Canada 0, Morocco 3; Mexico 2, England 3; USA 1, Belgium 4

So, the co-hosts of this rotten World Cup have been eliminated, pop-pop-pop, in the same early knockout round, and I couldn’t be more pleased; I’ve waited eight years for this moment. Canada, I fault only for having joined a corrupt alliance. (I didn’t much like how the Canadian team played, but put let’s put that aside.) Mexico, I fault for having long ago entered into faustian hosting arrangements with the United States, in this World Cup and in other tournaments; for having greedily sought to host the World Cup a third time, ahead of countries that haven’t had a turn; and for gross inhospitality. All of Ecuador cheered when England beat Mexico. I certainly did, even though I cheer for England as little as possible (just three times since the 1998 World Cup).

As for the USA, well, it may not be gracious to “pile on,” but certain matters must be addressed. If you don’t know the immediate context, you can read about it here or in countless other sources.

Know this, at least: a certain U.S. politician admitted – bragged – that he’d interfered in a supposedly neutral disciplinary process.

As it turned out, the meddling hurt rather than helped the intended beneficiary. The U.S. team already was out of sorts when it took to the field against the Belgians. Those opponents carved up the U.S. with professional, surgical precision – until the last minutes, when the ball was trickling into the U.S. goal every which way; then, they unleashed the “Trump” dance.

It’s gratifying to see on-field retribution. But the urgent lesson is that stricter and more explicit rules against political interference must be adopted, or else matches themselves will lose whatever credibility they once had. (Today, undue controversy surrounded Argentina’s victory over Egypt.)

Moreover: in a better world, certain FIFA officials would be impeached. And a certain country would be barred from the World Cup, for at least as long as the Chileans were barred in the early 1990s for their procedural violation.

It might be objected that in the present case, the politician’s meddling backfired, and so no harm was done. I couldn’t disagree more. A legal analogy: specific instances of bribery, intimidation, or jury tampering might backfire; but they should be punished anyway, because such offenses corrode the integrity and the trustworthiness of the court.

We are sued

It’s time to discuss the lawsuit that Chile has brought against Ecuador and our starting right-back, Byron Castillo. This suit jeopardizes our participation in the World Cup.

Castillo is accused of having lied about his nationality. Ecuador is accused of having fielded him ineligibly in eight World Cup qualification games.

What if Castillo and Ecuador are judged to be at fault?

Ecuador would forfeit all the points earned in those eight games, or else would be disqualified outright. And perhaps banned in the future. Which would be the worst outcome of all.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Who would benefit, then?

Here are two possibilities.

(1) The most obvious one is this. The Chileans, having been awarded the five points that they failed to earn in two games against Ecuador, would ascend to fourth place and qualify for the World Cup. Ecuador, points-poor, would have its qualification rescinded.

The precedent for this outcome was set during the qualification cycle of the 2018 World Cup. Chile and Peru were awarded points deducted from the Bolivians, who had fielded an ineligible player.

(Peru, not Chile, ultimately qualified.)

(2) Other nations with more clout than Chile also covet Ecuador’s place. One possible scenario involves Ecuador being disqualified outright and Italy qualifying for the World Cup.

But isn’t Italy in a different confederation?

Yes.

Wasn’t Italy eliminated by North Macedonia, even before the last European playoff round?

Yes.

Then why Italy?

Because the Italians are the world’s best-ranked eliminated team. By this criterion, they’re the most deserving eliminated team. More deserving than North Macedonia, the team that beat them.

If this reasoning sounds ad hoc to you, well, it is. But I’m not surprised that this option is being discussed.

It wouldn’t be the first time FIFA’s (highly dubious) rankings played such an important role.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

All right, so much for the possible consequences. What merit have the charges?

They have been described elsewhere. Their gist is this. Castillo is alleged to have been born in Colombia, not Ecuador. There is an Ecuadorian birth certificate for Byron Castillo Segura; but, also, there is a prior Colombian birth certificate for Byron Castillo Segura.

I have seen this accounted for. The explanation is not described in the linked article, though perhaps it is alluded to in the title (“Could Ecuador Really Be Thrown Out of the World Cup Over ‘Ghost’ Castillo’s Identity Scandal?”). Castillo’s brother was born in Colombia and died young. A few years later, Castillo was born in Ecuador and given the same first name, but not the same middle name, as his brother.

Ecuadorian officials have long been uncertain about Castillo’s earliest documents. They investigated the matter for several years. Finally, in 2021, they cleared him to play for Ecuador.

