The fact that Mexico could draw over 90,000 for a game against New Zealand speaks for itself, and I mean that with no slight intended to the 2010 World Cup’s only unbeaten team. This is America: don’t forget it.

At the same time, the 55,407 crowd attending the US men’s team World Cup send-off game against Turkey is nothing to be sniffed at. Interest in the US men’s national team is clearly growing.

This list is also a little different from the 2009 equivalent, when several international club friendlies not featuring MLS teams were amongst the top ten attended games: 81,224 watched Chelsea vs. Inter Milan at the Rose Bowl, 61,572 for Chivas de la Guadalajara vs. Barcelona at Candlestick Park and 57,229 for Chelsea vs. Club America at Cowboys Stadium in last year’s vaunted “Summer of Soccer.”

Back in October of 2009 when Egypt was hosting the U-20 World Cup I wrote a somewhat esoteric preview of the countries in the competition oriented by one of my favorite soccer quotes (from Eric Hobsbawn): “The imagined community of millions seems more real as a team of eleven named people.” It was the start of the ‘Year of African Soccer,’ to be followed closely by the U-17 World Cup in Nigeria, the African Cup of Nations in Angola, and soon the mega event of them all: the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.  Drawing inspiration from my all-time favorite World Cup preview, Matt Weiland and Sean Wilsey’s excellent edited collection of essays and miscellany related to the participants in the 2006 World Cup, the shared goal was “to use soccer as a lens and an excuse to learn something about the wider world.”

To my great disappointment, Weiland and Wilsey seem to have not produced a new Thinking Fans Guide to the World Cup for 2010, leaving me feeling a bit adrift.  Sure I can look up many a preview opining about whether Serbia’s defensive pairing of Nemanja Vidić and Branislav Ivanović is strong enough to get them through the group stage—but where else could I learn that Serbia had the highest proportion of tractors per capita of any country in the 2006 World Cup (at least when they were combined with Montenegro)?  Combining that absence in my soul with the fact that the daily ‘Sweeper’ series here on Pitch Invasion is on a hiatus, I thought I’d try to offer some content over the next few weeks in the form of moderately esoteric World Cup group previews.  The mostly light-hearted intention is simply to both provoke and satisfy curiosities.  Take these group previews, which I’m planning to drop sporadically over the next few weeks, for what they are worth.  And feel free to add the many odd and interesting facts about these places I’m sure I’ll miss….

Group A: The Group of _______________

The provocative debate about which quartet to label as the “Group of Death” has always seemed to me to have so much more potential—why can’t we have enough catchy labels to distribute through all the groups?  Why not the “Group of Death Warmed Over,” or the “Group of Death be not Proud,” or the group of “Death Anxiety”?  Why does everyone have to fight for just one silly name?

In that regard, Group A is as good a place to start as any—since my sources tell me that the origins of the “Group of Death” as a moniker lie with a combined effort of Mexican journalists and Uruguay’s manager in the 1986 World Cup—two nations whose teams will meet in Group A (along with France and South Africa).  In this tournament, however, Group A probably has little claim on being the actual “Group of Death.”  In fact, with France ranked 10^th in the world by FIFA, South Africa as 90^th, Mexico as 17^th, and Uruguay as 18^th, it’s the only of eight groups in the tournament without one team ranked in the top eight.

So I had to look outside the soccer world to find high rankings, and here’s the best I could come up with: what Group A does have is land mass and, believe it or not, relative wealth.  In terms of land mass, of 223 ranked nations Mexico is 15^th, South Africa 25^th, France 43^rd, and Uruguay 90^th—which, on average, is the lowest (ie, most land) in the tournament.  In terms of relative wealth, Group A is the only one in the tournament where Gross Domestic Product per capita (a standard global measure of wealth) is above $10,000 for all four countries—all the other groups have to factor in a Nigeria ($2250 per person), a Paraguay ($4500), or the like.

Finally, and probably most significant to soccer fans, Group A is the only group in the tournament comprised entirely of World Cup host nations—in addition to South Africa, Uruguay hosted the first World Cup in 1930, Mexico hosted in 1970 and 1986, and France hosted in 1998.  That can’t happen too often (though it is also interesting to note that it almost also happened this year in Group H with Spain—1982 hosts, Switzerland—1954 hosts, and Chile—1962 hosts, missing only Honduras).  So I’ll label Group A ‘The Group of Gracious Hosts (with little chance of actually winning the tournament).’

Who would advance if there were any justice in the world?

