Beware the Footballiphate

It's coming. Already taken over Egypt and most of the rest of the Middle East. And Italy is definitely gonna be a part of this one.

U.S. v. Ghana

I had intended more regular World Cup blogging, but I've been busy enough with other things that I haven't gotten around to it. But here are a few quick thoughts on the American and Ghanian teams leading up to today's match, which could reasonably be called the biggest in both nations' histories.

-- The Robert Green mess-up masked the fact that the U.S. was just as good mediocre as England in the first game. Quite frankly, the U.S. was fortunate to escape with a point, not just because of Green's fumble -- I think the U.S. would have pressed much more in the 2nd half if the score wasn't tied, and may have found an equalizer anyway -- but because of the general listlessness of England's game. Then again, England was fortunate to escape with a point as well. Other than the botched covering that led to Gerrard's gimme goal, England had no offensive momentum at all. (This continued through the Algeria game in which they didn't score and even into the Slovenia game in which they only scored once. That said, before the tourney started all the talk about England focused on their slow, old, battered defense and the question marks in goal. They only conceded once in the group stage, and that was a fluke, despite starting four different center backs.)

-- The two quick goals conceded to Slovenia revealed the U.S.'s major weakness: there is often space in between the central midfield and the central defense that can be exploited. This is nothing new: Slovenia's first goal was pretty similar to the goal scored by Giuseppe Rossi in the Confederation's Cup last summer. It also demonstrated that Gooch Onyewu simply isn't up to snuff, because of injuries or otherwise. He's great in the air, but he's too slow right now, and his reads are not sharp. Two of the three goals conceded by the U.S. were partially or fully his fault. The problem is that Clarence Goodson is probably not ready for prime time (and the knock-out stages isn't the time to experiment) and Bornstein is a ticking time bomb if he plays on the left and pushes Bocanegra into CB where he really belongs. (Credit where it's due: Bornstein was pretty good against Algeria, but then again Algeria is not a very good team, and did not attack down Bornstein's flank at all.) Bocanegra lacks the pace to be truly effective as a left back, although he makes up for it somewhat with intelligence. The U.S. doesn't have great options here, and eventually it will cost them. It nearly cost them escape from the group stages.

-- On the plus side, the U.S. has a lot more attacking power than most give them credit for, and it hasn't been fully unleashed yet. Consider this: the U.S. has scored four six four goals so far, and none of them have been by a striker. We know that Altidore can score in international play; he was fantastic in qualifying and scored a great goal against Spain in Confederation's Cup. And Buddle demonstrated that he can knock them in with his brace against Australia the week before the tournament began. Findley + Jabulani = Unmitigated Goal-Missing Disaster, but Gomez can also score, especially in his best role as 2nd half energy sub. But Dempsey should have three or four or even five goals by now rather than his one, Donovan is always dangerous and never seems to miss easy chances, and Bradley has demonstrated more than once that he is capable of coming up big. If the strikers get going, the U.S. can win a goal-fest even if the defense isn't the best. Not to mention, the U.S. has recently been known for scoring off of set-pieces, and have had no goals in those situations yet except for the mysteriously disallowed Edu goal. These chances are often created by good hold-up play by the forwards that lead to fouls, so Altidore and whoever pairs him will be very important moving forward. The U.S. should have scored three or four in the Algeria game (e.g. Dempsey's unfairly disallowed goal, Dempsey hitting the post then missing a wide-open net on the rebound, Altidore's miss from point-black, Buddle's header straight at the keeper, etc.), but they are usually pretty economical. The more comfortable and confident they get, the more likely those chances are not wasted.

-- The U.S. midfield is unsettled, and always has been. Michael Bradley is a mainstay and has been phenomenal, but he's been partnered at different times by Clark, Torres, Edu, and Feilhaber. None have especially impressed. Feilhaber has arguably been the best, but his first instinct is to join the attack, as is Bradley's. Given the concerns about the back four, one of the two central midfielders has to stay home. That's not Torres' role, as was clearly demonstrated in the first half against Slovenia. Clark might be the best candidate for that role, but his distribution and general presence on the ball is horrible and always has been. Costly turnovers and failed and missed passes are practically his calling card. Plus, his ball-watching nearly cost the U.S. dearly by handing Gerrard a goal. Edu hasn't been bad... but he hasn't been great either. If the U.S. had a solid holding midfielder that could support the defense, distribute well, and ignite the attack -- think Xabi Alonso or Javier Mascherano -- they would be a much better team. Then again, who wouldn't?

