The 2010 World Cup

[Lord Blackadder]

Can't wait for the next round of matches. The Netherlands-Brazil match could be a stunnner, and Argentina-Germany should be just as exciting.

I'd like to see Uruguay beat Ghana with a late goal in extra time after a close game.

 

[theITGuy]

Can't wait for the next round of matches. The Netherlands-Brazil match could be a stunnner, and Argentina-Germany should be just as exciting.

Agreed. My pre-tournament pick was Holland vs Germany so I'm counting on those two...also I'm hoping that unlike 2006 the Argentinians don't provoke the Germans (think Torsten Frings suspended for the Italy game)

-J.-

 

[Lord Blackadder]

So what's new....?
South American and European sides dominate the World Cup.... been like that for ages. Sometimes a team or two from other continents surprise us.

North America and Asia are growing markets with tons of potential. USA, South Korea and Japan all played well at this tournament, and, crucially, will continue to improve. Soon we will be making regular quarter- and semifinal appearances, and eventually the Final. It may sound a bit bullish, but I seriously belive that the USA will someday be a much, much bigger footballing nation with regards to team USA and the MLS. We are already huge consumers of the sport, and more and more US-based fans are taking interest in the national team and domestic league.

 

[MacsRgr8]

It's all about money.
The best players play where the money is biggest. Playing in the CL is the pinnacle for a professional footballer.
The CL is the highest platform, and will be for years to come. The CL is something European, being dominated by the Big 4 of nations: England, Spain, Italy and Germany.
A player from Brazil would love to play for a Real or Barca. A US player would like to be in the PL, etc.

And because the sport is being dominated by European money, it will stay here.
The South Americans love their football, have good national competitions but still try to get into European teams...
As there are so many talented South Americans, many of them playing over here, their national teams will always be of a high level.

Unless more US citizens will watch football (NOT SOCCER) than over here in Europe, then the money will shift across the world. And TBO, I don't think that will ever happen.
The US have other great sports like MLB, NBA, NFL and NHL that compete on TV.

Here in Europe we don't really have a sport which competes with football. Sure, some nations have other popular sports (rugby in the UK, speed skating in Holland) but we all have one sport which is by far the most popular in every nation in Europe: football!

And because we all live in comparatively small countries (compared to the US) and so close together we love to challenge our top national sides against each other: CL... watched by millions and millions.... across the globe.

That is something that is much harder to achieve in North America and Asia.

BTW, traveling around Asia (and Australia) really gives you the feeling how big the Premiership is in the world.
You can watch PL games tens of thousands of miles away... live.. in the middle of the night.

It will take an enormous amount of time and investment to get that kind of "hugeness" of football anywhere else.... I don't think we will watch a MLS (MLF???? ) game live in Europe for decades, if ever.

But I do watch MLB here, live.

Football is not a global sport. We don't even know any team in the J-league over here. South Korea: Do they even have a professional competition? Surely.. but I don't know for sure.
Who has won the MLS last year? Who was the top scorer? Sure, a football enthusiast living in the US will know. But the average PL, CL, WC watcher hasn't got a clue, and doesn't care.

The only area outside Europe trying to gain the momentum: the Middle East. HUGE money is being offered to mostly ex-stars....
But, hey... nothing new there.

So I doubt it that (besides a fluke) a non-European or South American side will ever win the World Cup.
The sport is simply too precious in those two continents. Young kids there always play football on the streets and in school. Sure, good players from countries outside these 2 continents are there. But, like baseball, ice hockey and basketball belong to the US and Canada, football belong to South America and Europe.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Just some food for thought. The most successful World Cup, in terms of money, was the '96 Cup in the US and Americans are the largest tourist group at this years WC. What America lacks in passion in makes up for in sheer numbers. As Stalin once said, quantity has a quality all it's own.

Also, I assume we are just talking strictly men's sports because the US Woman's national team isn't a push over.


Lethal

 

[Lord Blackadder]

It's all about money.
The best players play where the money is biggest. Playing in the CL is the pinnacle for a professional footballer.

Arguably true. It's certainly one of the highest levels of competition - though competing in the World Cup is probably still seen as the top acheivement from a players' perspective. From a business perspective the CL is probably the top.

And because the sport is being dominated by European money, it will stay here.
The South Americans love their football, have good national competitions but still try to get into European teams...
As there are so many talented South Americans, many of them playing over here, their national teams will always be of a high level.