This segment is my admittedly subjective ranking of the two teams most deserving of making it out of the group stages—based on a secret formula combining soccer history and global politics.  In the case of Group A one team is easy to eliminate: France has only a tenuous claim on deserving to have qualified at all for the World Cup based on the kerfuffle with Ireland, and one often gets a sense that the French themselves are too debonair to really worry about silly things like soccer.  So in my mind they are out.

I also have a soft spot in my heart for South Africa, which is partially defensiveness about all the criticism they are getting as hosts from a lot of people who know almost nothing about the place.  South Africa doing well also seems to mean a lot to Nelson Mandela, and I’d argue that Mandiba has earned the right to get whatever he wants.  So in my mind they are in.

The second spot gets more difficult.  For Uruguay to be ranked 18^th in the world with a population of only 3.4 million people is a mighty impressive feat.  But beyond any TV watcher’s familiarity with Diego  Forlán’s abdominal muscles, I just don’t know enough about the place.  In contrast, I know enough about Mexico to realize that it really, really matters to the nation if they do well in the World Cup.  Further, the fact that my own USA has a rising tendency to scapegoat and stereotype our neighbors to the South makes me want to offer some sort of conciliatory gesture.  As a US fan I do still harbor bitterness about Rafael Márquez’s attempt to maim Cobi Jones in 2002, but in the spirit of South Africa I’m trying to offer forgiveness.

So from my completely subjective standpoint, if there were any justice in the world South Africa and Mexico would advance from Group A.  But keep in mind, there is rarely any justice in the world.

Group A – Some Stats

The one major downside to the stadium from a soccer perspective? Artificial turf.

Let us take a look at the original renderings and the current progress for the 45,000 seater stadium.

Design Concept // By French architects, Jean Marie Massaud & Daniel Pouzet, Pouzet Massaud Studio

Progress // December and January 2009

A bee swarm in El Salvador's goal at the Azteca is extinguished. Mexico went on to win the game and qualify for World Cup 2010.

Photo credit: My television set.

Big Story

He might not be the best mainstream American sportswriter, but he’s pretty much the bellwether of mid-America’s attitude to sports, as much as we can have one in these fragmented Twittering and blogging times: Bill Simmons, aka ESPN’s Sports Guy, went down to Mexico City for the U.S. match at the Azteca and came back “one of us”, as many American soccer enthusiasts have commented.

Simmons himself seems bemused by his sudden passion for the game. A few years ago, he attempted to get into the sport by picking a Premier League to follow (Spurs), but it took a visit to support his national team in Mexico’s cauldron to fully convert him, perhaps for good. “What the hell was happening to me? Why was I starting to get hooked by soccer — a sport I have never totally liked and even actively hated at times? Was this an extremely early midlife crisis? And if so, why soccer of all things? Couldn’t it have been a Porsche or an 18-year-old Starbucks barista?”

I would not be surprised to find Simmons spending next summer in South Africa, with ESPN already committed to unprecedented coverage of the World Cup. The question is how many of his millions of readers take the plunge with him, and the answer could have a significant effect on just how ‘mainstream’ soccer becomes in the United States.

Worldwide

• No replay for Crystal Palace, after their ‘ghost’ goal not given at the weekend. The Football League ruled that the referee’s decision “must be final, even when there has been an error of judgment”. Surely this is correct, however egregious the call, as to decide otherwise would set a very difficult precedent. Both the referee Rob Shoebridge and assistant referee Chris Knowles have been suspended for two weeks.
• Silvio Berlusconi calls for a salary cap. It seems a bit rich for the Milan owner to start complaining now about clubs spending too much money.
• Arsene Wenger again raised the prospect of a European Super League, something we opined on last month. Wenger was hardly favourable to the idea, and it’s hard to find anyone actually arguing for it: but it’s concerning that everyone simply insists that as it’s just bound to happen, all we can do is tut our lips and watch it happen.
• Adidas turns 60 today, and Fifa.com remembers their involvement with the World Cup, stretching back to the first screw-in studs for Germany’s 1954 winning team.
• Dirty Tackle points out that Flamengo are claiming to be outselling Real Madrid with a shirt-sale every 13.5 seconds (compared to Madrid’s 16 seconds) — no indication of the relative shirt prices, but a reminder that if only the mega-support of Brazil’s clubs could be properly managed, we might not have such a Eurocentric world club game.
• Speaking of which, When Saturday Comes reports a majority of Brazilian clubs favour a significant change in the schedule to move in-line with Western Europe’s: a move that would further undermine the traditional State-based championships.
• Reuters reports that “Chilean first division club Palestino aim to appeal to their Arab heritage by floating on the stock exchange at home and in the Palestinian territories.”

