← Settle In with PBS News
Settle In with PBS News
The highs and lows of the World Cup
00:28:32
Simon Kuper is one of the few sports journalists who has now attended 10 World Cups. The author of "World Cup Fever: A Soccer Journey in Nine Tournaments" and co-author of "Soccernomics" joins Geoff Bennett to share the highs and lows of this year's ...
Loading summary
Transcript48 lines
- [00:00]
A
I see the American failure as part of the failure of the entire world outside Western Europe and Argentina for six World Cups in Rona.
- [00:11]
B
Simon Cooper, great to speak with you. You have been covering the World Cup. You've, what, covered every World cup since Italy back in 1990. You've just published a book about it called World Cup A soccer journey and nine tournaments. What's the first World cup you remember watching?
- [00:27]
A
It was 1978. I was eight years old and I'm not Dutch, but when I was six, we moved to the Netherlands. So I grew up there and I love Dutch football. I support Holland, the 1978 World Cup Final. I remember very clearly. Holland, Argentina. In Argentina, Holland get the equalizer late in the game, in the last minute of full time, hits the post for Holland. So I could have been World Champion my very first attempt. So, like everybody else, I started watching World Cups on tv.
- [00:54]
B
And you write that each new tournament reminds you of past tournaments that you've attended. This is your 10th in person, if my math is right. Which past World cup has this one reminded you of the most?
- [01:08]
A
Well, inevitably, somewhat. 1994. I was here. I was actually living in Boston that year, and I got a small gig on TV as a spotter at games for ABC Television. I was terrible at that because you had to identify a player who'd scored or got a yellow card or anything. My facial recognition skills are poor. So when I was in Boston during this World Cup, I went back to the North End, where I'd spent many Happy hours in 94 watching Italian soccer on TV during Italian season and watched Norway Ivory coast there. So it was a homecoming. And the Foxborough Stadium was homecoming from 94. The only time I've ever done that at a World cup is sort of retraced my steps.
- [01:45]
B
How does the World cup of 94 compare to this one?
- [01:49]
A
94. It felt like it was a tiny niche within the US So I watched games when I wasn't in the stadium in Foxborough, I'd watch games on TV in a bar in Boston where it was only immigrants, really. It was Nigerians, Moroccans, Bulgarians. We all had strong community because we were talking and obsessed by the same thing. And when you stepped out of the bar, the World cup didn't exist. I remember going to Fenway park during that World cup to watch the Red Sox and talking to people and they didn't know literally that there was a World Cup. And now, of course, it's a much bigger event. And I would say that in the US Soccer has Expanded from a tiny niche to a mid sized niche. Even the biggest US games, it's about 10% of the population that watches. It's not, it's not very large.
- [02:34]
B
Well, to your point, the World cup is now the largest sporting event in the world. I was reading that FIFA is expected to net more than $9 billion. And then you have the resale tickets for next Sunday's final. They're listed between $20,000 and $35,000 a ticket. This was a question before the World cup even started, but I think it's in some ways more resonant now. Who is this World cup for?
- [03:00]
A
Well, look, 99.99% of people who watch the World cup are watching it on tv. You know, in Shanghai, in Soweto, in Buenos Aires, most people never go to a World cup games. The World cup is a television event where the stadium audience is decor. So who is the stadium audience? That tiny group of people? I mean, yes, certainly at the biggest games it's going to be the super rich at the final. At other games. I've been struck by the size of the American diasporas. That's unique about this tournament that every country has a diaspora here and the diaspora watches the World Cup. So at France, Iraq, a lot of Iraqi Americans, Brazil, Haiti, it's Brazilians and Haitians or people who identify as such, but who live in the us Many of them probably US citizens. So you get, I think often quite ordinary people who want to see their national team and are paying $2,000, which in normal soccer terms is an insane amount to watch it. I mean, it's shocking to me, as it is to most people from outside the US that this has happened big because it's never been the tradition of the World Cup. I think at any pass tournament you get into almost any game for under $100. The World cup has never been seen as you sell tickets to the highest bidder. Typically, you know, a country like England, the tickets were given to the travel club which consists of the people who watch England everywhere. So look, if you're coming to the US to watch the World cup, you're not poor. You're definitely part of the global middle class or above. But the ticket prices are an obscenity that I hope won't continue after this World cup.
