A replica of Cape Town Stadium, constructed out of wire and beads by a local worker at a McDonalds near the stadium. See it in its earlier state of construction here.

Photo credit: LaertesCTB on Flickr, via the Pitch Invasion Photo Pool.

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

Finally, after an eventful January, I’ve got some answers to the big questions for this year of African soccer.  Was Angola 2010 a success or a failure?  Yes.  Will the World Cup in South Africa be a success or a failure?  Yes.

Let me try to explain.

I was hoping this week I could write something about the games at the African Cup of Nations, or something for fans caught up in a wave of enthusiasm for the coming World Cup.  Instead, while following the 2010 Cup of Nations as closely as possible from the massive geographic and psychological distance of my home in Oregon, I’ve found myself distracted from the fun of the game by the evolving storylines about and judgments of the continent itself.  These storylines and judgments have been building through the various preliminary events in this ‘year of African soccer’: last summer’s Confederations’ Cup, September’s U-20 World Cup in Egypt, and October’s U-17 World Cup in Nigeria.  But in this last month the narrative seemed to erupt.

The real jolt was the pre-tournament tragedy in Cabinda.  When terrorists massacred the Togo team bus, my heart broke and the plot thickened.  The blogosphere came alive, many in the British press did a reasonable job offering analysis, and the American mainstream press did its usual job by barely acknowledging that events in Africa could matter (I’ve rarely felt so disappointed in my beloved New York Times—their coverage of what could have been a fascinating story about geo-politics, sport, oil, terrorism, tragedy, etc. was barely a blip).

And just when the Cabinda tragedy seemed to start fading from the world’s radar (partially justifiable given it was superseded by a much larger tragedy in Haiti), the narrative was taken up by stories of undersold tickets for the main event in South Africa.  The naysayers came alive with absolute judgments of a place many had never been, Sepp Blatter and his crew offered both Pollyanna and recriminations, while quieter but willing fans continued to try and figure out how to afford the trip.

Then, in recent days, the African federation mangled world impressions of the final days of the Cup of Nations by capriciously suspending Togo from the next two tournaments.  And suddenly the evolving narrative acquired a moral fervor driven by the perceived ability of world soccer fans to rail with absolute certainty about injustice.  The Togolese government and football association have never before been so clearly identified as paragons of virtue—even if only by implication.  One brief on-line comment seemed to crystallize what many were thinking: “Africa is crazy. Bats**t crazy.”

If only it were that simple.

Off the continent, Africa tends to be either ignored, romanticized, or pathologized—and in this year of African soccer there has been much of each.  I tend to sympathize more with the romantics (or, more cynically, the apologists), such as the FIFA execs who blindly promote the rightness of hosting the World Cup in South Africa.  And I tend to despair at the critics, particularly when scanning through the fear and loathing promoted on BigSoccer by so many who seem to have never stepped foot on the African continent.  But I’m continually discomforted by the gnawing feeling that neither side is quite right nor quite wrong, and by my inability to make sense of it all.

I do find a small degree of comfort in knowing others seem to be struggling with these same dilemmas.  In recent weeks, for example, I’ve been fascinated to stumble upon blog entries from the Africa Cup of Nations in Angola by Sports Illustrated’s Jeff Bradley (who doesn’t usually write about soccer, but happens to be the brother of US Coach Bob Bradley).  It’s not clear why Bradley went to Angola for the Cup of Nations—on the blog he obscures that info with the reasonable excuse that it belongs to Sports Illustrated—but it is clear that he went with nothing but good intentions.  In fact, he starts on Day 1 with the explicit claim that:  “My theme for this trip is going to be about seeing how good people can be.”

And then it goes downhill.  With each day he seems to become more frustrated with Luanda—the traffic, the dysfunction, the inequality, the hawkers, the confusion.  By Day 6 he writes: Guess it’s time for me to send home a dose of reality.  And the reality is, this is a tough place.”  He grasps desperately onto a deep appreciation for his guide—an Angolan who has spent much of his life in South Africa, and tries to explain to “Mr. Jeff” why it all makes no sense.  The lesson here seems to be that Jeff Bradley is a really good guy, but when it comes to a place such as Luanda good intentions just aren’t enough.