-- Ghana have scored two goals so far in this tournament, both on penalties. They've also conceded two. Their so-called forwards and attacking midfielders seem to have no finishing ability whatsoever, and this is not a new phenomenon: they haven't scored more than one goal in something like their last 14 matches. Nevertheless, they have advanced through the group stage in a very tough group (including Germany, Serbia, and Australia) after going to the semi-finals of the Africa Cup six months ago. In short, they know how to win close matches. They will be comfortable if the score is 0-0 in the 88th minute. They will be comfortable if the game is tied and goes into extra time. If it goes to penalties, well, all bets are always off, but Tim Howard (the U.S. keeper) is notorious for coming up big in those situations. Still, it wouldn't be surprising to see Ghana play a very defensive game, and try to strike on counterattacks and set-pieces.

-- That said, Ghana's strengths are the U.S.'s weaknesses. They have a very strong central midfield, and the wingplay of the U.S. isn't their greatest asset. Ghana is very fast, and could thus exploit the shaky LB position of the U.S. -- It's shaky no matter who plays there, frankly -- and the slow, foul-prone CBs. They are also very strong, thus negating the one advantage the U.S. often has in central defense. At different times, Onyewu, Bornstein, and DeMerit have all shown proclivities for conceding penalties. So far, Ghana has been able to draw them. If Ghana gets one and converts, they may be able to defend a one goal lead no matter what the U.S. throws at them. In fact, this was exactly how the U.S. was eliminate from the last World Cup: Ghana was granted a penalty on a dubious horrible call against Onyewu, and won the game 2-1. This is the U.S.'s biggest danger. They have to be quick, decisive, and careful in defense. That has never been this group's strong suit. The importance of strong defensive central midfield play cannot be overstated here. The U.S. also has a nasty habit of attracting red cards in important international games. Some of this has been poor refereeing in the past, but it has to be avoided today.

If it were up to me I'd play this line-up, including Bornstein because I just can't trust Onyewu to not blow an assignment or concede a penalty right now, and pray that he (Bornstein) doesn't combust just yet:

---------------------Howard------------------
---Cherundolo---DeMerit---Bocanegra---Bornstein---
----Donovan----Bradley-----Edu-----Dempsey-----
---------------Altidore---------Buddle----------

That line-up is the best for the counterattack, hold-up, and wingplay, which should be the U.S.'s offensive strategy. To begin the game, at least. That, and getting a goal from set-pieces. The U.S. need to score first, for two reasons. First, because otherwise they may get impatient and leave open spaces that Ghana can exploit; Second, because if Ghana scores first they are a good enough defensive team to keep a clean sheet. They aren't likely to concede multiple second-half goals like Slovenia did.

This is a winnable game for both teams, and I'm looking forward to it. Let's just hope it isn't decided by poor calls from the officials.

FWIW, 538 has the game at 50-50 odds, mostly because of a continental advantage for Ghana. Discarding that, the U.S. are favored to avenge 2006. As we've seen, home-continent advantage has been pretty inconspicuous so far in this tournament. The U.S. can only hope it remains that way.

The World Cup: High Politics and Low Journalism

For some reason, IR students and scholars seem to be much more interested in soccer. Maybe it's because it's the world's sport. Maybe it's because significant international events like the Football War have been influenced by the game. Maybe it's because researchers can link soccer performance to national cultures of violence (pdf). Pop social scientists and public intellectuals have also found soccer a ripe subject for examining the world.

IPE@UNC is no exception. We've had a lot of posts discussing soccer and its role in international politics. So I was pleased today to see a couple of news items relating soccer and international studies. First, Emmanuel points out how soccer broadcasts may be used as a type of weapon by South Korea on North Korea:

Recently, the South Koreans have claimed that the fatal sinking of one of their military vessels was due to foul play from the North Koreans. While we wait for more solid evidence to this effect from the South Koreans, it seems they have come up with their own unique way to get back at Dear Leader Kim Jong-il's strange play acting. It turns out that, in the absence of a solid telecommunications infrastructure, North Korea relies on South Korea to provide a retransmission of international broadcasts of the World Cup. So, if South Korea really wants to turn the screws into North Korea, it's "no World Cup football for you, murderous regime."

If this is true it will have to go down as one of the strangest sanctions threats in the history of international politics, if it even qualifies as a sanctions threat. Is there a demand attached, or is this mere retaliation? And could this possibly have a real effect on politics within the DPRK, or on relations between the North and South? I doubt it, but I suppose stranger things have happened.