- [04:27]
B
And part of FIFA's goal in having the World cup in the States was to make as much money as possible, isn't that right?
- [04:33]
A
Absolutely. I mean, from sponsors as well, from the world's most lucrative television market. So for television we have These so called hydration breaks which are really advertising breaks which most fans, including me, to test which interrupt the flow of the game. And yeah, it's a money maximizing World cup from FIFA's point of view, as you're saying, $9 billion and they'll keep a bit and they'll return a lot to the 200 national federations, everything Chinese soccer federation to the Western Samoa soccer Federation. And though for many of the smaller federations the only money they get in four years is their payout from the World Cup. So those national federation presidents want it to be as big as possible and that's Janni and for the Lima's promise to them. So they keep re electing it.
- [05:20]
B
And we should say despite all the controversies ahead of the World cup, there really has been some incredible soccer and some memorable moments. This is the first year where you've had 48 teams take the pitch, up from 32 far more matches. There was a concern initially that the soccer might suffer as a result. Have you seen any of that?
- [05:42]
A
The quality is not as good as the best club soccer. Even with 32 teams, it was so club teams like Manchester City, Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, they would, you know, they would reach semi finals of the World cup. They could win the World Cup. There's only a couple of teams here that are as good as a top club team. I said France and Spain are probably in that category, nobody else. So the quality of the World cup has not been what it's been about for decades now. So even with 32 teams, that was true. The 48 teams, that's even more true. You know, teams like Jordan or Uzbekistan, Curacao, it's not top football. Nobody believes that the World Cups are not about quality, they're about drama. And the drama has been amply supplied. The small teams often using Western European diasporas like Morocco, where you saw their players born in Western Europe, produced decent football. We're still at the end of the situation where the top four seeds, essentially France, Spain, England, Argentina are in the semi. So there haven't been big upsets, but the small teams acquitted themselves well. And I'm 99% sure that we will move very swiftly from 40x60 40, so the quality will even more diminished. But the World cup is a carnival. It's a festival of nations. It's about the drama, not the quality.
- [06:57]
B
So when Gianni Infantino says we're looking at 64 teams, we should take that to mean 64 teams is pretty much confirmed for the next Cup.
- [07:05]
A
I mean, he decides It's FIFA is run largely by one man, the way, say Putin runs Russia, the way Dong Chuck would like to run us. If Infantino wants it, he says it will be considered by the relevant committees, meaning he'll check whether anywhere in the world there is opposition. And Nepal ignore that. It will be 60 14.
- [07:28]
B
What's your favorite game of this tournament so far?
- [07:32]
A
I mean, I was at Argentina, Egypt and Argentina, Cape Verde, which were great for drama. I mean, I really did think Argentina were going out, which is not an experience you often have with the reigning world champions. When Egypt were 2 nil up with about 20 minutes left, Egypt it fan terribly. Yes. Refereeing decisions went Octat's way. So that game, I think for drama will be remembered a very long time and France for quality. Just watching the French has been an experience of useful football.
- [08:00]
B
Say that again. Watching the French has been what?
- [08:02]
A
Watching the French has been an experience of beautiful football. I watched Franz Sweden on TV in the Boston airport and that was just a game that made you happy. A game that you'll remember for not the drama, but you see the quality of French.
- [08:16]
B
Yeah, for casual fans. I guess we should explain. When you say they play beautifully, expand on that. What do you mean? What does it look like? How does the game unfold when you describe their manner of play being beautiful,
- [08:32]
A
I mean, Pele, the great Pele, used the phrase beautiful gay Portuguese and that the idea of soccer as beauty is very strong. And it was best incarnated by certain French players like Michael Elise Guilliano, Mbappe Usman, Dembele, Olise. Perfect balance, the way he sees everything on the field. Mbappe's ability to see the spot in goal that's unguarded and then to hit it from 30 yards. The way they interplay, the way that Mbappe knows where Elise is going to pass. Ulise knows where Mbappe is going to move. Ousmane Dembele, this perfect technique where he hits the ball equally well with left or right foot. Beauty in football, it's interplay, it's technical mastery and its imagination. So Michael Elise sees the past. You can't even see from your privileged position. High end stats where nobody is hitting you or breathing down your neck. At least they can see things on the field that you can't even see from 40 yards up.