Instead, good intentions in this year of African soccer seem to get overwhelmed by the delicate, frustrating question of representation.  Of course, other things are at stake in the soccer stories that we hear and tell; there is much to learn about geo-politics, infrastructure, development, mega-events, global labor flows, etc..  We may even learn some good stuff about the game.  But underneath it all is the tricky question of how to think about Africa, with soccer as the lens.

The question of representation is an ongoing challenge for many smart non-soccer people who care about Africa—both on and off the continent.  As evidence, take the viral popularity in recent years of a satirical essay by the Kenyan author Binyavanga Wainaina titled “How to Write about Africa” (also available as a sort-of odd video narrated by Djimon Hounsou) that begins: “Always use the word ‘Africa’ or ‘Darkness’ or ‘Safari’ in your title. Subtitles may include the words ‘Zanzibar’, ‘Masai’, ‘Zulu’, ‘Zambezi’, ‘Congo’, ‘Nile’, ‘Big’, ‘Sky’, ‘Shadow’, ‘Drum’, ‘Sun’ or ‘Bygone’. Also useful are words such as ‘Guerrillas’, ‘Timeless’, ‘Primordial’ and ‘Tribal’.”

And continues: “adopt a sotto voice, in conspiracy with the reader, and a sad I-expected-so-much tone…Broad brushstrokes throughout are good. Avoid having the African characters laugh, or struggle to educate their kids, or just make do in mundane circumstances. Have them illuminate something about Europe or America in Africa. African characters should be colourful, exotic, larger than life—but empty inside, with no dialogue, no conflicts or resolutions in their stories, no depth or quirks to confuse the cause.”

Though such satire hits uncomfortably close to home, in highlighting the absence of ambivalence it also suggests to me a glimmer of hope that may sound trite: all the representations and misrepresentations of Africa may well do some good if they ultimately impress upon people the reality of Africa as a big, complicated place.  After the Togo bus massacre, the knee-jerk mis-associations between Cabinda and South Africa were nothing if not a reminder of the persistent admonition “Africa is not a country.”  Any stories of Africa through soccer require attending to the particular local contexts that frame any story anywhere in the world.

This also means that telling stories in this year of African soccer requires confronting the tensions and contradictions of modern life.  Angola’s problems, for example, are not just about poverty—in many ways it is actually a place of great wealth—they are about the global problem of inequality.  The fact that hotel rooms go for $400 dollars a night in a place with an average life expectancy somewhere around 38 and an infant mortality rate of around 180 deaths per 1000 live births should be of concern to everyone (from conservatives prioritizing the value of life to liberals prioritizing the importance of equal rights).  But it requires recognizing that Angola is not rich or poor—it is both.  Likewise, South Africa’s challenges are not just about crime and dysfunction; it is a country with a vibrant media, a rich geography of diverse people and places, extraordinary intellectuals, and a crime problem deriving from a complex socio-historical nexus that I can’t pretend to understand.

Which also means that there is still much to learn.  Amidst the tragedy, triumph, and confusion of Angola 2010 the thing that has become most clear about the evolving narrative from the year of African soccer is that much has yet to be told.  I’m sure many at FIFA and with the South African organizing committee hope everything goes smoothly—that the World Cup is, how do they say, “one big party.”  But that no longer seems quite right.  I suspect there will be much partying, but there may well also be continuing problems and frustrations.  And all of that—the partying and the problems—should be part of the story of Africa through soccer.

So ultimately, it seems to me, the question is no longer whether Angola should have hosted the Cup of Nations.  They did, and it was an event with both inexcusable tragedy and impressive accomplishment (for a country emerging from 27 years of civil war).  The question is no longer whether South Africa should host the World Cup.  They will, and it will likely be an event of both frustration and joy for a country that deserves to share the global stage.

Instead, the question now is whether the stories from year of African soccer will be about success or about failure.  And I am increasingly satisfied with the answer being yes.

Cape Town on Friday for the World Cup draw. There's something creepy about this, isn't there?

