I think the reassertion of "Old Europe" over the rest of the world is a bit overblown. The draw has a lot to do with the outcome of the semis. Germany v Argentina and France v Brazil were worthy games of the semis or even the final. Neither games were walk overs, the first ended in a draw the other 1-0. If we want more intercontinental finals a seed should be given to each confederation.

European teams have an advantage in Europe. Distances are short and the games can easily feel like a home game.

I am not sure what FIFA can do to get a non European or Sth American country to win the worldcup, or even make it to the semis.

The problem is that the worldcup is quite artificial. The teams don't play together very often and many games are against weak opposotion.

eg Holland plays two rounds of qualifiers for the world cup and for the European cup. For each tournament they play six other federations in a round of home and away games. Typically at least two federations are weak, like Faroe Islands. Usually there are only two quality opponents. That means only a handful of quality games every 2 years. (Of course there is the occasional upset). None of these qualifiers are against countries from different confederations. In fact the only time countries play outside their confederations is every four years during the world cup.

This system also makes a mockery of the rankings. Holland and the Czech Republic were ranked 3 and 2. However the last three qualifiers and Euro04 they were in the same pool, so it is hard for them to lose their respective ranking.

I think the only way for outside countries to win the world cup is to either be patient or have many more interconfedation games. If we look at the AFL analogy it took Brisbane 15 seasons to win and Sydney about 25. The world cup is every 4 years so expect it to take between 60 and 100 years for an outsider to win.

James Massola, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the new rankings FIFA has given everyone, particularly the Socceroos? I'd like to know the exact formula used to calculate the rankings, just so that I can confirm what I already know - it's bull.

The ranking system that FIFA uses are mystifying at best. Uruguay has risen 9 places (i think) and DID NOT PLAY at the world cup, for example. England has risen to number 5 or 6. how this is possible I will never know - if pints were taken away for boring-ness, the English would be ranked beneath the Faroe Islands.

Euro-footie-phobia aside, I am unable to see the point James Massola is attempting to make. He argues "the Europeans would do well to remember that no European nation has ever won the trophy outside Europe. (Argentina and Brazil have both won outside South America, by way of comparison.)"

Does he think we do not know which country won which tournament, when and where? It certainly appears that James's own memory is at fault on this score; only Brazil have become World Champions outside their home continent (beating the home side 5-2 in Sweden in 1958.) Argentina's two triumphs were at home in 1978 and in 1986 in Mexico, where they were assisted by the infamous 'Hand of God' incident where Maradona punched the ball into the net for the winning 'goal' against England.

He then adds "While the Europeans have performed well at this World Cup, it remains to be seen if these results can be reproduced in South Africa in 2010."

Of course it does, that is the joy of football. It is unlikely that Europe will do as well as this time around and nigh on impossible for them to perform better. However if the Europeans were really concerned with gaining some sort of advantage for their teams, the competition would be played in winter, now wouldn't it?

Dave S
Singapore

DaveS, I think you will find that Mexico is not part of South America. It is in fact part of the CONCACAF region, which is distinct from the CONMEBOL region.
As for your comment about "what will happen in 2010," I completely agree, the uncertainty is part of the beauty of football. I was not saying anything to the contrary;-)