Like this:



Gize? Srsly. South Africa is not a continent. But if it were it wouldn't be South America. Unless, as Deadspin notes, South Africa just won a war that nobody knew about. Come on, people! It's almost World Cup time! Time to start figuring out where other places are! We've only got a month!

Walk On

Fellow IPE blogger Emmanuel and IPE@UNC have a strong rapport (I hope), forged from disagreeing about nearly everything, but he has sunk to a new low in his hatred of everything American: bashing the Glazer family, American owners of venerated English soccer team Manchester United:

Loyal Manchester United fans and Britons in general abhor the Glazers for being ugly Americans and, worse yet, debt-laden ugly Americans [is that redundant?] seemingly hellbent on ruining the finances of such a storied team. There has been a strong grassroots movement via the Manchester United Supporters Trust (MUST) to throw out these Yankee bums.

Now, look. I'm a huge Liverpool supporter in the EPL. Huge. My wife has learned no to speak to me for at least a half hour after Liverpool has lost. My only sports passion stronger than Liverpool is St. Louis Cardinals baseball. (Full disclosure: This blog is divided: Alex is an Arsenal supporter. As far as I know, Dr. Oatley and Sarah have no affiliation.)

Liverpool and Manchester United are heated rivals, so I'm about to do something that I should never do: sing the praises of Manchester United. A Liverpool fan praising the Glazers is like a Red Sox fan saying good things about George Steinbrenner, and I truly hate doing it. But Emmanuel has brought out the nationalism in me -- which is very hard to do, I might add -- and I feel compelled to defend the American Glazers against his attacks. I've previously poked fun at the fact that Manchester United are now sponsored by the U.S. government (via AIG), but here's the thing: since the Glazers took over, debt or no debt, Manchester United has been remarkably successful. Here is Manchester United's list of accomplishments since the Glazer family took charge in 2005:

2005-06: FA Cup winners
2006-07: EPL winners
2007-08: EPL winners, UEFA Champions' League winners
2008-09: FIFA Club World Cup winners, Carling Cup winners, EPL winners, UEFA Champions' League runners-up
2009-10 (in progress): Carling Cup winners, possible EPL winners

Now I'd say that's a helluva record, considering that in the previous 5 years their total silverware was one FA Cup (2004) and one EPL championship (2002-03). Hmm... maybe all that American cash, even if serviced, has done some good for the team. Emmanuel decries the sale of Cristiano Ronaldo to Real Madrid, but ManU made a healthy sum on the deal: he was bought for £12.24mn, and sold for £80mn. I'd say a 650% profit, plus a closet-full of silverware in the meantime, is a good bit of business, wouldn't you?

Emmanuel wants to say that Barcelona is better-run. That may be. But Barcelona is also the best team in the world, an extreme outlier in every sense. You can't copy their model simply by booting the Americans out. It's just a touch more complicated than that.

A Test of "Soccer Violence"

Danny Mwanga was the first overall pick in the recent MLS soccer draft. He is also the son of Belmand Mwanga, an adviser to Joseph-Desire Mobutu, the former dictator of Zaire the Democratic Republic of Congo. When Mobutu was overthrown, Mwanga senior went missing and is presumably dead. The effect on Danny was surely profound:

"I miss him. I wish he were here today," Mwanga said in French. Although his English is excellent, Mwanga still jumps at any chance to speak his mother tongue. Those who doubt that Mwanga is 18 -- and some do -- have but to look at his boyish looks and his pronounced cheekbones, which punctuate a face he hasn't quite grown into yet. He's coy and soft-spoken. If you want to be able to hear what Mwanga has to say, you need to sidle up to him. Whenever his father is mentioned, he lowers his gaze to the ground and turns the volume down even further. "I don't like to talk about it," he said.

After his father's disappearance in 1998, Mwanga's mother fled to America. They hadn't seen each other in five years when Danny, whose given name is Jean-Marie Daniel, was awarded refugee status and followed.

Why is this interesting (other than on a human level)? Because if this study [pdf] is to be believed, Mwanga will soon be one of the most violent soccer players in MLS. It will be interesting to see if that's what happens, or if the effect of "cultures of violence" is not present in MLS.

(edited for clarity in language)

Markets in Everything?

I came across the above t-shirt while browsing an online store. It's a fan t-shirt celebrating the North Korean soccer team. Demand must not have been brisk, because the t-shirt is now on clearance. I guess that's no surprise.

Anyway, for those interested in following North Korea's economy (what there is of it), there's a blog for that.