I would argue that European leagues have less impact on the skill of national teams than domestic youth development does. The Champions League directly funds clubs but one could argue that it can actually hinder the development of a national team by prioritizing the needs of clubs over national football associations as a whole.

Unless more US citizens will watch football (NOT SOCCER) than over here in Europe, then the money will shift across the world. And TBO, I don't think that will ever happen.
The US have other great sports like MLB, NBA, NFL and NHL that compete on TV.

I know it's splitting hairs, but just as a factoid I deem it worth mentioning that "soccer" is an English term that we Americans took up, and the Brits subsequently abandoned, presumably to have something to complain about when we use it.

Here in Europe we don't really have a sport which competes with football. Sure, some nations have other popular sports (rugby in the UK, speed skating in Holland) but we all have one sport which is by far the most popular in every nation in Europe: football!

And because we all live in comparatively small countries (compared to the US) and so close together we love to challenge our top national sides against each other: CL... watched by millions and millions.... across the globe.

That is something that is much harder to achieve in North America and Asia.

Good points. Up until the recent past, the USA seldom played outside the USA except when playing in the World Cup.

What we do have here in the Americas are a bunch of good Central American teams and some outstanding South American ones. If the USA spends more time playing the likes of Mexico, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay - not to mention Argentina and Brazil - we will have all the top competition we could ask for without ever setting foot in Europe. Additionally, Bob Bradley and US Soccer have recently been taking the national squad overseas for more friendlies against tough opposition, which has already paid dividends.

BTW, traveling around Asia (and Australia) really gives you the feeling how big the Premiership is in the world.
You can watch PL games tens of thousands of miles away... live.. in the middle of the night.

It will take an enormous amount of time and investment to get that kind of "hugeness" of football anywhere else.... I don't think we will watch a MLS (MLF???? ) game live in Europe for decades, if ever.

MLS will likely never be as big as the top leagues in Europe. But it is reasonable to have as a goal a league the size of the English Championship, or possibly the Dutch or even French league. Big, high-quality but not at the top.

Anyway, in terms of the World Cup, we don't need the MLS to grow massively for our national team to improve. Brazil and Argentina have healthy "mid-level" leagues that few Europeans watch, but the national teams are among the best and they develop excellent players in droves. By contrast, England has arguably the biggest domestic league but their national team and youth development are currently under scrutiny.

So I doubt it that (besides a fluke) a non-European or South American side will ever win the World Cup.
The sport is simply too precious in those two continents. Young kids there always play football on the streets and in school. Sure, good players from countries outside these 2 continents are there. But, like baseball, ice hockey and basketball belong to the US and Canada, football belong to South America and Europe.

I think there is some truth in this - Europe and South America will always be footballing regions first and foremost. Most of the top athletes in the USA will play traditional American sports. One important thing to remember though, is that most sports fans support more than one sport here - every NFL, NBA or MLB fan is a potential football fan too.

But the USA (and China or India), have enough people and big enough economies to support a handful of sports at the highest possible level simultaneously. The talent pools are enormous. USA made it farther in the WC than quite a few absolutely football-crazed nations. As a whole, the USA is not a footballing nation. But when you look at the number of Americans who are fans of football, the numbers are very large and growing.

As an aside, more kids play football in the USA than you'd think. Pretty much every single town in the US has a municipal "soccer field" in it (often several), and nearly every high school and college has a team, in addition to the US professional league pyramid. So the basic underpinnings are there. Dozens of millions of Americans play the game every week.

Anyway, I don't want to bang on about it too much, and it may be many years before any of this comes to pass - or it might not. But it could, and I think it will.

 

[awmazz]

Unless more US citizens will watch football (NOT SOCCER) than over here in Europe, then the money will shift across the world. And TBO, I don't think that will ever happen.

~

Football is not a global sport. We don't even know any team in the J-league over here. South Korea: Do they even have a professional competition? Surely.. but I don't know for sure.
Who has won the MLS last year? Who was the top scorer? Sure, a football enthusiast living in the US will know. But the average PL, CL, WC watcher hasn't got a clue, and doesn't care.

The only area outside Europe trying to gain the momentum: the Middle East. HUGE money is being offered to mostly ex-stars....