What’s beyond dispute is that Castillo has lived in Ecuador, as an Ecuadorian, since he was very young; that he has had up-to-date citizenship documents for some years; and that the government recognizes him as a citizen.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

This is the fourth time the Chileans have sought a judicial ruling that would usher them into a World Cup.

In the cycle of 1971–1974, this tactic worked, but in those of 1987–1990 and 2015–2018, it backfired spectacularly.

“Chile: Entering through the Window?” – a YouTube video that expains this history. (Spanish only, I’m afraid.)

From what I’ve seen, the world isn’t favorably impressed with Chile.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

What really bothers me is this. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Castillo was born in Colombia, that his documents weren’t in order, and that Ecuador is complicit in covering this up. Not good. Procedure ought to be respected, and the truth ought not to be kept hidden. But … here are all these rich European countries, fielding players born in their former colonies, excelling in and even winning tournaments with these players, and no one brings a legal challenge; no one says, it’s grossly unjust that England, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, etc. continue to gain advantage from their history of colonialism. But when a family moves from one poor country to another, and the second country takes in that family as a matter of compassion, conscientiousness, or neighborliness, as it habitually has done and continues to do … then, to preserve their advantage, richer countries pounce, saying, Aha! your paperwork is not in order, as if what a government deemed acceptable for the day-to-day purposes of citizenship weren’t good enough for this citizen to represent his country in the World Cup.

The sullied and the pure

A good article by Dan Wetzel of Yahoo! :

“NCAA in a Nutshell: Bill Self, Kansas Win National Title with Infractions Case Still Pending.”

Good game, too. The 16-point comeback was breathtaking.

I’ve always liked the Jayhawks. They’re probably my favorite cheaters.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Now, a dose of anti-cynicism. These videos are by the hero who unclogs drains.

In this episode, he travels north through New Hampshire, unblocking culverts as the snow melts.

And in this 44-minute video, he climbs into a culvert to clear away a beaver dam.

He is an amazing narrator. His sentences are punchy and staccato. He says his consonants crisply. He wastes no words.

In the first video, he peers out over campers on a frozen lake and describes the peril of driving on it as the weather warms. You can feel the ice melt beneath you.

In the second video, he is silent for long stretches while he clears out debris. The rhythm is lovely. It’s more like Terrence Malick than like Stanley Kubrick.

He concludes the video with scenes of bear tracks and chipmunks.

A modest proposal

Another soccer final has been ruined by a referee’s decision to award a penalty kick.

In the first minute of the UEFA Champions League final, the ball ricocheted off the chest and then the upper arm of the Potato Tots’ Moussa Sissoko. (He’d extended his arm to gesture to a teammate.) The referee blew the whistle for the penalty kick.

A deliberate handball? Not a chance.

A penalty? Alas, by today’s refereeing standards, yes. The operators of the Video Assistant Refereeing system deemed the call not controversial enough to review.

(Here are some TV pundits disagreeing about the rule. As usual, Alejandro Moreno makes a jackass of himself.)

After converting the penalty, Liverpool – usually one of the most proactive teams in the sport – sat back and “parked the bus” of defenders in front of the attacking Potato Tots.

A game-long slog ensued. Finally, with just a few minutes to play, Liverpool scored again.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

In soccer, a single goal is momentous. It releases enormous tension. It affects all subsequent developments. But VAR has multiplied the number of penalty kicks awarded, and hence the number of goals scored, cheapening their value. And now the rules have been changed so that every handball, intentional or not, that occurs inside the handler’s box is to be punished with a penalty kick.

With this policy, and with VAR to enforce it, we should expect games to have penalty kicks awarded in them more often than not. That is, we should expect games to have more goals – and of the cheapest kind.

We should expect shooters to aim at defenders’ arms rather than at the goal. (Certainly, the Liverpool forward wasn’t aiming toward the goal when he kicked the ball at Sissoko.)

We should expect goals to be scored quickly – before either team has fully implemented its attacking strategy.

We should expect a scoring team to adopt tedious “bus-parking” tactics earlier in the game.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Therefore, I offer a modest proposal for handballs committed by non-goalkeepers:

(1) Let every handball that occurs outside the handler’s box be governed under the old rules.

(2) Let every clearly intentional handball, inside or outside the box, be punished by carding, according to the old rules.

(3) Let every handball that occurs inside the handler’s box, whether intentional or not, be punished, as the new policy requires. But let the punishment be an indirect free kick inside the box, not a direct penalty kick.

