1. A History Lesson
2. How it works

As promised, we will take a look in this post at how international soccer competition is organized and specifically how the 2010 World Cup will be organized.

I thought that guy played for. . .

Before we look at how the competition between teams is organized, lets take a look at the teams themselves. In chatting with folks about soccer, I’ve found that one thing about it that confuses them at first is who plays for who and when. In each country there are one or more leagues, and naturally each league has its own teams, schedule, playoffs, and other competitions. We can call these teams “clubs.”

Occasionally, there are competitions between leagues in which the best clubs from each league come together in a cup or playoff format (e.g., CONCACAF Champion’s Cup in North America or UEFA Champion’s Cup in Europe). While these are international in nature, they are competitions between “clubs” and not “national teams.”

National teams such as those that will compete in the World Cup are made up of the best players who are citizens of that nation regardless of what league or nation their “club” is a part of.  For instance, Tim Howard, the probable goalkeeper for the US national team, is an American playing for Everton FC, an English Premier League team. It does not matter that he is living and playing in England. He is an American, so he plays for the US national team (if he plays at all). Some players have dual citizenship and are forced to choose which national team they will play for. They can change their mind, but they must do so before they reach a certain age. The only parallel I can think of in another sport is something like Olympic basketball or baseball. Sure, Yao Ming plays his league ball for Houston, but come Olympics time, he’ll be wearing a Chinese jersey.

When a club player is asked to play for his national team, this is referred to as being “called up.” Since the World Cup is still some months away, the actual team that will be playing has not yet been “called up,” so we’ll have to look at the specific players when it gets closer to killin’ time.

National teams sometimes organize competitions with one another to test their strength or a certain combination of players (its like having the world’s largest bench…so there is a lot to be worked out). These matches are referred to as “friendlies,” and have no bearing on any of the international competitions. They are necessary since there is no FIFA “season” between national teams.

How the World Cup Works

Qualification: From 203 to 32

FIFA organizes a World Cup once every four years. There are 203 national teams recognized by FIFA. The difficulties of organizing a playoff for that many teams are similar to those which keep NCAA football from having one. FIFA deals with this using a three year long qualification stage. The qualification stage is meant to weed out all but the top 31 teams. The country hosting the World Cup automatically qualifies making the total number of World Cup competitors 32. A list of the teams that qualified for the 2010 World Cup can be found here.

The Group Stage: From 32 to 16

The Group Stage of the FIFA World Cup is really the true beginning of the competition. All the teams travel to the host country (South Africa in this case) and play at different locations throughout that country. The 32 teams are divided into Groups A through H with 4 teams in each group. Each team will play every one in their group once (a total of three games). The teams accumulate points from each game – 3 for a win, 1 for a draw, and 0 for a loss. At the conclusion of the Group Stage, the two teams with the most points in each group will advance to Stage 2 (ties are broken by cumulative goals). The other two teams from each group get to pack their bags.

Inevitably, some groups are easier than others. For instance, Group A automatically has South Africa as the top seed.  SA automatically qualified as the host country and are a substantially weaker team  than the rest. Therefore anyone in that group is pretty much assured of at least 3 points. Other groups are much harder, and the hardest is often referred to as the “group of death.” For instance, the general consensus is that Group G is this year’s “group of death” because it contains three strong teams (Brazil, Portugal, and the Ivory Coast) along with one weak team (North Korea). This means that at least one strong team is not going to make it past the first stage!

The groups are selected during the World Cup Draw. The draw took place on December 4 and you can watch it here. The USA drew Group C along with England, Algeria, and Slovenia. Algeria and Slovenia are not especially strong teams, but hey…they made it to the World Cup, so they aren’t to be underestimated either. England…well…that’s going to be a tough game.

Many an Englishman will cry himself to sleep that fateful night.

The Round of 16, Quarterfinals, Semifinals, and Final: From 16 to 1

After the Group Stage, each match is an elimination match. The only exception is the Semifinals when the two losing teams will play one another to decide who finishes 3rd and 4th. These elimination games are tense and dramatic. Every touch of the ball has the potential to fulfill or destroy four years worth of collective national dreams.

The FIFA World Cup Final is the most watched sporting event in the world. Ever.

And there you have it. We’ve been working toward South Africa since 2006. Now we’re there, and while we have a tough start against England, we have very good chances of getting out of the Group Stage, and from there…who knows what could happen!

