It has been widely accepted by fans, players, coaches, owners, leagues that some form of technology should be implemented to make the game of soccer more just. In 2010, at the World Cup, unfairness reared its unpleasant face when Frank Lampard's strike versus Germany was ruled not to be a goal when the ball is clearly shown to have crossed the line. For Euro 2012, UEFA made things a bit clearer by adding two additional referees at each goal. It was hoped that they could see actions unnoticed by the other officials.
Alas, the goal-line referees weren't enough either. In yesterday's match for the final game of group play between Ukraine and England, Marko Devic's strike past Joe Hart was cleared off the goal line by John Terry. So England fans hoped, and so saw the goal-line ref. But video playback shows that Terry clears the ball after it has completely crossed the line. In essence: goal.
So what now? FIFA has been looking into two different types of goal-line technology to circumvent the kind of situation mentioned above. One uses camera-based technology (Hawk-Eye) while the other (GoalRef) utilizes magnetic sensors to track the ball's path. A decision is set for July 5th and Sepp Blatter himself has said he will not go into Brazil 2014 without goal-line tech.
But why has it taken this long? Why do we have to ask this question? Michel Platini's argument that a goal-line referee would perform the same action is clearly flawed after yesterday's events, but it points to the old guard's elusiveness when it comes to amending the laws of the game.
Some of the American argument for why the game isn't as popular in this country is the lack of playback or assisting technology that is so prevalent in the National Football League. Maybe soccer could take on some American football rules for a change: how about a challenge allowed per team per half? You already have 3-4 minutes of stoppage time in average, so why not add another minute? Purity should give way to fairness in this world we live in. Nowadays everyone can look at the same angle whether on a TV screen, computer or smartphone. Suddenly we are all smarter than the referees. Why can't they use the same technology to upgrade their capabilities also?
The hope of all of France went up at the end of World Cup 2006 when it was announced that Laurent Blanc would take over as manager of the national team. I must admit this pleased me also, having been a fan of the team since their victory over Brazil in penalties at the 1986 World Cup. Back then it was Platini versus Socrates in a match for the ages. This would be repeated at the France 98 final when the French won 3-0 with two goals from Zidane and one by Petit.
France hasn't been the same since winning on home soil. Even at Germany 2006, when they reached the final, Zidane shocked their country and the world with an unnecessary headbutt against Materazzi of Italy. They lost in penalties to the Italians. Raymond Domenech remained as coach of the team through the 2010 World Cup cycle. But his pupils rebelled and his team fell apart. Losses to Mexico and Uruguay knocked them out of the tournament in the group stage. Even France's entry into 2010 was shrouded in controversy, as Henry's handball to set up his team's win over Ireland was seen by everyone but the referee.
Photo credit: FIFA
Now, in France's 2012 Euro and 2014 World Cup cycles, new life is gracing the team. Even though the team started his cycle with a loss against Norway, the team soon recovered with wins over Brazil and Argentina. The team now tops the 2012 qualifying group with a 6-1-1 record.
Blanc has also brought in new faces to the team. Most notably, Marvin Martin and Younes Kaboul. Look for these players to make some noise in world football. Add Ribery, Benzema, Diaby, Diarra, Abidal, and you are already talking world class with a great coach behind them. Next year's Euro will be a tough test, but they can certainly hold their ground versus teams like Spain and Germany, and may have surpassed others.
Blanc plays smart, attacking football with a concentrated defense. The man that scored the golden goal for France versus Paraguay in 1998, as the world held his breath, is ready for the challenge. And we are enjoying the way his team plays.
These days to speak of revolution means to reclaim right to free speech, free assembly, democracy and to ending the avarice of the establishment. We also instantly imagine Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, and the freedom of the Arab world. These sentiments can also be felt elsewhere in the world, away from oppressive governments. Just recently, Grant Wahl, soccer journalist for Sports Illustrated stated that he would run for president of FIFA.
How can this be? Is it legal? Does he have a shot? Should we care? Maybe not all of the above, but it certainly raises various questions. Wahl's main concern is the purported despise that world soccer fans have towards FIFA's current president, Sepp Blatter. And it isn't only the fans. Plenty of soccer journalists have displayed their discontent with the FIFA leadership.
In all fairness, this is bound to not come to fruition. Wahl, who also authored "The Beckham Experiment," requires the vote of at least 1 member nation (203 associations) to vote for him in order to be a viable candidate. Does anyone take the risk? Why shouldn't they? Why should they? All relevant questions.
They should if they feel the World Cup selection committee is mired by corruption. How does Qatar win the selection over the US or Australia? Is there soccer logic in this? Should there be? And what about the veto on high-altitude games (>2,500 meters)? That rules out Quito and La Paz. Who came up with this idea anyway? Perhaps the same people that thought "FIFA should suspend the World Cup if Brazil doesn't qualify."
But there should not be a vote for Wahl if your nation is trying to stay true to the game, true to the lack of video playback or additional referees, true to the continuation of World Cup rotation among conferences, true to the fact that all people, regardless of beliefs in their personal lives, have the right to attend matches anywhere in the world. There should also not be a vote if the Gold Cup is to remain in one place (USA) for every tournament and every 2 years (only 1 out of 2 in a World Cup cycle counts towards qualification for the Confederations Cup). There should not be a vote if Concacaf and Conmebol can't play together in a "Copa Americas" or a unified club tournament.