North America

• U.S. Soccer Players has an interesting piece on the role of the Technical Director at MLS clubs. They interviewed four men in these newfangled roles, Mike Bliss of Columbus Crew, Paul Bravo of the Colorado Rapids, Peter Vermes, now interim head coach at Kansas City Wizards, and Mike Burns, former Vice-President of Player Personnel at New England. Interesting insights in a long feature.
• Ben Knight at Canadian blog Onward Soccer has started an excellent and much-needed series looking at the state of the much-criticised Canadian Soccer Association. The first part of the series looks at the coaching situation, the second at the need for reform of the bureaucracy and upcoming pieces will examine youth development and the national fan group.
• Adam Spangler of This Is American Soccer also went to Mexico, and has a very impressive photo essay on the trip. Though I kind of want to see the photos he also says are “not fit to print.”  Isn’t going to the Azteca as an American soccer’s version of war journalism?
• The St. Louis Dispatch looks back at the first WPS regular season. Though it has a particular focus on Athletica, it’s also notable for comments by the Commissioner who also does a Q&A with them. She stresses the league is stable, despite losses at many clubs being double original estimates: expect some belt-tightening this off-season. Meanwhile, The Equalizer reports that an expansion to ten teams by 2010 looks unlikely.
• American youngster Luis Gil is headed to Arsenal. The 15 year-old has been capped at the U.S. U-17 level. Goal.com says “In what is becoming a bit of a trend lately, the big clubs in Europe are noticing the young talent that the United States has to offer and are eagerly signing them up.”  But is this true? Are many more American teenagers really moving to Europe than five years ago?
• EPL Talk makes the point that watching soccer in the States has become a chore. While pointing out we should hardly be ungrateful for the amazing plethora of games available every week, the sheer number of channels the games are on is now remarkable: “Consider the fact that to watch the majority of games from the top European leagues and the Champions League qualifying rounds, you need a “tool belt” consisting of ESPN2, Fox Soccer Channel, Setanta Sports, FSN, Fox Sports en Espanol, Setanta Xtra, GolTV, DirecTV (for extra matches) as well as Setanta-i, UEFA.com, ESPN360 and FoxSoccer.tv.” Of course it’s nothing but churlish to complain, but my head sure hurts from figuring it all out.

The Sweeper appears daily. For more rambling and links throughout the day every day, follow your editor Tom Dunmore @pitchinvasion on Twitter.

Big Story

Mexico’s 2-1 defeat of the U.S. last night is the talk of the town (Du Nord rounds up all the coverage). In his usual fashion, Jamie Tecker at Fox Soccer rips into the governing body for the defeat, writing that “U.S. Soccer seems unable or unwilling to make a change at the top, so it won’t likely be the coach.”  Trecker sees the defeat as part of a pattern of failure in big games, also citing the losses to Brazil in the Confederations Cup final and to Mexico again in the Gold Cup final.

By the end of the piece, Trecker has connected these dots into a pattern threatening the entire future of the sport here.

Keep in mind that sports fans have been burned repeatedly by the hype. They keep tuning in after being told they’re going to see something special. And every time (outside of the Spain match), they’re presented with a group of guys who can’t win the big game. The fact is, these performances — if left unchecked — will kill the sport in America.

That fact seems lost on soccer executives, who keep claiming that these failures are “learning experiences. They’re not. They’re confirmation of America’s inability to grow up and take this sport seriously. And that’s why the USA will continue to lose the big game.

This seems a rather remarkable conclusion. It seems to be based on the premise that fans do not understand the context of each big game: everyone watching the Confederations Cup final knew the quality of Brazil and that running them close was an excellent performance. Most who took the trouble to tune into the Gold Cup final (which wasn’t exactly hyped to the moons) would have realised the U.S. was not fielding its first team. And everyone knew that winning in Azteca was not something the U.S. had ever done. Moreover, if the U.S. is destined to always lose the Big Game under Bradley, how does he explain the 2007 Gold Cup final win over Mexico, the 2-0 win over Mexico in Columbus just six months ago (which was far more of a must-win than last night’s game, as the U.S. never banked on taking any points from the Azteca) or the win over Spain in the Confederations Cup?