Ping-Pong Soccer Diplomacy

We've written before about how soccer and international politics intersect. Now I see that Michel Platini, the President of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), has been playing peacemaker lately:

Two weeks ago, he was in Jerusalem discussing with Israel’s head of state, Shimon Peres, the role soccer might play in the Middle East peace process.

Platini followed that up Wednesday by accompanying the presidents of Turkey and Armenia at a World Cup soccer match between the two nations in Bursa. It was the first time an Armenian president had attended a bilateral event in Turkey since relationships were broken off during World War I.

UEFA, the Union of European Football Associations, which Platini heads, heralded the event as “Football for peace — three Presidents in Bursa” over a picture of Armenia’s Serzh Sargsyan; Turkey’s Abdullah Gul; and UEFA’s Platini side by side in the tribune.

To his credit, Platini isn't pulling a Bono: he knows his job is to promote the integrity of the sport and leave the politics to the politicians. And, quite frankly, his current task might be nearly as difficult as getting a meaningful peace agreement in Palestine. He's trying to bring salary caps to soccer. And not just one league... he wants to simultaneously achieve this for all the leagues in Europe.

There was plenty of skepticism toward a former player pleading the case that sport in Europe needs what it gets in America — some acknowledgement of its special place in society and some freedom to operate under its own laws.

But Platini is making progress. In September, the European Commission, the executive arm of the E.U., held a two-day conference on licensing systems for club competitions. Surprisingly, this conference, for all sports, broadly supported Platini’s determination to bring the soccer teams within Europe, even those run by free-spending multibillionaires, under an UEFA umbrella to regulate club spending.

Platini has a trump card: UEFA runs the two most prestigious club tournaments in the world (the Champion's League and Europa League), so if national football associations don't play ball with him, he can kick them out of those tournaments (if he has the support of other leagues).

It's fascinating to me to see how national/regional governments deal with sports differently. In some places, they are subsidized. In others, heavily regulated. In some, professional leagues are given monopoly exemptions. In others, they are susceptible to competition. In some, there are pay limits. In others, none at all.

These differences are interesting. I wonder if they are emblematic of national/regional differences more generally (as this paper argues, ungated pdf here) or whether it is just a coincidence of history.

U.S.A. v. Mexico

Today at 4 p.m. EDT, the men's national soccer teams of the U.S. and Mexico square off in a World Cup qualifying game at the Estadio Azteca in Mexico City. The U.S. is coming off a thrilling Confederation's Cup campaign where they were throttled by Italy and Brazil before dismantling Egypt and Spain to reach the final against Brazil. The U.S. took a 2-0 lead into the second half of that game before collapsing in the final 15 minutes. This game is important for both teams' chances of qualifying for next summer's World Cup, but it is critical for Mexico. The top three teams from CONCACAF automatically qualify, and while the U.S. sits comfortably in 2nd place Mexico is in 4th. If Mexico doesn't win its home games, the road to the World Cup is made much more difficult.

Since the Confederation's Cup, Mexico beat the U.S. 5-0 in the Gold Cup, but that featured none of the likely U.S. starters, and few of the reserves. The U.S. used that tournament to test and evaluate some of their younger, marginal talent; the team that beat Spain and pushed Brazil to the brink is the team that will face Mexico today.

The relevant facts are these: the U.S. has never beaten Mexico in Mexico, and have only managed a draw once. And the Estadio Azteca is one of the most intimidating places in the world to play: 105,000 rabid, abusive fans (officials had to install a barbed wire fence to separate spectators from the players) who hurl insults and objects. They really really REALLY hate the U.S. team, and they expect a win. Perhaps even worse, the Estadio Azteca is 7,350 feet above sea level, and the air is badly polluted. Moreover, Mexico moved the starting time from 7 p.m. to 4 p.m. to take advantage of the oppressive heat. It is impossible to fully acclimate to conditions like those, so conditioning will be key.

So prediction time. I don't see the U.S. winning this match. Mexico needs it too badly and has every advantage pointing in their favor. There are good reasons why the U.S. has never won in Mexico (see preceding paragraph), and despite the fact that the U.S. has recently played the best soccer in their history, they've been inconsistent over the past six months and are fairly evenly matched against Mexico. On a neutral field the U.S. wins, but this isn't a neutral field: the structural factors make this game very difficult for the U.S. to win.

