| | The inaugural FIFA World Club Championship has gotten off to a less-than-auspicious start in Brazil this week as a combination of factors --
not the least, the dominance of pay-per view television -- have conspired to make the tourney far less than FIFA president Sepp Blatter could have hoped.
So far, the crowds have not come -- one report had 8,000 in the grounds at the kickoff of the Manchester United-Necaxa match -- and the local Brazilian press has given the tourney less weight than would be expected. Overseas, the interest doesn't seem to be there, either, with British papers giving attention only to Man U and little else. In America, of course, the games are invisible, broadcast only at a handful of sports bars and then replayed, two days after the fact, on Fox Sports World, primarily a digital channel.
To be sure, politics have played a huge role in this tourney, with the
Europeans adamantly opposed to what they see as yet another unnecessary tourney that strips away the fitness of their players, and should the early returns continue, they will have won the point.
But, there is also a whiff of xenophobia in the air. Could it be that UEFA
fears its teams would not perform so well against the South Americans?
Very probably, as evinced in Manchester United's shocking 1-1 tie Thursday against Mexican champions Necaxa, a match that also saw top midfielder David Beckham get a one-match ban for viciously fouling Jose Milian. Man U looked lackluster despite fielding a full-strength lineup; Necaxa, on the other hand, looked like the experienced pros under the blazing sun.
Real Madrid also have run into tough opposition, getting held to a 2-2 draw Friday by arguably one of the best club sides in the world, Brazil's
Corinthians. In fact, quality of play is one of the few things no one can
quibble about -- so far, it has been pretty decent.
Still, FIFA could have handled this tournament differently; they could and should have made TV rights affordable to major markets without teams (such as America and Japan) directly involved; that's what's called "growing the game." They also should have staged the games elsewhere -- Brazil was chosen for purely political reasons, as that country clings to the hope that it will be taken seriously in its 2006 bid. Holding them in a neutral European country also would have ultimately drawn more attention and less whining.
The Club Championship is a good idea -- but getting people to take it seriously is another matter. And until FIFA stops looking to make a buck on everything and puts a little money toward growth, that won't happen.
When will USSF learn?
With revenues of $37.5 million in a year that hadn't yet seen the Women's World Cup, U.S. Soccer is inarguably a solid, solvent organization -- that's according to tax returns obtained by the San Diego Union Tribune for the fiscal year ending August 1998. So why are they getting into a pointless public relations fiasco over compensation for their women's team? Idiocy.
The fact is, USSF has always tried to play both sides of the coin: they
want to come off looking like the good guys, even if it costs them down the line. One of the key reasons that Steve Sampson wasn't fired as men's coach before the France fiasco was the federation's worries about a pubic relations disaster; at the time, the replacement was a Portuguese guy by the name of Querioz.
The women's situation isn't much different: this is a team that has largely
been allowed to do whatever it has wanted to, and USSF has been content to cash in the gate. However, along the line, someone must have figured out that a team run by the players isn't as safe a business venture as a team run by the managers; players have a funny way of wanting things like better pay and a bigger cut of the profits. So USSF has been quietly looking for a p.r.-friendly way to ease some of the "old guard" of players out of the team: not only are some of them just plain worn-out, but when it comes right down to it, younger players cost less.
Problem is, there isn't one, and that's where the USSF should have
developed some guts. People might have understood it a few years back if USSF had taken the reins back and started to really manage the squad the way most outfits manage their teams. People surely would have been upset, but not irrational, if USSF had said after the WWC that it was time for some of the older players to retire, in order to keep developing the pool of talent. They didn't, and now they are stuck in a situation where they look heartless no matter what they do.
There's a lesson to be learned here, and they should have got it the first
time around: cleaning house might hurt more in the short term, but it's
infinitely preferable to what's going on now. Especially since it's going to
be pretty tough to justify why WWC champions like Kate Sobrero and Sara Whalen still make under $30,000 a year, while General Secretary Hank
Steinbrecher apparently took home $271,662. That's nine times as much, and he didn't even score a goal.
Jamie Trecker, editor of Kick! magazine, writes regularly for ESPN.com. You may e-mail him at jamie_trecker@go.com; while he guarantees he will read all letters, he regrets that he cannot guarantee a reply because of overwhelming volume. | |
ALSO SEE
Trecker: Soccer still struggles in U.S.
 |