Next Up: Some vocabulary you’ll want to know

Coach Bob Bradley, US Men's National Team

(This is the first of a series of posts to help give some background for the upcoming FIFA World Cup taking place in June 2010. I’m not exactly an expert on soccer, but I’ve been getting into it in recent years and have found myself pretty pumped up about this World Cup. I’m hoping that by giving some of the background for the World Cup and maybe some basics of the game itself, I can drum up some interest among the three or four people who still read this blog)

2010 World Cup Series:

1. A History Lesson
2. How it all works

The History of the Game

The game of soccer (like the game of chess) has its earliest beginnings thousands of years ago. There is evidence of a game similar to modern soccer being played in China and Japan as early as 1004 BC (around the time of King David). We know for certain that such a game was played in Japan by AD 611. It is something of a mystery how the game spread from East to West, but it did so and found great popularity in Europe. Specifically, it was wildly popular in England. So popular, in fact, that the Church and Crown viewed it as a threat to their culture. Kings Edward (1307-1327), Henry IV (1399-1413), Henry VII (1509-1547), and Queen Elizabeth I (1558-1603) all passed laws prohibiting the sport as noisy and vulgar. Nonetheless, the game continued to be played and advanced to the point that by the 1800s clubs had formed and in 1863, in a London tavern, several of these clubs joined together to form the Football Association and wrote the Laws of the Game (Note: it is thought that the word “soccer” came from a shortening of “Association” to “Assoc.”).  Since then, the sport has spread all across the world. There is no other sport which comes close to being as popular worldwide as soccer (estimated 3.5 billion fans worldwide). An estimated 715.1 million people watched the final of the 2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany (that means that 1 of every 9 people on Earth was watching the World Cup. Incredible!).

What is “FIFA”?

As the 1800’s came to a close, national leagues and associations had begun to take shape across Europe and elsewhere. On May 21, 1904, representatives from France, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland joined to form the first international soccer federation – Federation Internacional de Football Association (FIFA for short). Since then, FIFA has established itself as the governing body of soccer around the world. It helps maintain the Laws of the Game, certifies referees at the international level, and oversees international competitions including the biggest and most successful – the World Cup.

The History of the World Cup

The first FIFA World Cup was held in 1930 in Uruguay.  The idea sprung from soccer’s inclusion in the summer Olympics starting in 1908, so it should come as little surprise that the World Cup is organized much like the Olympics (see future post). With the exception of 1942 and 1946 (WWII), there has been a FIFA World Cup held every four years since 1930.

The only nation to have played in every World Cup is Brazil who also has the most titles (5). Second is the current defending champion Italy with 4 titles, and third is Germany with 3 titles.

USA! USA! USA!

Soccer has a very long history in the United States. However, just as the sport was solidifying and formalizing in Europe, soccer in the United States was challenged by American Football’s rising popularity (a padded and more tame offshoot of rugby which has somehow remained popular in the US. You may have heard of it.). As a result, soccer has struggled to maintain its place among American sports, but in recent years this has been changing thanks to the efforts of Major League Soccer (MLS) and the influx of soccer loving immigrants into North America (also because nobody cares about baseball anymore).

Despite these difficulties, the USA has a long record of competition in the FIFA World Cup. USA got off to a good start in the 1930 World Cup defeating their first opponent – Belgium – 3-0 and going on to reach the semi-finals and finish 3rd overall. However, since then, the United States has lacked the developmental foundation needed to consistently compete with nations like England, Italy, or Brazil which have extensive and very popular professional and youth leagues (not that being the underdog has always been a bad thing! In 1950, the United States pulled off a huge upset against England which burns in the minds of English fans even to this day!). This lack of developmental foundation has begun to change with the recent rise in popularity of youth soccer, but we still have a way to go.

In the 2010 FIFA World Cup, the United States will first play a tough rivalry game against England on June 12, 2010. This will be followed by games against Slovenia (June 18) and Algeria (June 23). The top 2 teams from this group of four will advance to the next round. More on how the World Cup is organized in the next post in this series.

Is Your Tail Wagging?

Would not God discover this?
For he knows the secrets of the heart.

Psalm 44:21

My dog has quite a personality. Though he cannot speak, he is perfectly capable of communicating anger, affection, concern, happiness, grumpiness, etc. He has even been known to hold a grudge for a full day if I treat him unfairly! I have had “Fred” for almost two years and have grown pretty good at reading his facial expressions and body language. Those who have never owned a dog may think it strange that dogs are referred to as “man’s best friend,” but I’ve learned just how eerily human their personalities can be at times. However, there is one thing about Fred that is distinctly inhuman: He is completely incapable of hiding happiness.

When we humans are upset with someone or dislike something we express it in words, facial expressions, body language, etc. If the person we are upset with says something we like or does something to make us happy, we are capable of concealing our happiness in order to give the impression that we are still upset (How many dozens and dozens of roses have been met with this (non)reaction?!). Fred is incapable of such deception. He could be growling at me and literally about to bite my ankle, but if I merely said the word “park” his tail would start wagging uncontrollably. His face might say “I dislike this” but his tail says “I’m lovin’ it!”