- [09:32]
B
Yeah, it's. It's a real gift. You know, there's been some controversy around the actual ball in this tournament that the. That the ball itself has been seen as unpredictable. It's getting to goalkeepers faster than One might expect. What do you make of that?
- [09:46]
A
I like it. I mean, it must be hard for goalkeepers because it does travel fast. It also seems to travel true. So what you see is a lot of shots from outside the box, like Julian Alvarez outside the penalty area. Julian Alvarez and Switzerland go in beautifully, exactly as the player intended and faster than the game were expected. So yeah, it's a ball that seems to favor attacking players. I like that. I remember conversely the World Cup 2010 in South Africa, also a new ball. This is always a new ball for marketing reasons, kids around the world and go buy it 2 out of 10 the ball didn't travel truly and so players kept missing, which is worse.
- [10:22]
B
The heat has also been a dynamic in the sort of play that's unfolded. Obviously this is happening in a North American summer. How do you see the conditions, the heat conditions affecting the game and the play on the pitch?
- [10:39]
A
Often it's very clear. So I was at the England Norway game in Miami on Saturday and it was I think close to 90 degrees, very humid and the players wilt performance weakens, they can't cover as much space and space opens up. I think Erling Haaland, the great Norwegian being giant, it makes you more susceptible to heat. And he actually went off before time substituted with ending noise chances. So yeah, it definitely reduces the quality in a way. It increases the drama because the players are not just playing against each other's quality, they're also playing against the elements. It's like in a. In a movie or fighting the elements. But it definitely is probably dangerous and it reduces the quality of the play.
- [11:22]
B
How concerned is FIFA about player welfare? I raised the question because they're set to have a World cup in Saudi Arabia in 2034 and one would expect that to be the heat to be far more dynamic than it has been here.
- [11:37]
A
Yeah, either they'll do what they did in Qatar, which is move it to winter, the Saudi winter, you know, it's in the 70s, that would be fine. Or they'll air condition the entire stadiums, which is the case in a couple of US stadiums at this tournament. And the sorties would just pay for that. But then, you know, fans would be moving around in 120 degree heat getting to the stadium, which would just be a complete nightmare. So I think they'll probably move the Saudi World cup spring to Qatar, set in Brussels.
- [12:05]
B
Yeah, let's talk about the U.S. men's team because despite a promising start and an obvious home advantage, they were beaten in the round of 16. What did you make of the US
- [12:16]
A
performance, I mean the US has actually not been improving for 20 odd years now. And we track this in Soconomics. Their peak FIFA ranking I think is the beginning of the century and they're somewhere in the top 10. And they get worse. Why do they get worse? I think one reason is they play more games against north and Central American opponents, you know, in the region they introduced the gold cut any north and Central America is not the region of high soccer quality. So if you're playing against even Mexico, Canada, Honduras, you're not playing the best football. To get better means to learn from the top football. The US don't do that anymore. But also what you're seeing is not just the us all the countries outside western Europe and Argentina are failing to catch up. So that's true. The Asian countries, the African countries. And why is it I think western Europeans have kind of discovered the secret of football, which is about where should I be? Geometry. You how do you create space when you have a ball? Shrink space when you don't have the ball? Big question in football actually for a player, the player doesn't have the ball. 88, 89 minutes. So his question or her question, all the game is where should I be? So it's kind of intellectual question. Football is a game you play with your head and the Europeans are better at answering it. Not just better than the Americans, but better than people from anywhere else in the world. So I see the American failure as part of the failure of the entire world outside Western Europe and Argentina for six World Cups in Rona, the book
- [13:45]
B
you mentioned, Socranomics, which you co wrote and it asks why some countries win and others don't. And you spoke about this, but why can't or why hasn't the US been able to compete at the highest level? And where does U.S. men's soccer in particular go from here?
