"I will not post any casualty reports for 24 hours as I am celebrating."
November 21, 2013 4:52 AM   Subscribe

The Far Post is a journalism series by Roads and Kingdoms and Sports Illustrated on global soccer culture that will run every other week until the start of "the largest theater that has ever existed in human history," the World Cup. So far there are five articles: Brazil 2014 Starts Now by Laurent Dubois gives an overview of the history of the World Cup and what it means now. Messi in Kolkata by Kanishk Tharoor is about a visit by the Argentine national team to Kolkata and the state of the game in India. Afghanistan United By May Jeong is the story of the incredible triumph of the Afghan national team at the 2013 South Asian Championship. Soccer and the Street in Istanbul by Izzy Finkel reports on the links between soccer and politics in Turkey. The Long Revolution of the Ultras Ahlawy by Patrick Kingsley is the account of how hardcore soccerfans in Egypt, at the center of the 2011 revolution, have fared in the aftermath.
posted by Kattullus (14 comments total) 10 users marked this as a favorite
 
And in case you're interested in the football side of the World Cup, The Guardian has capsule assessments of all 32 qualified nations.
posted by Kattullus at 5:28 AM on November 21, 2013


Only four African teams out of 32 - and otherwise heavily over-represented by Europe - would seem to make this more like a World Series and less like a World Cup.
posted by three blind mice at 6:01 AM on November 21, 2013


The clarity of the main essay is a beautiful tribute to the game.

(A stunning read - thanks).
posted by Jody Tresidder at 6:08 AM on November 21, 2013


Only four African teams out of 32 - and otherwise heavily over-represented by Europe - would seem to make this more like a World Series and less like a World Cup.

Huh? There are five African teams (Algeria, Cameroon, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Nigeria) and no African team has ever made it past the quarterfinal. Sure, the continental-confederations qualification process seems a bit weird, but it's stacked toward letting regions with more capable teams have more chances. You could argue it's unfair that South America has five slots for a conference of only 10 teams, but ...well, that's where the tough competitors are.
posted by psoas at 7:05 AM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]


Thanks in advance - looking fwd to reading these over lunch.

Only four African teams out of 32 - and otherwise heavily over-represented by Europe - would seem to make this more like a World Series and less like a World Cup.

Jonathan Wilson wrote on this issue back in May: Sepp Blatter's World Cup plans show no respect for logic – or football:
The World Cup is only partly about determining the best team. It's also about spreading the game and putting on a truly global spectacle. Africa and Asia probably should be overrepresented to try to stimulate development… But there is a danger of going too far… There are strong arguments for restructuring… but to offer the AFC and Caf additional qualifying slots would simply weaken an already bloated tournament further.
posted by shortfuse at 7:07 AM on November 21, 2013


three blind mice - I do see where you are coming from, but if Europe was represented at the same level as the rest of the world, then we could often have World Cups potentially without England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, etc, all of which i'm sure have had to qualify for the World Cup via playoffs (rather than automatically, by being top of their qualifying group) in the probably not too distant past.

I'm Scottish, so I don't need the teams above to qualify because I am one of their citizens and am biased. We need more European teams to qualify because it would be an utterly boring world cup without them. They are the biggest footballing nations.

But that's not to say I don't understand that this is inherently unfair to other nations in Africa, Asia, etc.

But.... I don't want to be on Sepp Blatter's side on any issue - so maybe disregard everything I have said above..... ;)
posted by redskythinking at 7:12 AM on November 21, 2013


I'd like to see Ronaldo score a goal in Brazil, then run over to where Blatter is at, and take a seat on the grass with his arms crossed while his teammates give him a mock haircut.
posted by shortfuse at 7:17 AM on November 21, 2013


redskythinking - Just to clarify - the words I quoted are Wilson's, not Blatter's. Blatter said he wants the same number of teams from the diff continents, which Wilson argues against on balance.
posted by shortfuse at 7:20 AM on November 21, 2013


shortfuse - after re-reading your comment I can see that now and I am in fact on the opposite side of Sepp Blatter. Which is the usual position for football fans these days!
posted by redskythinking at 7:39 AM on November 21, 2013


redskythinking: We need more European teams to qualify because it would be an utterly boring world cup without them. They are the biggest footballing nations.

Not necessarily. It would just shift the locus of the best, most meaningful, most consequential play from the World Cup itself to the European and South American continental Qualifying tournaments, which might not be a bad thing.
posted by Rock Steady at 7:52 AM on November 21, 2013


Another way to do it would be to split the bigger conferences into smaller ones. You'd get more World Cup games in addition to a greater diversity of participating teams.
posted by Hairy Lobster at 9:30 AM on November 21, 2013 [1 favorite]


I am far from a soccer/football expert, Hairy, but I would caution that "greater diversity" may well just mean "more blowouts", something like the way that the NFL and MLB expanding their playoff systems mostly seems to succeed in. I'm sure there are ways that the system deserves tweaking, but in general the point is to devise a tournament where the play is at top form between deserving opponents. Since there exists a completely "fair" alternative in the Olympics, I'm not sure that it's FIFA's responsibility to go out there and rebalance just so that, oh, Mali gets into the Round of 16 once in a while.

The very system of having national teams is inherently unfair, since there's no way you're going to have equivalent teams even in CONCACAF given that Mexico and the USA are both in the 11 most populous countries and Saint Kitts and Nevis is nearly dead last (and there are territorial "national" teams like Anguilla or Montserrat that have even smaller country populations to draw from). As a result a) the US is able to field a strong enough team (post the 1990s resurgence) to qualify in every World Cup, but b) qualifying games are not all that challenging which is maybe why we don't actually have a better team. (15th is respectable, but not so much the 15th time in a row, if you catch my drift.) I'm not sure how you rationalize a system like this to where each member is somehow given an equivalent number of "chances" or whatever. It's just a whole silly nation-state thing given that that is the system by which membership is determined (with a whole lotta loopholes). So, what, if the US gets better we have to break into -- what, 50 state teams? 2-5 regional teams? It's just sort of beggaring logic. And ultimately the bragging rights may be emotionally important but in serious terms of import they aren't very at all.
posted by dhartung at 11:47 PM on November 21, 2013




Omnivore: The most important part of the World Cup
posted by homunculus at 12:35 PM on December 9, 2013


« Older Whiskey Tango Foxtrot requests clearance to taxi...   |   . Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments