Mark Gleeson in Baiersbronn World Cup
It is a persistent debate as to which is bigger and better and commands the most prestige – soccer’s World Cup or the Olympic Games.
Both claim television audiences in the billions, unscientific figures that still seem to seduce multi-million dollar marketing packages out of corporate coffers.
The World Cup and the Olympics are hosted every four years – the soccer fiesta lasting a week longer than the multi- discipline games – but the World Cup has the added advantage of a long-winded qualifying campaign which starts more than two years before the event itself, and is sometimes just as dramatic.
Perhaps one way to measure which is the biggest is the way the Olympic movement has attempted to court the professional soccer game, yet been kept at bay by football’s rulers.
For decades, soccer at the Olympics was for amateurs only, now it is played at under-23 level – the only Olympic event where there is an age restriction.
The reason for this is that soccer’s authorities do not want to see a soccer event of similar stature to the World Cup being played out at the Olympics and so devaluing their own showpiece.
Despite its current age restriction, Olympic soccer still attracted more spectators at every Games since Los Angeles in 1984; indeed more than the athletics, gymnastics or swimming.
But for the next month the argument between the two great events will not be too convincing. For it is the World Cup’s month in the spotlight and time for soccer’s four-year colonisation of the world’s conscience.
Millions of television hours will have been devoted to the event in France; billions of words written by the time the world champion is crowned in Paris on July 12. There are few corners of the globe were it will be possible to pass time without knowing that the World Cup finals are under way.
But what is it that makes the event such a giant global magnate?
Besides all the usual clichd attractions of sport, the winning and the losing, the joy, the tears, the drama, it is probably quiet simply the world’s greatest expression of nationalism.
There is really no other forum where almost all the countries of the world get a chance to challenge each other in a duel where the equipment and terrain are virtually standard. Only athletic prowess and physical strength separate the gladiators.
So to France the athletes of the best 32 football playing countries go.
Starting next Wednesday, they will battle for a month before a winner emerges.
This is the biggest World Cup yet, the numbers of participants increased from 24 to 32 nations and with a total of 64 matches being played.
Financial gain was the sole motivation for the increase – the more matches, the more sponsorship and more money into football’s coffers.
But the tournament did have modest beginnings in 1930 with only 13 countries in the field and has had its fair share of flops along the way.
There have only been six countries who have won the World Cup and in France this month only Uruguay are not playing in the finals.
The South Americans dominated the World Cup at first, participating more lustily than the Europeans. England, for example, did not take part until after World War II.
African participation has only been guaranteed since 1970, although the Egyptians did play back in 1934. Brazil are the only country to have played in each of the 15 previous finals tournaments.
The Brazilians are also the only nation to have won the World Cup four times, a feat achieved by the dubious method of a penalty shootout at the last tournament in the United States four years ago.
And they will again be favourites in France, a team blessed with the most talented group of players in the entire competition. In all positions – with the exception of goalkeeper, which has so often been the Brazilian Achilles heel – they are able to choose from an embarrassment of riches.
Striker Ronaldo, barely out of braces and his teens, is undoubtedly the world’s best player and a match-winner of stunning quality. He will be the major attraction of the World Cup, his team-mates, in a sense, something of a sideshow.
It is strange how everyone loves an underdog yet still loves Brazil; their canary-yellow shirts and blue shorts the most unlikely colours of glory. There is something, too, about the passion with which they play, the grace and the guile. If football was sex, Brazil would be the multiple orgasm.
But they will not be allowed to run amok. There are several other contenders seeking to lay claims to some prowess of their own.
Hosts France, a surly bunch at the moment but capable of peaking at the right moment; Germany, renowned for their efficiency and aptitude; Argentina, who have a strong strike force and Italy, always among the frontrunners even if they are playing poorly. The Dutch and the English are also potential claimants to the throne.
France have among the most potent teams on paper, a squad littered with players who earn their living at clubs like Juventus, AC Milan and Real Madrid. They are in the midst of a mini-crisis following the announcement of their final 22-man squad and all the Gallic histrionics that have come with the exclusion of several popular players.
Germany have not looked too clever in their build-up, either, but have a history of poor form in preparatory matches and then coming good in the tournament proper.
They drew one and lost one in their final two warm-up games before going to England two years ago and winning the European Championships.
The Argentinians and Italy are always contenders, both having played in three finals over the last two decades. There is no more Diego Maradona for Argentina, but a veritable goalscoring machine in Gabriel Batistuta. Italy are short on personalities but have a great depth in their squad. That they could afford to leave out Gianfranco Zola is proof of that.
The Dutch blew their own chances at the last few tournaments with persistent in- fighting and overblown egos. That is seemingly rid of but they will need to have Denis Bergkamp free of injury if they are to have any chance of winning for the first time.
England’s coach Glenn Hoddle reckons only Brazil are better than his team. He is probably the only one with this foolish notion. But it is a team of fighters and better football players than the English have fielded in years.
It would be fair to say that this is the most open of all the World Cups in the last two decades. One of the few certainties is that there are sure to be some surprises along the way.
Spain and Norway, for example, are two countries whom many predict will create upsets in the same way as Bulgaria and Sweden surprisingly forced their way through to the semi-finals in the United States in 1994.
Then there is the unknown quality of soccer’s Third World.
The five African countries are certainly better than their counterparts from Asia and the North American region but the gap is closing. South Korea, for example, could be worth a little outside bet as a potential quarter-finalist and Nigeria are always a factor.
This is despite a dismal run of recent results, including a 3-0 beating by Yugoslavia last week that has prompted a national outcry in the populous west African land.
Friday’s final World Cup warm-up game against the Netherlands in Amsterdam will give a better indication of the Super Eagles’s ability, but many have learnt not to read too much into Nigeria’s preparations, or lack thereof.
In winning Olympic gold in Atlanta two years ago, they flouted every convention and still came up trumps. It seems adversity is the best medicine for Nigeria and hopefully it will be the case for them this time around, too.
Certainly the Super Eagles hold out the best hope for an African triumph at the World Cup finals. The other four representatives from the continent can hope for no more than a place in the second round.
That is South Africa’s modest, but realistic, objective and they have an easier group than the likes of Cameroon, Morocco and Tunisia.
It was not too long ago that football luminaries like Pele and the former England manager Walter Winterbottom predicted an African World Cup victor by the turn of the century. Their timing is likely to be at least 10 years out.
But the beauty of the World Cup remains the unknown and the underdog. And there are few certainties in a tournament of this intensity.
Wednesday’s opening kick-off at the newly built Stade de France sets off a furious round of activity for the first 16 days at the World Cup.
There are at least two games a day, and at the end of the first round, four.
The focus on the players and the coaches is intense. There are 10E000 accredited media personnel who watch almost every move of all the participants.
The World Cup, too, is a major springboard for the players, who are playing in the greatest salesroom of them all.
Many careers have been made by just one flash of brilliance at the World Cup. Agents and managers pounce on promising talents and players stand to make millions if they can sign for the right club.
Surely some of South Africa’s players will be seeking to individually impress and earn themselves a transfer to a club where earnings, nowadays, can sometimes set up a footballer for life.
The buying and selling of players at the finals, and following the event, is an addendum of much interest.
But the World Cup itself is the real prize . arguably the greatest sporting trophy of them all. Certainly whoever wins in Paris next month will subscribe to that.