- [14:04]
A
Well, you can't compete because you're in the wrong place. You play against weak countries in north and Central America. You're not linked. Your players don't grow up from a six. Understanding how to play soccer, where should that be? Which is also why some of your best players are actually Western European. So Segni Desker up in Holland led US football there. Malik Tillman grew up learning football in Germany, his native country. Anthony Robertson in England. And so that shows to me that soccer is a game you have to understand and you could be however fit you want, however passionate. You can even be very skillful like Christian Pulisic. But if you don't understand the question of where should I be, who should I pass to the decision making then you're never going to be very good. And you saw that Us, Belgium, Belgium are not a great team. They just understand football in the way the Americans don't.
- [14:58]
B
Well, after more than 100 matches we're now down to the final four and for the first time ever, it's FIFA's top four ranked team. So you've got France v Spain, they're going to play in Texas and then England versus Argentina set to play in Atlanta. So talk us through each team and what you expect from these matchups.
- [15:19]
A
Well, France having been quite a dower defensive team for most of coach Deschamps reign are now a beautiful attacking, flowing team. He's gone with his talent. He has three of the very best attackers in the world. Vision due to 2021 is going to join them on that level. And so we just put all the talents in and and the other seven block and supply the front line and it's very hard to stop France from scoring. The best team, well defending, stopping the opposition from scoring is Spain. So how do Spain defend? They defend by keeping the ball. Their game is about passing and possession and they're brilliant at just passing the ball to each other. And if Spain take the lead, it's hard for them to score because they advance quite slowly. Because their game was about possession, they don't do sudden quick breaks. But if Spain take a lead, you don't see the ball again, they just pass it to each other. So that's a very interesting dynamic. The best attacking team against the best defensive team, England. Argentina is really a basket of stars. England and Argentina are both quite flawed teams. They're defensively vulnerable. Neither or England particularly are not great passing around. But the Argentinian game is Messi. Messi doesn't move much, he's 39. He's lost the acceleration in his dribble. So he can't really beat players that easily. Although he did a couple of times against Egypt at the end. Absolutely had to. But Messi is probably the best footballer in the history of football and the game is to get him in the center on the ball and he will score. So it's a one man team really and Messi goes where he wants. He doesn't defend, he walks. If Messi decides to go in the outside right position, the whole team will adapt to that. And England have two stars. Either of them is quite Messi, but they're absolutely brilliant for all Harry Kane and Jude Bellum. Harry Kane is A great center forward, and Bellingham is the man who makes runs behind him to positions you wouldn't expect. Bellingham plays the game at a higher pace than anyone. His technique is near perfect. And so I think Bellingham and Kane each have six goals this World Cup. Messi has eight. And so the whole game of both teams is just get the balls of those guys and see what happens, See what he does.
- [17:31]
B
Will we ever see a shock winner again in the World Cup? Or has the game just become, in some ways too predictable?
- [17:38]
A
I mean, soccer is the most unpredictable game in that it's low scoring, so you can have a really good team attack the whole game. They don't get a goal because it's very hard to score in football. And the weak team has one attack and it scores and wins one nil. I mean, that happens. And because it's knockout, in the knockout rounds, you only play one game. So it's not like, say, the NBA finals or playoffs, where you play several games against. Against each other in one game, the underdog can win. And if the underdog wins in the knockout rounds, four games in a row, which is unlikely, but possible. Yeah. Then you could have a country like Norway or Ivory coast winning the World Cup. Would I put money on it? Absolutely not. And you're right. In the history of football, it hasn't really happened. The last small country to win the World cup was Uruguay in 1950, before the game was very developed. And since then, it's always been a big challenge. And it's very rare for a new country to win the World Cup. So all the four teams in Thames have won the World cup before.