I believe in democracy. I believe in the choice of the people. If Blatter is the only candidate, then by all means he should be the president. He's an extremely intelligent, successful, and highly influential individual and he has helped FIFA reach out to Africa and Asia. Give him credit for that. Still, isn't it a bit odd that in my whole life there have only been two presidents of the world soccer governing body? Havelange was president for 24 years, Blatter has done so for 13.
Grant Wahl's candidacy is a hopeful dream, a mere pin drop at a construction site, but his idea and his action does show people out there care about the future of the game: the every-fan. And great candidates are out there. I, for one, would like to see Michel Platini get a chance to run FIFA. His message of solidarity and universality. He has worked to curtail the monopoly of big clubs in Europe and their perennial status as "champions" in the UEFA Champions League. Smaller nations have champions too, he argues. I must say I agree. Salary caps and limiting international players in club teams, as well as his fight against international transfer of minors are also major steps forward.
In the end, Wahl's candidacy and even his election is ultimately irrelevant to what he could achieve with his platform. It is the establishment, the committees in control of FIFA that are responsible for the rules of the game. Blatter is just a spokesperson. Still, the question remains about how much fans are willing to stand for. On the other hand, most American college football fans aren't keen on the BCS and/or bowl system, but the status quo remains in place. I merely suggest that we take the public's suggestions into account, regardless of the sport. I love the game and I only hope that it becomes more beautiful one goal at a time.
Vive les bleus! That was the chant in 1986 as Michel Platini worked his magic to get past Brazil to a semifinal date with Argentina. It was also the chant when they played again, 12 years later, in St Denis outside Paris... and when they beat Brazil, again, but this time in the final. That's the story of the French national team with me. Always a favorite, always able to get past Brazil. Always controversial. They have two Euro championships (1984, 2000), two Confederations Cups (2001, 2003) and one World Cup (1998).
France is a nation with deep roots in world football. France was present at the inaugural and 1934 World Cups but did not advance far in those tournaments. They hosted the World Cup in its third and final tournament before World War II in 1938. They advanced to the quarterfinals in that tournament, losing to eventual champions Italy. In the 1950s, France saw a golden age with players like Just Fontaine (13 goals in one tournament, unmatched since then). They lost 5-2 at the semifinal in 1958 to eventual champions Brazil courtesy of a Pele hat trick. The French saw a significant decline in the 1960s and 1970s before roaring back to the scene in the 1980s.
This is where the story begins. Easily one of the most memorable games in my memory, Brazil-France in 1986 cemented the team as one of my favorites. It was Platini versus Socrates. It came down to penalties...and the French prevailed. Since then, not one team has been able to knock out Brazil from the competition except for Argentina (1990). When France didn't meet Brazil (1994, 2002), the "Samba boys" won the tournament. When they met (1986, 1998, 2006), the French ousted the Brazilians... Pattern? Maybe, because in sports, as we know, psychology plays a major role.
Two World Cups passed with a glaring absence (1990, 1994), as France failed to qualify twice in a row (once against Bulgaria in 1993 courtesy of Hristo Stoichkov). But the Gauls would return with a vengeance. They were hosting 1998, and what a tournament that was! For the first time, 32 teams were included. For the first time, Asia and Africa were dully represented. Who can forget games like Nigeria-Spain or Brazil-Chile? And as for the French team? Just say the names: Zidane, Henry, Petit, Deschamps, Laurent Blanc, Trezeguet, Dessaily, Vieira, Thuram, Fabien Bartez, Lizarazu, Djorkaeff, Dugarry. Simply an amazing squad. On that final versus Brazil, Zidane, who had not scored at all in the tournament, stepped in to initialize the scoreboard and seal the deal with a 2-0 that would later be appended by Petit's goal. Goleada!
On to 2002 and the pains of being number 1 but relying on one player--Zidane. "Zizou" was injured for the first two matches. France went on to lose their opening match (which I incidentally had called) to Senegal 0-1. Scoreless tie against Uruguay and a 2-0 loss versus Denmark doomed the squad and they bowed out after the first phase.
In 2006, the "old guard" would have its chance once more. After a slow start in a relatively weak group, France squeezed out of the group phase by defeating Togo and with help from Switzerland. The round of 16 pitted them against Spain, heavily favored by many. It was not to be for the Spaniards... 3-1 for the French in an amazing match. Next came Brazil, again, except this time there was no penalties. This time it was Zidane dancing around Ronaldinho and connecting superbly with scintilating Henry. Henry's touch on the 57th minute marked the difference. Portugal, with a young Cristiano Ronaldo, met them in the semifinal. Zidane's penalty early in the match decided the contest. And the final? Still fresh in the memory of, dare I say, American fans. Zidane's header on Materazzi's humanity eclipsed the penalty he had scored early in the match. The legend would be ejected and Trezeguet would miss the penalty that decided the game. Italy won in another installment of antifutbol.
So what's next? They are in 2010 due to FIFA oversights but are here nonetheless. Franck Ribery, for one, rose up during 2006 to become Zidane's apprentice and now sits comfortably in the midfield directing plays left and right. He's joined by Toulalan, Diarra, Diaby, Malouda. Up top are Benzema, Henry, Anelka. Anchoring the back line are Gallas, Evra, Sagna, Abidal. Against them are the hosts, South Africa, along with Uruguay and Mexico. You could pencil them in for the next round but remember that they are a streaky bunch (as 2002 showed). They are in need of a spark at the moment, yes, but they can never be counted out.
