teams embraced the thunderstick, and games were often played to the uncoordinated din of young children manufacturing a plastic roar.

Thundersticks have remained popular at Korean football and baseball games. You will remember them from the 2002 World Cup, when seemingly every Korean fan was armed with a pair of inflatable red batons: one American fan, watching from home, remembers the joy of the silencing of the sticks when the U.S. scored (“In this moment of grace, Clint Mathis stilled the red thundersticks of South Korea.”)

So cheap to produce and so useful a marketing tool, the thunderstick seems unlikely to vanish any time soon, though constant complaints have begun to limit their presence in American baseball stadiums.

The Vuvuzela

And so we come to the vuvuzela. Originally made out of tin, they were mass produced in plastic in the last decade and have reached a new fame with the worldwide debate on their use prompted by the hum at every Confederations Cup game in South Africa. Many mistake the vuvuzela for the air horns used commonly around the world, but they have a different origin and use as an instrument in South Africa.

As we know, many players, coaches and fans have complained about the noise of the vuvuzela at the Confederations Cup, with calls for their ban inundating FIFA. This prompted a defense of the vuvuzela as organic African culture from Sepp Blatter, echoed by BBC writer Farayi Mungazi:

“That is what African and South Africa football is all about – noise, excitement, dancing, shouting and enjoyment,” said the most powerful man in world football.

I could not have put it better myself. Banning the vuvuzela would take away the distinctiveness of a South African World Cup.

It is a recognised sound of football in South Africa and is absolutely essential for an authentic South African footballing experience.

After all, what would be the point of taking the World Cup to Africa, and then trying to give it a European feel?

Let us all embrace the vuvuzela and whatever else a South African World Cup throws at us.

The fact that some in Europe find it irritating is no reason to get rid of it.

Though a fairly recent instrument at South African football games, some trace the roots to African tradition. “The ancestor of the vuvuzela is said to be the kudu horn – ixilongo in isiXhosa, mhalamhala in Tshivenda – blown to summon African villagers to meetings.”

It seems to have been in 1992 that the vuvuzela was first used at South African football matches, by supporters of AmaZulu F.C.. Supporters made the horns out of discarded tin cans, and the use spread wildly, to the joy of many and the irritation of some: South African writer Jon Qwelane wrote in 2007 that “Nowadays, there is an instrument from hell, called the vuvuzela, which has largely formed my decision to abandon all live games and rather watch on TV, with the sound totally muted.”

In the 2000s, with South Africa’s World Cup bid on the horizon, the vuvuzela became a mass produced commercialised phenomenon as the result of a grant given by SAB Miller (the giant South African brewer) to Neil van Schalkwyk’s company Masincedane Sport in 2001, who began to mass produce a cheap plastic version.

By 2005, the commercial potential of the horn was clear. Van Schalkwyk told the South African press that “It is our dream that the ‘Vuvuzela’ become the icon of the Soccer World Cup 2010 and that each supporter is given one of our horns. When England played South Africa in May 2003, some international supporters were buying over five horns each.”

South African vuvuzela enthusiast Mzion Mofokeng explains the significance of the instrument. “When we started the vuvuzela, there was so much sadness in our country in those years and it brought so much joy. All of a sudden people would go to the stadiums because of this instrument that was able to get fans on their feet and start cheering. For a few hours, they would forget about the reality in our society and enjoy the sound.

In 2008, FIFA ruled that vuvuzela’s would be allowed in stadiums for the 2010 World Cup. The debate before the ruling focused not on concerns about the noise, but FIFA’s concern that the vuvuzela’s would be used by companies to have an advertising presence at the game or as a weapon.

The argument for banning the vuvuzela is obvious to anyone who has watched a Confederations Cup game: it certainly produces quite a racket, one that appears to be an uncoordinated din of a million bees, following in the footsteps of the rattle and the thunderstick and the regular air horn.

Yet unlike the thunderstick or the rattle, the vuvuzela is an instrument that when co-ordinated, actually has a purpose in leading sections of the stadium in sound and song which has not come across on television. Jay Hipps at Center Line Soccer explains:

We’ve all heard plastic horns in stadiums in the U.S. and Mexico, but there’s a lot more creativity involved in South Africa. Specifically,  the horns are played in a call-and-response pattern that involves a leader who plays a complex rhythm and a group of players who punctuate that pattern on a specific beat. [..]

The most active supporters choreograph their movements. The side men lower their horns while the leader plays and suddenly point them skyward as they hit their note. It’s reminiscent of something jazz or even marching band horn sections have done for decades.

Unfortunately, the broadcasters have set up their stadium microphones the same way they would anywhere else in the world, so the result is a constant hum where the charm of the vuvuzela is lost to the TV audience.  The first thing on their to do lists should be re-working the microphone layout so they can capture an individual group of supporters in all its glory, rather than the simultaneous mish-mash of everyone playing at once that they currently offer. Even suggesting a ban before that is attempted is a radical over-reaction.

The best illustration of what Hipps means is the vuvuzela orchestra. As their website explains:

The Vuvuzela Orchestra and the traditional South African ensembles (Dinaka, Tshikona) that inspired its creation are musical representations of the “Ubuntu” principles.