- [18:37]
B
I want to draw you out more on the impact of the game itself, because before the World cup, you had some major host cities like Chicago completely opt out because they said it didn't make financial sense. And you've studied this. Do World Cups actually help host city economies? Or is it like the Olympics where in some cases you have the host country being left with white elephants and they're holding the bag at the end of the games?
- [19:04]
A
World Cups don't boost the economy. That's a very clear and consistent finding by academic sports economists over the decades, and we write about this in soccer months. So they don't increase gdp, they don't increase the number of jobs, they don't increase tourism to your cities. And one reason is that, yes, they attract few visitors who've come to the game, but they also drive away a lot of your ordinary tourists. So a city like Miami, where I am now, or New York or Vancouver would normally, in summer, get loads of visitors who were there to enjoy the city. Now, during the World cup, those people mostly think, you know what? I'm not going to go to New York this summer because there's soccer, there's going to be high prices and probably victories of security. I'll go somewhere else. So you lose a lot of your regular tourists, then you're left with the costs. Fever's model is it takes all the money from the World Cup. The host city can't even charge sales tax on ticket sales, and the hosts have to pay the costs. Now, thankfully, in the U.S. mexico and Canada, the stadiums were already there. So you won't have white elephants like you've had for all the previous World Cups in Russia, South Africa, Qatar, Brazil, they're all left with white elephant stadiums that are completely useless. You won't have that here. You didn't have to build anything new. That's great, but no, there's no financial benefit. And cities like Boston and the state of New Jersey would be very disappointed once they discovered this, which had they spent $20 or Socranomics, whatever it is, they would have known before.
- [20:27]
B
There's also the Trump factor here. Before the games, you predicted that Trump's politics or his personality would shape the tournament's narrative in some way. And then, of course, we saw him get involved in the Baligan red card situation. What did you make of that?
- [20:46]
A
Yes, I'd expected Trump actually to be more present during the World cup because he was very excited beforehand. He saw it as the biggest TV series in the world where he would be the guest star. And he hasn't, I think, because he's getting old, because he was busy with his birthday and a 250th birthday in America, which was almost the same thing in the war in Iran. And also he went to the New York mix just before the World cup, was very loudly booed by the crowd. And that would happen if he'd been to any World cup stadium. So I think we're only going to see another final World Cup. So, yes, the Balagan intervention was his only intervention so far, but very important because Trump likes to break rules in public. He's proud of breaking rules. In this case, the rule they broke was following Balagun, the best US goalscorer, had a red card in the game against Bosnia, so he wasn't eligible to play against Belgium. Strict FIFA rule. You get a red card and speed the case for 60 years. You can't play the next game of World Cup But Trump calls Daniel Fotino the FIFA president. The red card is rescinded. Valley good plays. Happily, it doesn't help to anyone who likes Fans. And Belgium 1, 4 1. Now, that was hugely damaging to the World Cup. Not just now, but I think for a long time to come. Because normally, I mean, I write in World Cup Fever about how I don't always trust the refereeing of World Cups. I think certain federations have a role in choosing referees. I don't trust FIFA always to make a call strictly on sporting grounds, but usually that's behind the scenes. We don't see us. We can try and ignore it. Trump does it in public. And now it's very clear. FIFA is not a straight dealer. FIFA broke its own rules. And so since then, you've had a lot of conspiracy theories about refereeing and FIFA, especially around Argentinas. Everyone's saying without evidence that FIFA is favoring Argentina, FIFA, Nisli or Messi to reach the final World Cup. I don't think it's as simple as that. But I completely understand why these conspiracy theories have blown up. Because FIFA showed that it's not straight dealer. In the Trump battle wing case.
- [22:47]
B
The other thing playing out in public, to use your phrase, is racism. And of course, racism isn't a problem that soccer created, but the sport often becomes a stage where the racism that exists in society is exposed. Why do we continue to see these incidents at major tournaments? And what responsibility does FIFA have to really try to crack down on it?