North America

• You can see what the win meant to Mexico in this excellent compilation of newspaper covers at Kenn.com, via newseum.org.
• US Soccer and the World Cup bid committee has launched its World Cup bid website, gobidusa.com, a flashy site with a neat timeline of US soccer history and a rather obvious play on words plastered all over it (The Game is in US…Get it?).
• But while a huge amount of money is being pumped into the bid and the future of American soccer, the past is in danger of being forgotten: the National Soccer Hall of Fame in Oneonta, New York is in danger of being closed down. The The 40,000-square-foot facility was opened only ten years ago, but the facility is not paying for itself and in the short-term will be reducing public hours and may be closed altogether.
• Benfica signs Justin Mapp! And many other strange and curious players! In an amusing stunt, Benfica’s official site was hacked so that users could announce their own official signings on the site. Hilariously, MLS Rumors bought the story and published it; when they realised they had been fooled, they didn’t do the simple thing and issue a retraction, but simply took the page down altogether. Brilliant! (and here it was)
  

Worldwide

• BBC Sport has a beautiful interactive map of the origins of Premier League players, comparing this season with twenty years ago. As you’d expect, the difference is stark.
• David Bentley of Spurs was arrested last night for drink-driving, after he veered into a lamp-post. His statement of contrition says that “I fully appreciate that as a professional footballer I have a duty to behave in a reputable and responsible manner” is a little odd — if he wasn’t a footballer, would he not have to be responsible and be free to drink and drive? Whoever’s doing his PR should really consider a new career.
• Livingston, now under new ownership, are continuing to fight against their relegation to the Scottish Third Division, now appealing to the Scottish F.A. against the decision by the League, will again refuse to fulfill their fixture this weekend.
• Burma’s nascent league, which we wrote about a couple of months ago, is reported to be in trouble — the government funded and controlled league is reportedly struggling to bring in enough income.
• Romario is coming out of retirement to play for second division América in Brazil.

For more rambling and links throughout the day every day, follow your editor @pitchinvasion on Twitter.

It’s World Cup qualifying day, and U.S.-Mexico has finally arrived. I don’t even know where to begin to round-up all the articles out there on this game, and I’m not sure I could read another one, but I am counting down the hours to the game, despite the fact I’m hardly a wild partisan for either team.

The U.S. will enter the Azteca cauldron, where they have famously never won (not that anyone else ever wins there either in a meaningful game, barring Costa Rica in 2001), in front of 107,000 intense but very nervous fans: despite Mexico’s 5-0 stroll over the U.S. in the battle of the B teams at the Gold Cup final last month, it’s pretty clear which team is in-form and which isn’t, and who the pressure is really on given the state of the qualifying group.

An interesting question for U.S. fans was raised by SF at the Offside Rules: would there be a loss for American soccer if the U.S. does conquer this boogeyman and finally win in the smog, heat and hostility of the Azteca?  ”Deep inside there is some sick, self-hating part of me that wants it to continue just to have something to complain about. I have a couple of friends who are Boston Red Sox fans that swear that now that the Curse of the Bambino has been lifted it’s just not as fun anymore.”

Of couse, that wouldn’t stop the celebrations for US fans today (presuming they can find the channel the game is on!), but it’s true a dash of the spice would be gone from what has become an absolutely crucial rival for both countries, both culturally and financially. It’ll be fascinating to see how the next chapter unfolds.

North America

• When I wrote a piece on DC United’s clever We Win Trophies marketing campaign a couple of days ago, it occurred to me that the site was asking for parodic adaptation. www.wesellenergydrinks.com certainly delivers, ripping into Red Bull New York with glee.
• Expect to see plenty more of Barcelona in the U.S. going forward, as their president gleefully revealed they had made almost EUR 6 million for 12 days “work” in North America. Easy money.
• Kristian Dyer has an excellent piece on ESPN Soccernet that digs into Ty Harden’s motivation for quitting MLS last year to spend the year in college and doing volunteer work in Kenya. “It was a long and hard decision. I knew that I wanted to go back to school and get my degree,” Harden told Dyer. “But I also wanted to do more with my life than simply kick a ball.”