Can you imagine how frustrating it would be if humans had been given such a ‘tell’? The ability to conceal our impulsive feelings is not just used for deception or manipulation. There are times when it would be tactless to fully express our emotion upon receiving some bit of information. Indeed, we are blessed to be able to control when and how we express our emotion.

That said, perhaps “man’s best friend” can serve as a reminder to us of an essential truth – you can hide nothing from Yahweh. No creature is hidden from His sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account (Heb 4:13). Over and over in the Scripture we are reminded that God not only sees the expression of our emotion but the source of it – the heart. The Lord “knows all hearts.”

Many times, this works to our advantage. There are times when we just do not know how to adequately express what we are feeling to the Lord. He knows. I’ve often heard it taught, based on Romans 8:26, that part of the Holy Spirit’s role is to ‘interpret’ the inward groanings of someone who prays to the Lord. I believe this is a misinterpretation of the passage since in the context it seems clear to me that the “groanings” in Romans 8:26 are the Spirit’s groaning rather than man’s, but we don’t need Romans 8:26 to know that our God can understand even our deepest emotions. We describe it as ‘inward groaning’ because it is frustrating not to be able to express the deep pain, hurt, joy, desire, etc. But He knows. He knows because He can see our “tail” – our heart. He knows our heart even better than we do! (1 John 3:20)

However, we should also be reminded that this same divine knowledge which gives us comfort when we want to express our emotions (but can’t find the words) also reveals our true emotions when we do not want God to know. We can hide nothing from Him – including our emotions. We may say with our mouth that we have no desire to participate in some particular sin, but does what the Lord sees in our heart correspond to that?

Consider this: When you decry the immorality which has flooded our culture, is your tail wagging? When you say that you want nothing to do with dishonesty, is your tail wagging? When you claim to look only to the word of God for authority and decry reliance upon human tradition, is your tail wagging? When you express your dislike for divisive men and silly controversies, is your tail wagging?

How ridiculous we would look had God given us actual tails which betrayed our true feelings!

How ridiculous we must look to God at times.

Realizing our naked exposure before the Lord, we must purify our hearts and renounce evil not only in our words and actions but in our very hearts such that we can join in the sentiment of the Psalmist in Psalm 139:23-24:

Search me, O God, and know my heart!
Try me and know my thoughts!
And see if there be any grievous way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting!

I have not yet seen this on the national news, but an AP story was posted on the website for our local paper reporting that a justice of the peace in Louisiana has been denying interracial couples marriage licenses. To clarify, it is not as though the couple could not get married. They simply had to find another justice of the peace, judge, or minister to sign the license. However, this story gets under my skin a little because it reminds me how often I’ve heard brethren express similar sentiments.

“I’m not a racist. I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way,” Bardwell told the Associated Press today. “I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else.”

It seems logical enough, right? Its not that he doesn’t like black people. It’s just that black people should marry black people and white people should marry white people. That’s not racist. Right? In fact, I’ve known black folks who make the same argument (so it can’t be racist! err..right?).

The problem lies in one little word – why? Why does it give us a problem if a person with black skin marries a person with white skin?

Here, the “reasons” begin to pour out just as they do from this guy. He hits the talking points, though, by mentioning the two “reasons” for opposing interracial marriage that I’ve heard most often:

Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

Aren’t those valid arguments?! Uh…no.

First of all, there are a several studies that validate the statement “Interracial marriages tend not to last long.” That being the case, we must ask, ‘Why not?’.  Surely we are not suggesting that the presence of black skin in a marriage somehow “taints” the marriage such that God does not bless it like any other marriage! Then why don’t they tend to last as long? I don’t suppose it would have anything to do with added stresses and pressures brought on by those (particularly amongst the in-laws) who refuse to accept the marriage – because it is interracial. Nah…that couldn’t be it.

The fact is any marriage in which there are significant differences between the two parties – be it cultural, religious, regional, linguistic, etc – tends to face difficulties not faced by other couples. Yet, we generally accept that a person from Maine has a right to marry a Texan and a good Southern boy can marry a girl from California. We might joke about how they will get along, but we don’t refuse to sign their marriage license. In our society, we get to choose who we marry. Denying that a person’s choice of a member of another race is acceptable because the “marriage probably won’t last long” is both unfairly selective and self-fulfilling. If the two people think they can work through whatever cultural differences exist because of race, then more power to them.

Nevermind that most marriages in this country “don’t last that long.”