- [23:10]
A
Yeah, so I wouldn't necessarily blame FIFA. So to me, the big eruptions of racism have been against the French tea, which is mostly players of immigrant origin, mostly of black, African or Arab African origin. And so you get people saying, and this is a far right trope about Europe, much broader than the French football team. It focuses here on the French soccer team. You have people saying, like the former Spanish Prime Minister Mariano La Joy, say France is not a team of French players, meaning these guys, they're born in France, they spend their childhoods in France, they learn their soccer in France, but they're not really French. Now, in what way are they not really French? Because they were all known they have citizenship. What he means is if they're black, they're not French. Now, clearly that's racism. If you're defining Frenchness as a racial caste group, you have to be white to be French in his mind. And he's not the only one. This is a far right idea around the world. So a Paraguayan senator made these disgusting racist comments about Mbappe French strike, which Mbappe replied, as usual with Rick Dickinson. And the former Paraguayan goalkeeper Jose Chilaver said similar things. And it's a far right trope, which also some French fans have as well. They regard their team as not full of French because many of the players are of African extraction. Immigrant families in France. And this is a big debate in France, where the far right is quite likely to win the presidential elections next year. So, I mean, it also fits into what Donald Trump and his administration view Europe as, which is they view it as a place where the native population, the white people, are being replaced by these non white people. And that's wrong. And these not white people are not really English or French or Belgian or whatever. And so Europe is losing its cultural identity. So this nonsense, racist language we hear around the World cup is an extension of the nonsense, racist language we hear in the political effect.
- [25:10]
B
Yeah. Let's talk more about the game, because this is the last World cup for Cristiano Ronaldo. It's likely the last World cup for Messi, too. What does the end of that two decade rivalry in this sport mean for soccer?
- [25:25]
A
I think the rivalry ended about three years ago when they both left European soccer, Messi to play in Miami and Ronaldo to play in Saudi Arabia. And they both decided they were kind of done with big soccer. And at that age they had, Messi was then about 36, Ronaldo 38, 39. It was natural. There'd never been a great footballer continuing a top level beyond then. And in Ronaldo's case, it's been true. I mean, he's not a great footballer anymore. He hasn't been for about four or five years. And so their rivalry of 15 years, when they were both at their peaks, was glorious. I think they both became better to compete with the other because it's hard to be great alone. So John McEnroe, the tennis player, was very disappointed when Bjorn Borg resigned, retired, because McEnroad wanted to have a rivalry for years and years where they made each other better. And Messi and Ronaldo had that. But Ronaldo became old and bad and Messi became old and I think to his own surprise, remain brilliant. I think Messi had not imagined when he won the World cup in 2022, and he said it was his last and it was the last final. He had not imagined that at 39, you'd still be the best player in the world.
- [26:31]
B
Back here, Simon, you have described the World cup as a festival of corruption, profiteering and nationalist chauvinism. And yet you keep coming back. This is now 10 tournaments and counting.
- [26:45]
A
Why it is that? But it's also beautiful and it's also a festival of joy. It's a party that unites the whole world. Everyone is watching. Everybody, almost everyone, shares the love and appreciation of great soccer. Everybody appreciates the drama. And so I think you have to keep two things in your head about the World cup all the time. There is corruption and greed and political manipulation. There's also enormous beauty and joy. I mean, there's nothing that unites a country in Europe, in Africa, like the national team playing a game in the World Cup. It's just, it's like a national passing.
- [27:25]
B
We're headed into the finals. When you think back, what were your favorite finals matches to watch?
- [27:32]
A
I mean, there's no doubt that in my lifetime or the years I've been watching soccer, the best final was the last one. 2022. France, Argentina and Qatar. France don't show up the first half. They play like they're zombies. Drugged, they can barely move. They Suddenly, in the 60th minute, get it together and it's a 3, 3 game in the last minute. France one on one against the keeper. He shoots against the keeper's leg. France don't win, goes to penalties. Argentina win. Just the drama. I remember thinking at the end of that hour of magnificent play from the 68 minute omnis, what happened here, it was like you've been transported into this other realm. You were living inside a movie. It was the most dramatic experience I've had at a a football match.
- [28:17]
B
Simon Cooper, author of World Cup Fever, A Soccer Journey and nine Tournaments and co author of Soccer Nomics A real pleasure to speak with you. Thank you, thank you.