Posted By Joshua Keating Share

I know this is a terrible thing for an internationalist-type American such as myself to admit, but I don't actually like watching soccer all that much. I like my sports fast-paced, high-scoring and frequently interrupted by beer and truck commercials, thank you very much.

However, I do enjoy the World Cup for the opportunity to see bitter geopolitical rivalries play out in a forum where no one gets killed or injured. (Well, not usually.) So, as Mark Leon Goldberg notes, today's World Cup draw is the first chance to see what we're in for. I must say, it looks like kind of slim pickings in the international drama department:

Goldberg points out a few colonizer vs. ex-colonized games in the first round, (Brazil-Portugal, U.S.-England, Spain-Chile/Honduras) but these are all centuries old and not that bitter.

The addition of North Korea to the mix is interesting, but it won't face South Korea, Japan, or the United States unless it makes it to the later rounds.The Round of 16 offers the possibility of a Honduras-Brazil match, which could be interesting depending on how the Manuel Zelaya situation plays out and an ex-Yugoslav matchup of Serbia and Slovenia could be good too. But all-in-all, it seems unlikely that any of these games will crack Steve Walt's "Sporting Events that Shook the World" list. Would a Venezuela-Colombia game or a Russia-Poland game be too much for a foreign-policy blogger to ask for?

The bigger drama (except for the soccer if you're into that sort of thing) will likely be whether South Africa can prove the skeptics wrong and put on an event that showcases its recent achievements more than its shortcomings. 

EXPLORE:AFRICA, SPORTS
 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

RHODESCOLOSSUS

8:33 PM ET

December 4, 2009

A Crying Shame

Tis a shame you don't enjoy watching the beautiful game Joshua, especially now that it is picking up in popularity here in the U.S. of A. Either way, this is the most important sporting even in the world, I'd say more so than the Olympics,and soccer always has the potential to show its ugly side so you might be in for a treat. As far as the U.S.'s chances go, I don't fancy them in the least. Algeria, regardless of their fanatical fan base, has a very good team and after hearing Landon Donovan's assessment of his group it is obvious that he doesn't know a damn thing about Algeria's or Slovenia's team. Three more world cups for a U.S.A. win, or at least final appearance, I'm putting my money on it.

 

RHODESCOLOSSUS

10:18 AM ET

December 5, 2009

You have it backwards...

France wasn't seeded, England was.

 

SUPERVIRGIN

7:31 PM ET

December 5, 2009

WC2010

The U.S. can't seem to win things involving determined countries that begin with the letter 'A' so I hope Team USA goes in confident-not cocky. FRANCE. Well, Leavethierryalone.blogspot.com
What's a World Cup without Thierry Henry? The man IS football!!!

 

FUNGLEGUNK

2:54 AM ET

December 7, 2009

Thierry Henry has forever

Thierry Henry has forever tainted his legacy by single-handedly (get it?) ensuring that France cheated their way to South Africa.

And regarding drama in the World Cup draw, apparently in the rehearsal for the draw Charlize Theron took one of the pieces of paper and tentatively shouted 'Ireland'. :P

Yes, we are still pissed off about it.

 

SMCI60652

1:53 PM ET

December 7, 2009

Group B

looks the most competetive and interesting.

 

AGD

2:07 PM ET

December 7, 2009

Colombia-Venezuela

Actually, living in South America, I get to see Colombia-Venezuela matches quite often... and they're not as fun... Venezuelans don't care about football (finally US and Venezuela agreeing on something!) and hence it doesn't create much controversy. Besides, Venezuelans have never been too good, so Colombia usually ends up winning.

Football rivalries are better than geopolitical rivalries... you should look out for an Argentina-Uruguay; Brazil-Argentina; or Argentina-England...

 

JPD

6:38 AM ET

December 8, 2009

I agree that football does

I agree that football does bring up a more fiercely competitve face in the general public than the Olympics in general.

However, and to make this draw seem even less interesting, the geopolitical charge of these games is actually below Joshua Keating's low expectations.

As a Portuguese national, I can predict with 99.9% accuracy that nobody in Portugal will view the match with Brazil as a match with a former colony, just as a match where we will, most likely, get crushed... England - USA...I'm certain this game won't even warm up a glass of milk. There mught be a small ground for a political charge on Germany - Serbia for historical reasons, but these will lie mostly on a few radicals. And if Serbia and Slovenia do meet, it won't be much of a clash - the Slovenia - Yugoslavia match of the Euro 2000, despite being very good in football terms, was not at all a highly charged game.

There's a remote possibility that England and Germany will meet in the lat-16 but one of them would have to end 2nd in their group and in theory, they are the strongest of their respective batches. Portugal - Spain might arise, but again, it's not politically charged at all...

Yes, I'm afraid you'll have to stick to the game itself, not to the political motivations beneath it. And both Koreas could not play against eachother in the same round, since the rules of the draw don't allow for two teams from Asia, Africa, South America or North America to be drawn into the same group.

 

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.

Read More