To me, the second argument is even more depraved, yet it is the one that has given me pause in the past.  “What about the kids?” The argument is essentially that the children of interracial couples face prejudices and therefore it is wrong to bring them into the world.

“There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage,” Bardwell said. “I think those children suffer and I won’t help put them through it.”

So the argument goes something like this: “Why do I attach a stigma to interracial couples? Because there is a stigma against the children of interracial couples. Therefore, it is wrong on some level to have biracial children.” Of course, no one would actually say it like that, but that’s the essence of the argument. Like I said, this used to give me pause, but I’ve come to see how ridiculous an argument this is. By the same logic, we could say that all black people, asian people, and hispanic people should not have children because they will likely face prejudices in our society.  By the same logic, a person who has had one Autistic child should not have any more because the others may also be Autistic and thus be ostracized as a child. By the same logic, a Christian couple should not bear children because they, if they choose to follow Christ, will face persecution from others. I could go on. The argument just doesn’t hold up. If racism is leading to biracial children being ostracized then the solution is to confront the racist children and parents – not to stop having biracial children or to prevent them from being had.

But I don’t think these arguments were ever intended to hold up to any kind of critical thought. Excuses usually aren’t. (I haven’t even bothered mentioning the horribly flawed argument which attempts to use the bible to say that since Jews weren’t supposed to marry outside of Israel that God does not approve of interracial marriages.) The whole point of an excuse is to offer a cover for the real reasons behind whatever it is we are excusing.

The real problem that people have with interracial marriages was aptly expressed to me once by a young teenager from a Christian family – “its just not natural!” This teen, in childlike innocence, expressed what adults instinctively know is not an acceptable argument (thus the plethora of flimsy excuses). It just seems unnatural for a black man and a white woman or a white man and a black woman to marry.

Is it? Lets think about it. Surely we would all agree that it is perfectly natural for a human male and a human female to marry. That is the way God intended it. Indeed, it is pretty much the definition of natural. So natural, in fact, that we have to fight to keep things within the bounds that God set. Yahweh created male and female to compliment one another in just about every way. So what is it about the pigmentation of one’s skin that makes it unnatural for one to marry another?  You see, the only way that such a marriage could possibly be unnatural – against the design of God – would be if one party were to be considered inhuman or subhuman. And that is why adults instinctively know that it is not acceptable to say that such marriages are “unnatural.” It is the very definition of racism to suggest that one race is superior to the other or more perfectly human than the other. If you believe that black people are 100% human and white people are 100% human then there is no more justification for calling interracial marriage “unnatural” than there is to call a marriage between a blonde and a redhead “unnatural” or to call a marriage between an Italian and an American “unnatural.” Whether we want to admit it or not (indeed whether we even realize it or not), thinking of interracial marriage as “unnatural” is based upon racism – not “racism” like the word is thrown around flippantly today, but real, true racism of the vilest kind.

This is the type of thinking that led to chattle slavery, eugenics, and the holocaust.

Whether he realizes it or not, this Louisiana justice of the peace has racism in his heart, and frankly, you do too if you oppose a marriage based solely on the fact that the two parties are of different races.

(By the way…where is all the opposition to a white man and a Hispanic woman? an Asian-American man with a white woman? Surely this isn’t only about the African race.)

UPDATE: The “big name” politicians from Louisiana are scrambling to go on record as being opposed to this guy. I loved this little gem of sarcasm:

“Perhaps he’s worried the kids will grow up and be president,” said Bill Quigley, director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and Justice, referring to President Barack Obama, the son of a black father from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas.

UPDATE: Now, several weeks later, the justice in question has resigned.

“At what price softness?” said Tim Spring, chief executive of Marcal Manufacturing, a New Jersey paper maker that is trying to persuade customers to try 100 percent recycled paper. “Should I contribute to clear-cutting and deforestation because the big [marketing] machine has told me that softness is important?”

Listen pal, I can assure you it wasn’t a big machine that told me that softness was important.

You don’t want to know.

But despite environmentalists’ concerns, they say customers are unwavering in their desire for the softest paper possible.

Go figure.

Also in this article is probably the most timely set of editorial brackets I’ve seen in a while.

“That’s a segment [of consumers] that is quite demanding of products that are soft,” said James Malone, a spokesman for Georgia-Pacific. Sales figures seem to make that clear: Quilted Northern Ultra Plush, the three-ply stuff, sold 24 million packages in the past year, bringing in more than $144 million, according to the market research firm Information Resources Inc.

Meanwhile, a SURPRISING study has revealed that “quality” toilet paper is pretty stinkin’ high on people’s priority list (granted the study was done by the folks that make Quilted Northern Ultra Plush…but still…is anyone disputing the findings?)

At least I know what brand to buy now!