However, the U.S. has recently played the best soccer in their history, and goalie Tim Howard can overcome a multitude of faults. He outclassed Iker Casillas (often mentioned as the best goalie in the world) in the win against Spain, and is now in the top 5 or so goalies in the world (Mexico's Ochoa is also in that conversation). So I predict a 1-1 draw in which Mexico controls much of the game, but the U.S. defense-plus-Howard repels most of the attack and gets a goal on a counter-attack. For this to happen, Coach Bradley must use all three substitutes, and use them wisely. If the team gets gassed at the end -- as they did against Brazil -- Mexico is good enough to take advantage and score a late goal. This should be the starting lineup for the U.S.:

---------------Howard--------------------
Spector---Onyewu---DeMerit---Bocanegra
Dempsey---Bradley---Clark---Donovan
---------Altidore-------Davies------------

Substitutes will depend on whose playing well and who runs out of steam, but I would look for Feilhaber to replace Clark in the 65-70th minute, and Holden to replace Altidore (with Dempsey moving up to forward) around the same time. If the U.S. is leading, then Clark or Ching may replace Davies to hold up the ball and waste time.

No matter the result, it should be a great game. It is televised on Telemundo (Spanish) and Mun2 (English).

How Soccer Illustrates Globalization

One of William Easterly's students guest-posts on globalization and soccer:

Some “soccer economists” argue that nations that are worse at soccer have benefited from exporting their players to world-class foreign clubs, where they gain valuable skills and experience before returning to play for their home country This is similar to recent literature that questions the traditional Brain Drain fear, with the Brain Circulation alternative – skilled emigrants bring home skills and connections that could be as valuable to their home country as the skills brought back by exported soccer players.

But there is also a homegrown story. As Dani Rodrik points out, the Egyptian team that beat Italy had a majority of players with experience playing in domestic, rather than foreign clubs. The USA team that similarly surpassed expectations has key players from both domestic and foreign clubs. So taking advantage of globalization perhaps requires BOTH strong domestic capabilities and international links.

One nation’s strategy for developing a strong domestic soccer league will be very different from the next. American kids who play under the supervision of soccer moms are different from the street kids in a Brazilian favela. Perhaps the venerable theory of comparative advantage needs to become more complex as each country learns to play to its strengths and use more of whatever are its most abundant resources to compete globally.

If I had known that there was such a job as "soccer economist" I would have stopped worrying about international financial regulatory policies a long time ago. Alas and alack, it's too late for me.

More seriously, the last paragraph is true and under-discussed. In introductory courses and textbooks we often talk about "comparative advantage" as if it were a general, exogenously-given thing. In truth, comparative advantages can be quite specific, change over time, and can sometimes be engineered through public investment. We don't often think about this in terms of sports, but the U.S.S.R. certainly spent a lot of money training Olympic athletes, especially in high-profile sports like gymnastics, basketball, hockey, swimming, and weight-lifting. I recall reading somewhere (can't find the link right now) that China invested a lot of money in "soft" Olympic events in which they were not typically competitive in order to pick up a higher metal count.

But back to soccer and whether it really does explain the world: social scientists don't have only to look at the implications of soccer on trade, brain drain, or immigration; several political scientists recently studied [pdf] national cultures of violence by looking at the behavior of soccer players. And nationalist forces have instituted the new "6+5" rule for UEFA club matches, mandating a certain percentage of "native" players on professional teams. These quotas serve the same political function in soccer as they do in other types of trade: local workers who face new international competition seek some protection from that competition in the form of regulatory rents.

Can the FA take UEFA to the WTO Dispute Settlement Court?

And what are the geopolitical implications of one nation's central bank sponsoring another nation's championship team?

Iranian Government Retires Four-Elevenths of the Soccer Team's Starting Line-up

From CNN:

Four Iranian footballers have been "retired" from the national side after protesting against the contested election result in the country during a match against South Korea, according to media reports.

Members of Iran's national soccer team sported green armbands in their game against South Korea.

The players drew attention to the situation in Iran by wearing green armbands during last week's World Cup qualifying match in Seoul.

Green was the color used by opposition leader Mir Hossein Moussavi during his campaign for the presidency and has been widely worn by supporters protesting since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was announced the winner.

Six players wore the armbands during the first half of the match, returning in the second minus the accessories.

However, according to Iranian news reports four players -- Ali Karimi, 31, Mehdi Mahdavikia, 32, Hosein Ka'abi, 24 and Vahid Hashemian, 32 -- have been "retired" from the sport following the gesture.

The pro-government newspaper, Iran, reported the players had received the equivalent of a life ban.

Ahmadinejad is a known football fan, and has taken a keen interest in the national team's affairs.

Last week he compared protesters in Tehran to fans of a losing soccer team.

In 2006 Iran was banned from international competition for a short time by the world governing body FIFA after claims of improper interference by his government.