Australian clubs are now in the Asian Champions League so we're starting to see games like Sydney vs Osaka now. So I'd say that's momentum a bit, without having to buy ex-stars. North America could do the same by combining with the South American copa if they could arrange it, and you'd start seeing LA Galaxy vs Boca Juniors for example.

I reckon if US Colleges took the sport up in a big way, which I believe they will eventually, you'll also have huge investment in developing players for the professional clubs just like with gridiron now. The problem with major networks picking it up and promoting it though is just like here in Australia, the lack of commercial break time during a match. The networks won't even touch this World Cup that's on now so it's on a public station, SBS, which pretty much single handedly supports the sport here all by itself.

Anyway, the PL *was* growing here for years, but it's stagnating now in my opinion after Murdoch bought the rights off the BBC a few years ago so it's only on cable now. We can't even see the Match of the Day weekly highlights any more on TV like we used to when the BBC had it. Nothing at all unless you pay for cable or go watch it in a pub somewhere. There's only *one* live game from England a year, the FA Cup Final and that's it. And a couple of selected CL matches (again, all only on SBS, never a commercial network). Out of sight, out of mind as they say...

The Bundesliga and Serie A are actually what we can watch now on a new free to air commercial sports channel, but no Premier League.

 

[awmazz]

As an aside, more kids play football in the USA than you'd think. Pretty much every single town in the US has a municipal "soccer field" in it (often several), and nearly every high school and college has a team, in addition to the US professional league pyramid. So the basic underpinnings are there. Dozens of millions of Americans play the game every week.

Same here too. More actually play it up to a certain age than any other sport. But then they switch in their mid teens to a more 'manly' sport like Rugby League or Aussie Rules. This is entirely due to the image of the sport, by which I mean the abysmal specatcle we see every four years - Italians rolling around on the ground pretending to be in agony, or pretending to be tripped or hit in the face by a truck like Rivaldo, etc, well it's just a complete joke.

Which is why I riled against the decisions made in Australia's first two games, despite being told 'that's the way it is, suck it up'. I know it just sets the sport here back three steps for every one taken forward. I was getting emails from people who don't usually watch the sport saying how pathetic it is, because they know I follow it. Even got pisstake videos as well. Can you imagine a kid playing football at school copping crap for playing a cry-baby sport all the time from his rugby and rules playing mates? And the girls too? He's going to give the game away and change codes before he's 15, like most of them do.

 

[Silencio]

Australian clubs are now in the Asian Champions League so we're starting to see games like Sydney vs Osaka now. So I'd say that's momentum a bit, without having to buy ex-stars. North America could do the same by combining with the South American copa if they could arrange it, and you'd start seeing LA Galaxy vs Boca Juniors for example.

MLS teams take part in the CONCACEF Champions League.

I reckon if US Colleges took the sport up in a big way, which I believe they will eventually, you'll also have huge investment in developing players for the professional clubs just like with gridiron now.

American college students typically matriculate between the ages of 18-22. You see lots of 20-22 year-old professional soccer players all over the world competing at the highest levels, but kids under 21 would never be physically mature enough for American football.

Soccer at American universities is growing, but it will never be a major incubator of talent. Elite players will be identified and signed professionally long before they're ready to graduate from high school.

 

[awmazz]

So developing young soccer players would be more like baseball then? Like with Little and Minor Leagues etc when they're young and they get picked up by the Major league clubs as they get older?

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Soccer at American universities is growing, but it will never be a major incubator of talent. Elite players will be identified and signed professionally long before they're ready to graduate from high school.

True.

So developing young soccer players would be more like baseball then? Like with Little and Minor Leagues etc when they're young and they get picked up by the Major league clubs as they get older?

Soccer academies for youngsters that ultimately feed into the MLS (and from there to bigger foreign leagues) are ultimately going to produce the best US players of the future. College soccer catches players too late in their development. Players like Wayne Rooney, Christiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi were already in development before they hit their teens.

 

[aloofman]

College soccer catches players too late in their development. Players like Wayne Rooney, Christiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi were already in development before they hit their teens.

There are also aren't enough top college soccer programs to create the kind of talent that can feed into the only pro development league we have. Even if the colleges were further developing young talent (the way academies do in other countries), there wouldn't be enough of them. I think that's where the real bottleneck is. There are a lot of high school soccer players, but few places for them to go to get better, even for the ones that want to.