Exception to (3): Let a direct penalty kick be the punishment for an unintentional or intentional defensive handball that results straightforwardly from an indirect free kick taken by an attacker inside the box. (Here, we’ll have to make a somewhat arbitrary stipulation, e.g., that a defensive handball results “straightforwardly” from an indirect free kick taken inside the box just in case, after the initial kick but prior to the ball’s touching the hand, the ball doesn’t leave the box – or something along those lines.)

This is the best rule combination I can think of. But I wouldn’t mind if FIFA simply went back to the old rules that focused on intent.

I also would accept this option:

Let FIFA’s new rules remain in effect, with the additional stipulation that all direct penalty kicks for handballs be taken by Martín Palermo.

Update: Perhaps the exception to (3) should include all free kicks, not just indirect free kicks taken inside the box, to discourage defenders from using their hands to block free kicks taken outside the box.

With this in mind:

Let a direct penalty kick be the punishment for an unintentional or intentional defensive handball that results, inside the box, straightforwardly from a free kick taken by an attacker, where a handball is understood to have resulted, inside the box, straightforwardly from a free kick just in case, after the initial kick but prior to the ball’s touching the hand, the ball touches no player outside the box.

Remembering the murder of James Byrd Jr.

Of all the murders that have occurred during my lifetime, the most sickening may have been that of James Byrd Jr. in Jasper, Texas, in 1998.

This crime has resurfaced in my consciousness because one of the murderers was executed today.

Final Four, pt. 2

At halftime of the championship game, Kenny Smith and Sir Charles pointed out that the teams – especially Virginia – were so used to bleeding out the clock that they weren’t taking open shots.

But the game’s real howler occurred in overtime. A Red Raider dribbled down the court on a fast break. A Cavalier knocked the ball out of bounds. Everyone saw this. But cue the replay review anyway. Frame-by-frame analysis. Yes, the Cavalier touches it last. But look more closely. There. In a single frame of the video, some electrons orbiting the little finger of the Texas Tech player appear to touch the ball.

Honestly, it was like the famous photo reconstruction scene in Blow-up.

The refs reversed their call and awarded possession to Virginia. The Red Raiders were never able to regain control of the game. The Cavs held on for their third straight deeply controversial victory (and the national title).

Did the Red Raider touch the ball last, using a few subatomic particles on his pinky? Maybe so. It shouldn’t have mattered.

One critic tweets:

For 100 years of basketball and on every pickup court in the country this is off UVA.

Slow motion replay changing the game by changing from who knocked it out to technical last touch is something I don’t think I like.

I agree.

It was like last summer’s World Cup final. All that time looking at video, and the refs still got it wrong.

Oh, and on the same play last night, the Red Raider dribbler was fouled. Indisputably. (See the previous link.) But that more important factor wasn’t considered, whether or not the rule allowed it to be.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

One of my colleagues is scheduled to have his gallbladder removed next week. The hospital sent him a letter saying that the night before the surgery, he shouldn’t eat or drink anything besides, “water, taki, and coffee.”

Takis?

I looked up the word “taki.” Wikipedia says it’s Japanese for “waterfall.” So maybe the hospital is telling my colleague that he shouldn’t have anything besides water, waterfall water, and coffee.

Brett Kavanaugh

Various bloggers and Facebook friends – Democrats, Republicans, and “independents” – have been sharing articles and blog posts under, roughly, the following description: “This is the best item I’ve read about the U.S. Supreme Court candidacy of Brett Kavanaugh and the allegations against him by Christine Blasey Ford.” The pieces they’ve shared have expressed a wide range of views about the affair.

Well, this article by Nathan J. Robinson is the best thing I’ve read.

It’s meticulous.

It confirms what I thought when I heard Kavanaugh give his testimony: This guy seems dishonest, and his reasoning is shoddy enough that his appointment to the Supreme Court would be a disaster.

Not all of Robinson’s arguments are convincing. But more than enough of them are.

Some conclusions:

(1) Perjury: Kavanaugh told falsehoods under oath. Again and again. Sometimes on purpose, and sometimes with a reckless disregard for the truth. And he did so concerning issues that matter to his own credibility, to the credibility of his accuser, and to the discovery of the truth.