Britain

• John Terry says perhaps the most banal statement ever — “we can’t rule out England winning the World Cup” — and the English press goes nuts, with half the press critcising Terry’s hubris and the other half claiming he’d pledged victory. When all he really said was what anyone would have to agree with, since it’d seem silly to rule-out one of the best ten or so teams in the world winning a tournament based on seven games.
• The ongoing saga of Sulaiman al-Fahim’s stalled takeover of Portsmouth is well-explained in this somewhat depressing team preview by David Hytner in the Guardian. Depressing because it’s a season preview that’s far more about the off the field crisis engulfing the club and very little about the team itself, which has been gutted by sales to repay loans.
• Another huge World Cup qualifier today is Scotland vs. Norway, but as SPAOTP points out, the Scots have been in full self-destruct mode with the fallout over the ban on Barry Ferguson after a disreputable night-out last year refusing to go away.
• Carseon Yeung was last seen “scrounging for loose coins in the St. Andrews car park” when his takeover of Birmingham failed in 2007, but he’s back again beating the same drum.

Worldwide

• The dispute that delayed the start of Argentina’s season appears to be over, with games now scheduled to begin on August 21st. The government is set to step in and double the league’s TV rights deal this season. Richard explained the ins and outs of this well here on Sunday.
• The way forward for Italy?  “Back to the past,” according to Sergio Campana, the head of the nation’s professional footballers association (AIC).  Campana wants restrictions on foreigners in Serie A as in the league’s glory days of two decades ago, claiming it’s “legally possible both for non-European Union and EU citizens,” but it’s very hard to see how this could be true within the European Union and it’s a short-sighted solution to deeper seated problems in Italian football.
• Four Four Two has a piece on Parma, back in the big-time (remember the days of Crespo et al?), but with a tough road ahead if they’re to stay in Serie A.

For more rambling and links throughout the day every day, follow your editor @pitchinvasion on Twitter.

The spotlight was far brighter on the previous Gold Cup finals held just two years ago in this city. Most countries sent their ‘A’ squads: the U.S. rightly prioritised their own confederation’s contest over the Copa America they would participate in shortly after, probably because a spot in the Confederations Cup was the carrot for the winning team. Holding the semi-finals and final in Chicago at Soldier Field allowed the buzz to envelope the soccer-loving community in the city, and the final itself was a classic: a capacity 60,000 crowd at Soldier Field saw the U.S. defeat Mexico on a beautiful sunny day before a crowd clearly partisan for El Tricolor.

Gold Cup Final 2007, Soldier Field, Chicago

That buzz isn’t quite the same this year in Chicago, even though I’m looking forward to tonight. What’s different?

For a start, it seems awfully soon for the same semi-finals of the same international tournament to played in the same city (though the final will this year be held in New Jersey).  There’s a strong argument to be made that the Gold Cup ought to be held only every four years instead of biennially. This would ensure a great prize — qualification to represent CONCACAF at the Confederations Cup (now held only every four years) — is available every time (the US certainly took advantage of their opportunity in South Africa).

Such a change would of course give the tournament greater scarcity value. And it would also make it easier for MLS to do what it really should do during these important national team tournaments — stop domestic club play (even if only for the weekend of the final) to focus attention on the Gold Cup.

Indeed, in the 1970s and 1980s, the CONCACAF championship was held only every four years — and the prize was even greater than qualification for the Confederations Cup. At stake was CONCACAF’s sole berth in the World Cup finals. No fewer than six different countries won the tournament out of the ten tournaments held between 1963 and 1989 in eight different countries.

Mexico and U.S. fans at the 2007 Gold Cup Final in Chicago

But in 1991 CONCACAF decided their regional tournament needed a rebranding, renaming it the Gold Cup and holding it roughly every two years since, with World Cup qualification no longer the prize. It has been hosted in the US every time (Mexico were co-hosts in 1993 and 2003), presumably because of the facilities available and the crowds that can be attracted across the country with such considerable immigrant populations from so many CONCACAF nations. Tonight’s semi-finals will surely feature more fans of Costa Rica, Mexico and Honduras than the Stars and Stripes.

The expansion of the tournament to twelve teams means it’s probable only Mexico could also even conceivably host the tournament logistically now, and the financial incentive for packed stadiums every two years in the US is likely to ensure the same set-up continues for some time, at least as long as CONCACAF is run by Jack Warner.

Something has probably been lost from the days when Haiti could host the CONCACAF championship in 1973 and surprise the world by winning it and heading to West Germany for the World Cup finals the next year. The hegemony of the US and Mexico has been broken only once in Gold Cup history, with Canada’s victory the lone non US or Mexican win (both countries have won it four times).

The Gold Cup has been a financial success since its inception, but it probably needs a few more upsets and little more scarcity value to ensure the kind of buzz we saw two years ago in Chicago is replicated every time.

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”.