Of course, it's kind of a chicken/egg thing. There won't be enough college soccer programs to nurture them until they get media attention and, therefore, money. But they won't get more money until they're good enough to warrant the attention. And very few colleges can afford to put more money into athletic programs these days.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Strong domestic player development leads to international success. Just look at our roster of World Cup quarterfinalists for the proof. You don't have to have a strong domestic league to be an international heavy-hitter.

 

[cciliberto33]

I can't wait for GERMANY to slaughter Argentina with Messi: World's most overrated player. Also excited for Holland to bring down Brazil.

 

[Fuzzy14]

Just some food for thought. The most successful World Cup, in terms of money, was the '96 Cup in the US and Americans are the largest tourist group at this years WC. What America lacks in passion in makes up for in sheer numbers. As Stalin once said, quantity has a quality all it's own.

Also, I assume we are just talking strictly men's sports because the US Woman's national team isn't a push over.


Lethal

Assume you mean the 1994 World Cup. But what really measures success in a large sporting event? The 1984 Olympics at LA were considered a success and was one of the first to turn a profit, but the 1996 Olympics at Atlanta despite a profit were not considered as successful due to the atmosphere and over commercialisation. Will this World Cup be considered a success just because it took the football to Africa or otherwise because of the amount of money spent on 1/2 empty stadiums that will turn into white elephants where quite frankly £115m could have been better spent on the community?

I’ve not formed an opinion on it myself yet, was just opening it up for discussion. This sabbatical is doing my head in, we need football on the telly again!

 

[oscillatewildly]

I can't wait for GERMANY to slaughter Argentina with Messi: World's most overrated player. Also excited for Holland to bring down Brazil.

If the German flapper is in goal, put some crosses in for Messi - sadly seen he can also use his head. Re Holland and Brazil, looking forward to Bastos v Robben and seeing how the Dutch defence cope. Can RvP find form on the pitch? He's back to form off it!

Cheers,
OW

 

[aloofman]

Assume you mean the 1994 World Cup. But what really measures success in a large sporting event? The 1984 Olympics at LA were considered a success and was one of the first to turn a profit, but the 1996 Olympics at Atlanta despite a profit were not considered as successful due to the atmosphere and over commercialisation.

There was more to it than that though. A terrorist attack killed a fan, injured others, and cast a pall over the rest of the games. I never thought Atlanta was a very good choice to host the Olympics anyway because the city doesn't have much personality. (This is not a slam on Georgia, which does have personality. Atlanta just isn't an interesting city. Neither is Houston nor Indianapolis.) There were also some questions as to why the US was hosting again so soon after the Los Angeles games and why Athens was denied the centennial games.

Will this World Cup be considered a success just because it took the football to Africa or otherwise because of the amount of money spent on 1/2 empty stadiums that will turn into white elephants where quite frankly £115m could have been better spent on the community?

Only time will tell. Hosting the 1992 Summer Olympics really revived Barcelona and the 1988 games were a coming-out party for Seoul. And if this World Cup proves to everyone that South Africa is up to such a challenge, then it could help them win an Olympic bid or other global events in the future.

There are white elephants left over from many international events though. Canada managed to weather the 1976 Olympic aftermath, which was a financial disaster. One can't help but wonder how much the spending on the 2004 Games contributed to Greece's debt problems though. It's hard to tell now how much of a positive this World Cup will turn out to be for South Africa.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Assume you mean the 1994 World Cup. But what really measures success in a large sporting event?

Oops, yeah I meant the '94 WC and I agree that there are different ways to measure the success of a sporting even which is why I specifically mentioned money as the measuring stick for my example. The population in the US is so great that even if a minority of people in the US love soccer that sill turns out to be 10's of million of people. The nation isn't 'hockey crazy' but we still manage to create some fantastic homegrown talent and it has only been relatively recent that NHL games started to be regularly shown on broadcast TV. I can easily see the same thing happening with soccer.