(2) Evasion: In response to straightforward questions, Kavanaugh changed the subject. Again and again. …

(3) Testimonial sufficiency: Certain “subjective” considerations (such as the aggressiveness of Kavanaugh’s tone) are much less important than the content of the testimonies. This content, along with fact-checking, suffices to establish (1) and (2). And (1) and (2), along with plausible principles about who may be appointed as a judge (e.g., “An appointee must not be recently guilty of perjury”), suffice to disqualify Kavanaugh as a judge in the Supreme Court (or anywhere!). As Robinson puts it: “At this point there is absolutely no need” for further investigation “unless Christine Blasey Ford wants it.”

To summarize: even if Kavanaugh didn’t assault Ford, he certainly lied and, in other ways, made the truth harder rather than easier to assess. These facts should disqualify him from being allowed to join the Supreme Court.

The worst World Cup final since 1990

An own goal. A blatant refereeing error (VAR-prompted). Bunker-style defending. A goalkeeping howler.

They made a fitting end to a lousy tournament.

Oh, and the better team lost.

This says it well:

Croatia, I respect you.

France, not so much.

Chile 0 (3), Portugal 0 (0)

I recall those shocking days when Russia and Qatar were awarded the hosting rights of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. Everyone in the West screamed bloody scandal. Especially the English. … And now, it’s reported that Prince William, his Prime Minister, and their cronies negotiated an illegal trade of votes with officials from South Korea (another bidding nation).

Gloat, gloat, gloat.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Today, Portugal and Chile played the first semifinal game of this Confederations Cup. I turned it on and viewed it for ten minutes. “No goals in this game,” I foresaw.

I watched Netflix. Then I turned the game back on and viewed during minutes 83–90. Still no goals. I regretted my decision to report on the tournament.

The announcers kept saying what a good game it’d been. Maybe they were right. I couldn’t tell.

The thirty-minute extra time started slowly and finished with a flurry of attacking. The Chileans should have been awarded a penalty kick, but VAR did not intervene. Then, twice, they struck the goalposts.

The shootout was more straightforward: three shots, three goals for the Chileans; three shots, three misses for the Portuguese.

Leonardo Messi

Our demise

The best moment of the Copa América occurred at the end of the group stage. Raúl Ruidíaz scored with his hand, allowing Peru to knock out Brazil.

The Uruguayans also were KO’d during the group stage.

In last night’s quarterfinal, we Ecuadorians were beaten by the U.S. (as foretold in Ecclesiastes 9:11). To their credit the gringos did what they set out to do, which was to station nearly all of their players close to their own box.

(Remarkably, the gringos were able to get away with doing this at home. Their fans were even willing to applaud them for doing it.)

Still, we created plenty of chances. Most of them were wasted by Énner Valencia. We also earned a few set-pieces, one of which we converted (set-pieces are crucial when the other team is stationing nearly all of its players close to the box). But we deserved to have more free kicks than the referee gave us, as well as at least one penalty kick. After one especially bad no-call, Coach Quinteros justly insulted the referee’s mother.

In the game’s last minutes we performed an experiment. Our left-back, Walter Ayoví, moved into the center of the field, where he carved up the U.S. with his passing. The Argentinian commentators were in awe. “Walter Ayoví with your 37 years, we love you!” they exclaimed after the game ended.

Copa América USA

After the first few games, this sad announcement: “United States May Become Permanent Host of Copa América.” The idea is to merge the Copa América and the Gold Cup, following the blueprint of the latter. (I’ve also seen this news in the Ecuadorian press.)

So much for the CONMEBOL’s policy of giving each country its turn to host the tournament.

So much for the poor citizen of Ecuador or Bolivia or Brazil who’d never travel to the United States – who would attend the tourney in his homeland, or who’d at least partake in the festivities in his homeland. “Hosting doesn’t make you rich,” say the authors of the book Soccernomics, “but it does make you happier.” When the games are at home, what the people gain is “a sense of belonging” – and sometimes, literally, “a lifesaver” (the local suicide rate goes down; so does depression).

I remember the 1993 Copa América in Ecuador. We weren’t very good at soccer, but the country rallied together and the players gave decent performances and improved their self-belief. This was crucial for our team’s development.

But because the CONCACAF’s Gold Cup is always held in the United States, there’s no prospect of such a boost for nations like El Salvador or Haiti. The Gold Cup is a charade, not a bona fide contest. The Copa América and the Euros and the Africa Cup of Nations may’ve had their injustices; but, to their credit, they’ve been staged in such humble locations as Paraguay (1997) and Poland (2012), Angola (2010) and Burkina Faso (1998), Gabon (2012) and tiny Equatorial Guinea (2012, 2015).