The Nguni proverb “Ubuntu Ngumuntu Ngabantu” means that a person becomes human with the help of other humans. An individual can only survive through cooperation with other humans.

What better expression of that principle can there be than a musical ensemble where each player only has one note to play ? This is an absolutely exhilarating experience which was created by human societies many thousands of years ago at the very beginning of humanity to make their communities stronger.

This video of the orchestra’s practise and then performance at a football match illustrates Hipps’ point that the vuvuzela is an instrument with a purpose, not a simple noisemaker (be sure to watch to the end to see how the single note can be used effectively):

Vuvuzela Orchestra @ Mandela Challenge 2007 from Pedro Espi-Sanchis on Vimeo.

To be sure, not all who use the vuvuzela do so with the right art and coordination.  But the failure of television to convey the vuvuzela’s differentiation as a noisemaker from the likes of the rattle and the thunderstick and the calls to ban it have struck a nerve in South Africans, who interpret it as an attack on a part of their culture. FIFA allowed the thunderstick — an entirely indefensible noisemaker — to litter the 2002 World Cup. Why instead ban a noisemaker that has been proven to have an instrumental purpose and meaning to South Africans?

Do we really want FIFA to further sanitise and regulate fan culture at the World Cup by banning the vuvuzela, just so we’re all comfortable in our armchairs with surround sound on?

The International Marketing Council of South Africa (IMC), custodian of the country’s national brand, has launched a major campaign to spark enthusiasm and unite the country and the continent behind the 2009 Fifa Confederations Cup and 2010 World Cup.

I probably would have accepted the offer and gone if it had been possible for me, but unfortunately it wasn’t, so the offer was immediately moot in my mind. Still, it seemed like a rare opportunity to actually go and cover an event outside the US in person and provide a perspective impossible from my couch.

I am not sure which other bloggers have accepted the offer, but according to the Washington Post’s soccer blogger Steven Goff, it’s a good job I’m not going.

His snippy and snarky comment on the offer in his blog implies that anyone who accepted would be forfeiting their integrity:

A lesson in media ethics, boys and girls: South Africa’s marketing council is offering expense-paid trips (“junkets”) worth thousands of dollars to U.S.-based bloggers/reporters to cover the Confederations Cup and, in effect, help promote tourism. The council’s purpose is to “create a positive and compelling brand image for South Africa.” At least two folks who contribute to ESPN’s online soccer coverage, as well as others, are considering accepting the offer. Nope, absolutely no conflicts of interest there.

This drew the ire of blogger Dan Loney on Big Soccer, who went off on Goff in the comments here (“Steven Goff? Catty? Pushing his own agenda? Leaning on his Washington Post position in order to promote himself at the expense of independents? Seriously? Steven Goff?”).

The marketing council behind the original post then responded with their own defense of the offer in Business Day. Confusingly, it seems Goff helped the council find bloggers to contact.

I told Goff of my plan to bring a group of US soccer bloggers to the Confederations Cup next month. Predictably, he regretted the Post would not allow him to come on such a trip, but he was also very helpful in recommending the names of other bloggers whom he thought I might approach with more success. He even gave me their e-mail addresses.

It was with a certain amazement, therefore, that I read what he had to say about our conversation in a blog item he uploaded to the Post website later that afternoon. He threatened to name and shame anyone who came on the proposed tour as ethically challenged. It had an effect. Several of his biggest competitors, who might otherwise have been covering USA versus Brazil and Italy as the International Marketing Council’s (IMC’s) guests, will now, with him, be staying home.

Bizarre.

One comment on Goff’s blog nailed the dilemna facing US soccer bloggers:

This boils down to the heart of the question facing the soccer media in the US today.  With a collapsing newspaper industry and only a nascent independent soccer online soccer media off of which no-one I’m aware is able to purely make a living from (the country’s most popular blogger, Ives Galarcep still freelances for ESPN and was probably one of the writers Goff was referring to), it would simply be impossible for any blogger or journalist to fund their own trip, and the Post and ESPN (the biggest media outlets covering soccer with any seriousness) obviously weren’t sending anyone.

At the same time, Goff’s obviously right that there is a conflict of interest. Could one go to South Africa, all-expenses-paid, and provide a fair look at the state of the country’s infrastructure without even feeling conflicted? Simon Barber of South Africa’s marketing council, in his defense of the offer to bloggers, says this is possible.

It’s quite possible some would have the necessary integrity and balls to pull this off. Do I think I would have?  I hope so, but the more I think about it, the more it gnaws at me that maybe, just maybe I wouldn’t be quite as brutally homest as I would have been if I’d paid my own way somehow.

After all, I was one who criticised British journalists who accepted a junket from Uzbeki oligarch Alisher Usmanov a couple of years ago, as he looked to repair his tarnished reputation (sadly, he did manage to bamboozle some of them). Taking an offer from a known criminal is a different matter than from a South African government agency, but still, isn’t the principle the same?

Whilst Goff’s snarky tone is unwelcome and childish, he does have a point about the potential conflict of interest. Should we as bloggers be prepared to sacrifice traditions of journalistic ethics to be able to provide coverage that wouldn’t otherwise exist?  Is this a line any of us should be willing to try to tread?

I’m curious as to what you’d have done if you’d received the same email I did.  Would you have gone?