Photo credit: wooze66 on Flickr, via the Pitch Invasion Photo Pool.

Photo by menosultra on Flickr.

Photo by menosultra on Flickr.

]]> http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2009/12/04/the-two-key-moments-of-the-world-cup-draw-for-this-observer-presented-without-further-comment/feed/ 6 http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2009/12/03/the-sweeper-how-to-win-a-world-cup-bid/ http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2009/12/03/the-sweeper-how-to-win-a-world-cup-bid/#comments Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:18:01 +0000 Tom Dunmore http://pitchinvasion.net/?p=5026

David Beckham, Ambassador to the World

Big Story
Winning the right to host the World Cup finals is about much more than the actual content of the bid, as we commented yesterday when examining the United States’ solid package.

For England, it’s been a torrid time of interminable controversy inside the bid administration, with the unseemly bickering between the Football Association, the Premier League and all the egos of England’s bloated football administration. The U.S., without the intense press coverage of the sport and with a much more streamlined (perhaps too much so!) national administration, is able to avoid most of this.

And so the Daily Mail plunges another knife into England’s faltering World Cup bid, though there’s something a little unsettling about the major complaint being that “Yet another sign of a wasted opportunity came in the bear hug with which FIFA president Sepp Blatter greeted former FA chief executive Brian Barwick at the Soccerex conference in  Johannesburg. Barwick, one of English football’s best networkers, was not even deemed worth a place among the bid’s 70-odd ambassadors.”

Yet England does have one endless route to good publicity: David Beckham. The Times falls for Beckham’s ambassadorial role for the bid hook, line and sinker, commenting that “The England midfielder has emerged as the figurehead of the 2018 campaign and he has already had made progress in his attempts to charm Fifa power brokers such as Sepp Blatter, the president, and vice-president Jack Warner.”

Suddenly, we are reminded that this whole World Cup bidding process — with the need to snuggle up to the likes of Warner and Blatter — isn’t such an edifying business after all. Can we ever imagine a future in which the world’s game (as FIFA likes to call it) isn’t directed by 24 old and corrupt cronies who need their egos petted at all times?

Worldwide News

• The Colorado Rapids’ traditionally dismal supporters’ section may get a boost, as the Colorado Rapids Supporters Association says that “After several years of deliberating and negotiations, I’m proud to say the supporters are finally where they want to be…behind a goal!” They also say that negotiations with the front office will be bringing further positive change. Another step in the right direction for MLS teams’ dealings with supporters. Let’s hope it’s not too little too late for Colorado.
• A curious defense of agents appears on the Guardian by Lawrence Donegan. There’s a good argument to be made that agents are necessary, but it needs to be put in the context that their consistently underhand and greedy practices have at times severely damaged the sport and thus they need to be kept under extremely tight leashes.  Surely they could do their job being paid a lot less than the £70.7m the Premier League spent in the past year. Yet Donegan’s defense is instead a blabbering and completely irrelevant rant about Simon Cowell’s role in the entertainment industry: “The X Factor producer and judge runs his own record company which, coincidentally, signs lots of acts that appear on the X Factor.” Who the hell cares? Football does not need to take its cues from the pop industry.
• Why did Manchester United pull out of their deal for Serbian youngster Adem Ljajic? The Guardian speculates on, but offers little evidence for, further fnancial problems stemming from the Glazers’ debt-laden takeover.
• There was a pretty extraordinary ending to the Copa Sudamericana final, as Ecuador’s Liga Deportiva Universitaria went down to nine men, lost 3-0 to Fluminense in Rio de Janeiro and still hung for the title thanks to their 5-1 lead from the first leg.

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

Big Story
I’m pretty sure Sepp Blatter and FIFA’s executive committee is trying to drive me insane, if not kill me. I’m not sure why they’d have a vendetta against a little-known British-born blogger exiled to the United States, but there can be little other reasonable explanation for them forcing me to write the same commentary over and over again on their practices: stop forcing me to presume you are fixing everything!