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

What should the gringos expect to gain from becoming the perpetual gatekeepers? Only money.

For gringos, soccer doesn’t matter to national identity. They have nothing like the wholehearted consensus about this sport that exists in other countries. The gringos would never put aside their domestic differences for soccer’s sake.

Nor have they shown that they wish to commune with other nations over soccer. They’ve been invited to the Copa América every time since 1993, but they haven’t participated in it since 1995. [Correction, from Stephen: they participated in 2007.]

Nor are the gringos very concerned with being hospitable. Never mind that they might make Donald Trump their president: they don’t care enough to use the correct spelling of “Colombia.”

They don’t care enough to play the other countries’ anthems properly. So far, in this tourney, they’ve played Chile’s anthem instead of Uruguay’s, and they’ve cut off Chile’s anthem prematurely. They’ve shown disrespect for the national identities that make these games so meaningful for South Americans.

In Ecuador, Independiente del Valle, a modest club, is donating its ticket proceeds to Ecuadorians who were stricken by the recent earthquake.

In the United States, the rich have no qualms about scheming to take away a comforting tradition from the people who live in South America.

There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.

The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds:

But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. …

Copa de Oro

Europeans have the Euros; South Americans play in the Copa América; the nations of North and Central America and the Caribbean put on a farce called the Gold Cup.

In recent years, the tournament has always been hosted by the USA – the venue where the profits can be maximized – and, in effect, co-hosted by Mexico, whose fans fill the seats. The victories have gone to the U.S. or to Mexico. It’s in the interest of those countries to maintain the status quo, and to collude.

Well, last night, in Semifinal No. 1, the U.S. were upset by Jamaica. Martin was sad. I wasn’t.

In Semifinal No. 2, the Panamanians were outplaying Mexico – and they were winning, despite an early red card (much too soft, I thought).

Jamaica vs. Panama in the final. I was warming up to the idea (though I knew that the gaudy NFL stadium in Philadelphia wouldn’t sell out). Mexico and the U.S. hadn’t done squat all tournament. The Panamanians were actually a little bit interesting to watch. I mean: under pressure, they would bring the ball out with calm, short passes; that’s usually a sign of interestingness.

And then, in the dying seconds – for the second straight game – the Mexicans were gifted a bogus penalty kick by the referee.

The Panamanians were furious, of course. Their bench players charged the field, with my full sympathy (and I don’t often give out sympathy for that). Mark Geiger, the gringo referee, sheepishly refrained from punishing any of them. But the damage had been done; the call stood; the Mexicans had the opportunity to equalize the score.

What was most interesting, though, was the booth commentary, which was by Mexicans (e.g., Jorge Campos). All of them were outraged. Not like this, they kept on saying. Not with another bogus penalty, not for this sorry team. Mexico is undeserving.

Touchingly, they pleaded with Andrés Guardado to miss the penalty kick, on purpose. He didn’t miss it.

During the overtime, the Panamanians were tired. Mexico scored with another penalty kick; and I thought, “This might just be the worst game I’ve ever watched.” (This, after the dismal quarterfinal between Mexico and Costa Rica.)

In soccer, the gravest injustices are arranged “behind the scenes.” Still, I’m grateful when they’re this blatant so that even the purported beneficiaries can’t but be disgusted.

I hope this helps to make a better world.

The gringos vs. FIFA

Old news: in Switzerland, the U.S. government has caused a dozen or so of FIFA’s bigwigs to be arrested.

No doubt these bigwigs are guilty of corruption. No doubt they’ve violated international law – or, under U.S. jurisdiction, U.S. law. I don’t know the details … but I’m sure the gringos can legally justify the arrests.

According to the Russians, this is just “another case of illegal extra-territorial implementation of American law.”

But I don’t think it is illegal. Or I’ll assume it isn’t, for discussion’s sake.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Nor will it matter to what I’m going to say that the arrests are being done in a vindictive spirit.

What if the U.S., and not Qatar, had been awarded the 2022 World Cup hosting rights? Would the gringos have pursued the bigwigs? I doubt it.

But I won’t dwell on this.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

What interests me is how FIFA’s members will react to the arrests, and what all of this means for international tournaments.

FIFA’s members, the national soccer bodies, determine how FIFA is governed; and up until now, what they’ve done is to insist on FIFA’s (and their own) autonomy from sovereign states. No national soccer body is permitted by FIFA to be housed by an interfering state. A national soccer body is punished by FIFA if the state which houses it does not refrain from meddling in its affairs (and in those of the soccer bodies of other nations).