Lethal

 

[takao]

i think south africa simply was doomed from the beginning with having to host the world cup right after germany
2006 simply set the bar too high with not only organization but also the positive emotions it brought forward

and honestly this world cup will very likely go down in history as a rather bad world cup:
many dull first round games,
vuvuzelas,
many keeper mistakes,
many referee mistakes,
england getting their own wembley-goal
chaotic french

this is the thing what people will remember



about college teams i nthe US: IMHO that isn't going to work.. while it would very likely help the MSL, it sure would cut off the 'top talent' tree ... it would make outstanding talented ones play against other inexpierenced youngster against which they aren't pressed to develop further
meanwhile from 18-22 in europe the top players of their age will be playing in the likes of bundesliga, EPL, la liga playing against older, mature world class defenders, strikers and goal keepers every weekend and having perhaps even dozens of CL or UEFA cup games every year

and at 22 those college players will have to compete with these youngsters...

little fact: Mesut Özil is 21 and played his first Bundesliga game at Schalke in the 2006/2007 season in august nearly 4 years ago.. and with 21 he now goes into this world cup having played more than 100 bundesliga games and over 31 european games

also i think the franchise system with it's lack of promotion up and down secondary leagues etc. is also hindering the MLS to develop... that way top clubs won't be reward and mroe important the bad clubs not nearly punished enough
also it robs fans of no only the enjoyment of being promoted but also the emotional impact of your club having to spend time in a worse league and fighting over weeks against/for such changes

and the NHL is perhaps the most ridiculous example of how a too arrogant league you can ruin a sport internationally... not only are they failing to play on ice rinks the same size as internationally required but also every single year at the international world championship the best players have to stay at home because the NHL don't let their players go or because they manage to have ridiculous play offs taking ages... over the last 20 years ice hockey has taken such a huge downswing especially in the public perception it's not funny anymore

on the other side in the last 20 years american football also managed to start a league similiar to the NFL europe wide and failed with the franchise system hard and now it's back to amateur playing only

the fact that today more people are watching professional ski jumping or biathlon in television in europe than american football ,ice hockey, basketball, handball or baseball should make the _other_ sports worry ....

few sports have developed as much as football did during the same time period and also at the same time stayed so close to it's roots
what do you need to play football ? a ball and a way to mark goals..which makes it playable around the world pretty much everywhere

also football be seen as a "girlie" game it's only that way if you grew up with that and thus having to defend it ... i would simply enjoy watching it and don't worry much about it ... and more enjoyment is always found watching your low level local club with friends at the small playing fields and lower league where it is less about the money (and technical finesse )

also around here in pretty much a given that boys will be playing football in sports education in school ... and not much else

girls playing football is the same as boys playing normal indoor volleyball: non existant

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I don't think this World Cup will be seen as a bad one, there have been a few implosions but overall the infrastructure has held up better than the naysayers predicted, there has been no major criminal incident, and the knockout rounds have been exciting overall (except for the Japan - Paraguay match).

girls playing football is the same as boys playing normal indoor volleyball: non existant

Which is why the USA dominates the Women's World Cup. We get a lot more people into the game than you do - we just don't develop them afterwards.

I have thought about the promotion/relegation thing quite a bit, and concluded that it is not strictly necessary. I agree that it is exciting, and I prefer it, but we just don't have that in our sporting culture here, and I think we can do without it.

College soccer is ultimately a dead end, or nearly one. We need more soccer academies that start kids young, long before they go to college.

Anyways, I don't want to hijack trhe thread with US football discussions...predictions? I think Germany are true contenders for the cup, but I'm going to tip Mad Diego to get Argentina through 2-1. As for Brazil - Netherlands, I think it's going to be a close match but I find it impossible to bet aginast the Brazilians. 1-0 Brazil.

 

[Tilpots]

Any of you Yanks like ESPN.com's Sports Guy Bill Simmons? If you do, you'll love his 20 Questions with the 2010 World Cup.

 

[takao]

Which is why the USA dominates the Women's World Cup. We get a lot more people into the game than you do - we just don't develop them afterwards.

more like "the US dominated women soccer because women soccer never developed much outside of the US prior the late 90ies"
currently though the germans have won 2 world cups in row as well which increased enthuiasm enormously in their country .. but as whole women soccer has still a long way ahead of them.. technically they are quite good but even the german world cup winning team lost friendly games against 2. and 3rd league german club teams.. the physical + speed difference is still there ... but in 10-20 years i would guess for top teams to be on 80-90% of a mens team

I have thought about the promotion/relegation thing quite a bit, and concluded that it is not strictly necessary. I agree that it is exciting, and I prefer it, but we just don't have that in our sporting culture here, and I think we can do without it.