Once again, it’s the timing that’s suspect, as FIFA’s World Cup 2010 Organising Committee today announced the seeds for this week’s World Cup finals draw (the top eight seeds in pot 1 are South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, England, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain), with France notably missing out on a pot 1 seeding spot as FIFA decided to use their rankings from October rather than November to determine the order: the Netherlands had been ranked higher the previous month. Some immediately suspected FIFA were making sure France weren’t seeded, at the least, as the controversy over their qualification drags on.

It’s fair enough to use the October rankings rather than November’s, simply because that did put every European team on a level playing field in terms of competitive games played in qualification. FIFA’s Vice-President Jerome Valcke explained, “This is not a case of wanting Holland to be seeded instead of France, just that the feeling was the October seedings represented the best teams.” Yet bizarrely, Valcke went on to say that the decision had been made “last month” — if so, why did they not bother to tell anyone?

Once again, by not setting the rules for seeding in advance and releasing the information in public, the speculation that FIFA are making the decision most convenient to them is fed, just as with the playoffs seeding controversy. If FIFA could only set and release their seeding procedures ahead of knowing which countries would be seeded depending on the system they decide to use, I wouldn’t have to keep writing the same thing: a little more transparency goes a long way.

Worldwide News

• This is one way to fight back: following the controversy over the amount the Premier League is spending on agents’ fees, the agents association has no shame in calling for their important role to be acknowledged by being awarded a position on the Football Association Council. Supporters Direct’s acid commentary on this is a must-read.
• Remember Alisher Usmanov, the Uzbeki oligarch and Arsenal shareholder who once threatened to sue this very blog for posting information about his criminal past from former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray?  Well, Arsenal’s biggest shareholder Stan Kroenke obviously wanted to know more about that as their power struggle heated up over the past year, sending a private investigator hired by the company working for Arsenal’s board to Uzbekistan to dig up more information. Unfortunately, the Uzbeki authorities weren’t exactly cooperative, and as is his wont, Usmanov is up in arms about this terrible slight to his reputation. Once again, Alisher, if you have nothing to hide, stand up and prove it by taking up former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray’s offer to let the courts decide.
• It’s very impressive that WPS expansion team the Atlanta Beat will be playing in a brand new soccer stadium come spring, as the Atlanta Journal Constitution explains: “Kennesaw State announced Tuesday the school will build an 8,300-seat stadium for its women’s soccer team, a facility officials called “the first of its kind in the world” because of its size and focus on women’s soccer.” Great news, and a $16.5m project is entirely reasonable. Just one question: how do you build a stadium in five months?
• Finally, Pitch Invasion shockingly wins futfanatico award for best blog with “futfanatico” in the URL!

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

The game could be taking place in no more beautiful setting.

Donbass Arena

Exterior of Donbass Arena

Donbass Arena seating

Donbass Arena Club Shop

Inside Donbass Arena

The outside of Donbass Arena, beautifully landscaped.

Yet the 51,000 capacity stadium may not be as full as it has been since it opened in August, as huge crowds have cheered on Shakhtar Donetsk to a series of resounding victories since the stadium’s opening.

High ticket prices set by the Ukrainian Football Federation have caused an outcry ahead of Wednesday’s international, with Shakhtar Donetsk’s President Rinat Akhmetov yesterday writing an open letter to FFU President Grygoriy Surkis, accusing the FFU of greed and writing (in the official Donbass Arena’s site’s own translation) that “FFU has fixed incredibly high prices for tickets. I have been telling several times and I repeat once again that the supporters were treated, to put it mildly, badly. Moreover, we are facing the risk to see an empty stadium during this principally important match.”

Such beauty, such an important occasion. . .But a half-empty stadium?

Before kick-off, Uruguay vs Argentina, World Cup 2010 qualifier. Centenario Stadium, Montevideo, Uruguay. October 14th, 2009.

Photo credit: Joelr on Flickr, via the Pitch Invasion Photo Pool.

Hungary vs. Sweden, Puskás Ferenc Stadion, September 5th 2009. Sweden won the 2010 World Cup qualifier 2-1.

Photo credit: photoreti via the Pitch Invasion photo pool.