This is to preserve the integrity and voluntariness of the sport. FIFA wishes to arrange neither gladiatorial contests between slaves, nor “champion” warfare between nations.

Punishment takes the form of simple banning. FIFA isn’t going to confront anybody with planes and tanks, but it may disallow teams from playing in tournaments.

There are lighter bans, too.

For example, in 1993, the Aussie government refused to allow Diego Maradona to play against Australia in a World Cup qualifier. (Aussie law blocked convicted drug offenders from entering the country.) FIFA judged that this was an unwelcome political intrusion upon the sport, and threatened to move Australia’s home game to a neutral site. The Aussie government relented. Maradona was allowed to play.

Notice: the Aussie government could have permitted its soccer federation to receive punishment. Or, in protest, it could have withdrawn the Socceroos from the World Cup. It did neither of those things. It chose to refrain from enforcing the law of the state.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Faced with lawbreaking, the U.S. government also could have chosen this option. But instead it has chosen to prosecute FIFA’s elected officials.

Let me stress that in the present case, the gringos aren’t just reacting to a crime. In effect, they’re enforcing their own idea of how FIFA should be governed, not minding that these officials were elected, wisely or foolishly, by FIFA’s other members.

Now usually when the U.S. government behaves like this, there is little that the opposition can do. But this time the opposition has a good deal of clout. The national soccer bodies have the power to impose some kind of ban against the U.S. Soccer Federation.

Will they do it? My guess is, no. Should they do it? Well, yes, if they want to preserve their autonomy from the states.

This is the situation. X, Y, and Z have long been coming together to hold a sporting contest – jointly deciding how to hold it. Those who won’t cooperate simply are left out. But now the godfather of one of the contestants is insisting, coercively, that the contest not be held in a certain way.

Suppose X, Y, and Z acquiesce. Whose contest is it, then? Is it still theirs? One thing, for sure: it’s the godfather’s. The participants, X, Y, and Z, are no longer making the decisions of this joint activity all on their own.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Do the various national soccer bodies really want the gringos to have de facto veto power over them?

My guess is, they’ll put up with it, because the U.S. has a lot of political and cultural influence – as well as a lot of money, some of which will trickle down.

In effect, the soccer bodies will be selling out, again … and then again … and as long as they continue to allow the U.S. to have de facto veto power. And by selling out to this (de facto) administrator, they’ll be privileging one participant over the others; and not just for one tournament (as Qatar is being privileged for 2022) – or even for a handful of tournaments – but indefinitely.

If the soccer bodies set out to contain corruption on their own, they’ll at least be able to do it with some fairness. The sporting benefits of corruption will be spread out more or less evenly around the world. Contestants like Qatar will have fifteen minutes of glory, and that’s all.

But if the gringos have veto power over the governance of FIFA, the sporting benefits will skew towards them. I couldn’t specify the mechanism. But we all know how it’ll turn out.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

For the sake of sport, then, I think that what the gringos are doing is bad, and that FIFA will be shirking its sporting duty if it doesn’t punish them. This isn’t yet an argument about morality (though one may try to draw further moral lessons from it). Morally, is U.S. hegemony in global affairs a bad or a good thing? I know what I think about that, but I don’t have the time to discuss it here. It’s taken long enough for me just to hint at how tacky it is that the U.S. should dictate sporting justice. Moral justice is yet another problem.

Argentina 1, Iran 0; Germany 2, Ghana 2; Nigeria 1, Bosnia and Herzegovina 0

Tragedy for the Bosnians and Herzegovinians. A goal by Edin Džeko was wrongly disallowed. The Nigerians scored, killed time, and won. The Europeans were eliminated. …

Against Argentina, the Iranians had the better chances — and then Messi made a wondergoal. …

In the most thrilling match so far, the Ghanaians led late. My heart sank when the Germans brought on Miroslav Klose. I knew that he would score.

Brazil 3, Croatia 1

If that’s a penalty, then we can just stop playing football right now. … It’s ridiculous. If we continue in this way, we will have a circus. … If that’s how we start the World Cup, then we may as well give up and go home now.
[Niko Kovač, Croatian manager]

The Croatians played well, I thought, but the referee gifted the host country the longer straw. I hope this doesn’t keep on happening. This is the most inept Brazilian team I’ve seen; I don’t much fear it, but I do fear the referees.

In our house we had eleven spectators: ten humans and Bianca. We all thought the same about the penalty; and, in Ecuador, so did my mother.