true but it's nearly universal to football culture across the globe.. and it works... currently the MLS isn't bad but it's franchised structure just voids the teams who aren't in of their purpose .. there is no goal to achieve for 2. league clubs or no meaning in losses in first league
it is a brick i nthe way to develop the lower leagues which is currently the problem in the US at least IMHO

Anyways, I don't want to hijack trhe thread with US football discussions...predictions? I think Germany are true contenders for the cup, but I'm going to tip Mad Diego to get Argentina through 2-1. As for Brazil - Netherlands, I think it's going to be a close match but I find it impossible to bet aginast the Brazilians. 1-0 Brazil.

germany vs argentina is a tough call...
just remember 4 years ago: argentina hammered the competition with fantastic football up until the germany game and got upset by the german squad, who was the clear underdog, in a nail biting game of epic proportions

today: while argentina has improved in some players like Messi they have by far not been showing the same kind of short-passing football as 4 years ago, they had lucky goals, offside goals, headers etc. overall they are putting more focus on the individual players like messi and tevez

germany 4 years ago was a team pushed forward simply the enormous home advantage and being motivated enormously, up forward it was mostly podolski, klose getting fed balls by ballack, schweinsteiger making long shots, lahm pressing forward.. all in all still limited football

germany today though is trained 4 more years by the the same coach who was assistant in 2006 with the difference that many of the limited players were replaced with younger technically more adept players and as a result this team is faster and plays stronger attacking football and has quite a few of attacking midfield alternatives on the bench,weaker side: neuer isn't on lehmann level yet

on the other side though it can be said that maradona is very likely equal in terms of being a coach as klinsmann was 2006: an intense motivator while limited in being an actual coach
and both sides takes their opponents quite seriously.. for both teams it means meeting a world cup rival
a deciding question might also be wether argentina can go the full 90/120 minute distance in a game which might not be tilted into their favors early on...i haven't seen a game by argentina at this world cup where it was close for them and they had to go full power ... in many of their games after the 60th-70th minute they seriously turned down their efforts .. wether that was 'saving energy' or 'lack of reserves' i simply don't know
on the german side though you can be sure that even when 1-2 goals down they won't give up...
all in all i'm expecting a very tactical game since argentina has to prevent getting a goal by the germans early on... by now everybody knows that the germans can counterattack


the brazil-holland game is quite similiar setup: brazil has not the same attacking as 4 years ago and tries to be strong on defense and disciplined
meanwhile the dutch have matured a lot on attacking and compensates for the rest with work rate (Kuyt is the outstanding man for me ... he simply has to be swallowing batteries for breakfast)
the key point will very likely be if holland can play with Robben from the start... we all know that the rigth defensive side can hold their own on the brazil side but can their left hold against Robben? key duel to watch for me

my overall guess for those two games:
argentina - germany 1-2 (after 120 minutes, no goals in the first half, 2nd half early argentina lead and late german equalizer)
Holland - Brazil 1-3 (early brazil lead, but then robben equalizer, second half goal for brazil and while holland pushes for late goal they get a counter attack)

for the other two games: let's be honest if uruguay and spain don't win them they deserve to be driving home (even if i really like Barrios as a striker)

 

[awmazz]

Any of you Yanks like ESPN.com's Sports Guy Bill Simmons? If you do, you'll love his 20 Questions with the 2010 World Cup.

The video he links to in that reminds me of watching the 2001 FA Cup final in a pub that was evenly split between Gooners and Scousers. It was all us Arsenal fans making the noise for the whole match which I thought was loud.. but then 8 minutes from the end, and then again 3 minutes from the end when Owen scored twice... then the noise was truly deafening and distorting and the walls were shaking from the sound waves just like the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkzo3H7ZSaM

 

[Don't panic]

Any of you Yanks like ESPN.com's Sports Guy Bill Simmons? If you do, you'll love his 20 Questions with the 2010 World Cup.

awesome piece.

and the sports guy is very influential, he probably contributed as much with this endorsing article to 'convert' the casual fan as the algeria goal.

 

[Silencio]

the fact that today more people are watching professional ski jumping or biathlon in television in europe than american football ,ice hockey, basketball, handball or baseball should make the _other_ sports worry ....

I was under the impression that basketball is growing pretty rapidly in Europe, at least in countries like Spain, Greece, and eastern Europe. The NBA is featuring quite a few European players now, and some pretty good American players have been lured by big paychecks to play in Europe.