Gareth Southgate I WIKIPEDIA
By RORY SMITH
This week’s column has been designed as a monument to late-stage capitalism, in that the writing of it has largely been outsourced, but I am still taking credit for it. There are two issues, however, that arose perhaps a little too late in soccer’s month of festivities but which nevertheless warrant our attention.
The first is the departure of Gareth Southgate after eight years as England’s manager, a period in which he not only achieved the sort of success which would have looked like a golden age to most of his predecessors, but managed to do so while also largely embracing the absurd political and social expectations the country places on the role.
One aspect that has been missing from much of the coverage of Southgate’s departure is that of boredom. There had been (understandable) pressure on Southgate because of the soccer he played. There was (unwarranted) pressure on him because of his perceived social stances. But there was also pressure on him because he had been around for so long, and people like change.
England is not used to having a successful national team. England is not, in fact, used to having a national team not dogged by scandal and outrage. Southgate’s tenure has, essentially, been a quiet one.
The team has worked. The players have enjoyed it. But the lack of drama has been a source of frustration, too, a sense that England is just not interesting enough. Problems have not been imagined, but they have probably been exaggerated, by both the news media and fans, because England without noise is alien and unsettling and somehow unfulfilling.
The second issue, the much more serious one, comes in the form of the appalling scenes from the final of the Copa América, a match that was delayed after what appeared to be the complete breakdown of security outside the stadium in Miami. It was a fitting end to a tournament that was, organizationally, a disgrace.
The immediate, predictable response of the authorities was to suggest that the problems were caused by thousands of ticketless fans who rushed the gates, breaking and entering, and how that ruined the experience for some fans who had paid thousands of dollars to attend. This is a playbook soccer has seen many times, and it is to be resisted.
The responsibility of the safe staging of an event is on those who have organized it. Why were so many people without tickets — if that is what happened — allowed to get so close to the stadium? Why were they in a position to rush the gates? Why did the authorities respond to this by allowing anyone in, and then blocking the gates to everyone?
There will always be people who wish to attend a game and do not have the right to do so. It is the job of the authorities to filter them out. That is the case at every other major event. Soccer should not be considered different.
And with that, we open the mailbag.
How do you think Euro 2024 will be remembered? — Bracken Godfrey
Well, there’s a very good chance it will be mentioned on an almost daily basis in England for the next half-century or so. But plenty of other nations will have cause to remember it fondly: Slovenia, after playing the first knockout game in its history; Georgia, which thrived at its first major tournament appearance; Turkey, Romania, Albania for the sheer exuberance (and numbers) of their fans.
More broadly, though, my guess is that Euro 2024 will come to be seen as the start of something, the tournament at which the outline of soccer’s immediate future was drawn. The soccer was not always thrilling, in truth, but it was the stage on which Kobbie Mainoo, Arda Guler and, particularly, Lamine Yamal confirmed that they are the sport’s coming things.
This year’s Euros have been a bit of a letdown, outside of a few matches involving Turkey and Georgia. The top players seem a step slower when summer rolls around. Is it time to rethink our traditions and advocate for midyear tournaments and breaks? — Bob Leon
That fatigue has been an issue in both the European Championship and the Copa América is not in doubt, but whether there is anything that can be done about it is a little more complex. Most major leagues in Europe do have some sort of winter break but, Germany aside, it is hardly enough to make up for the demands placed on the players before and after.
My feeling has always been that soccer benefits from taking one of every two summers off, granting the players a fallow spell in those years that do not bring a continental championship or a World Cup. That, though, appears to be a thing of the past — there’s a Club World Cup next summer — and the expanded Champions League will only add to the burden.
Staging these big international tournaments in the middle of the season had not occurred to me, but it does make sense: It was a factor in what made the 2022 World Cup so compelling. As a rule, the leagues themselves would not countenance it on a regular basis, but they will doubtless make an exception for Saudi Arabia 2034.
My hope is that soccer’s elite teams will have seen the Euros and want to play more like Georgia or Turkey. My theory is that you can’t win a tournament playing like that, because of the work rate it requires. What is the solution? Larger rosters? Unlimited substitutions? — Tony Bankston
I would be wholly on board if everyone decided to play more like Georgia or Turkey, Tony, but I’m just as skeptical as you are. Fatigue is not the only issue: More experienced, higher-quality teams are generally quite adept at absorbing pressure, rerouting energy and then picking off opponents who afford them vast expanses of green space.
Whether there is a structural measure that might level the playing field is hard to say. My sense, though, is that the point at which soccer essentially has unlimited substitutions is not too far away: maybe a couple of decades at the outside. That is not said with any approval, to be clear, but it is the general direction of travel.
At a time when the Copa América and the Euros are going on, I would expect you to write something about the Copa. I haven’t seen much, other than a discussion of Marcelo Bielsa’s philosophy. — Pablo Echeverri
This is, sadly, an accurate depiction of my coverage, and for that I can only apologize. I would point out, however, that I am just one person, and a person who has been in Germany, rather than the Copa, at that. But this question does raise a significant issue: the somewhat unilateral relationship European soccer has with, well, everyone else.
The Copa América has never made an especially large imprint on the other side of the Atlantic. Some of that, of course, is unavoidable: The games kick off in the middle of the night, meaning that only the most tenacious fans are likely to watch.
If Conmebol, the organizer, wanted to change that, it could play games at more appealing times for European fans, but the reality is that Europe is not an especially important — soccer’s preferred euphemism for “lucrative” — market. The United States, and Asia, are much more significant.
That said, it did feel like a misstep scheduling the semifinals and finals of the Copa to coincide with the conclusion of the European Championship. There would have been an audience for Argentina against Colombia in Europe; a niche one, yes, but an audience nonetheless. Scheduling that game so it would air well after midnight in Europe, and many hours after the Euro 2024 final, was not the best way to reach it.
Attendance at the Copa América and Euro 2024 was roughly the same, but Copa ticket prices were much higher, sometimes thousands of dollars more. The Copa charged for the show, not the game. — Andrzej Franks
Yes, it did, and that is a mistake. Soccer is governed by market forces, of course, much like the United States. Conmebol’s position most likely would be that if people are prepared to pay that much for a ticket, then there is no reason not to charge it. Nobody is shocked that it costs a lot of money to see Taylor Swift.
Unfortunately, that is not quite the whole picture. Total attendance at the Copa was strong, but there also were large patches of empty seats at games: almost 20,000 when Mexico played in Houston, and more than 30,000 to watch the United States in Arlington, Texas. Perhaps making tickets cheaper might have enticed more people to turn up and watch? It would be a shame, certainly, if the same thing happened at the World Cup in 2026.
I was born and raised in Asia before moving to the United States, but it’s truly surprising how many people here seem to overestimate the allure of coaching the U.S. national team. It is an attractive job for some, but it is by no means one of the premier job opportunities in international soccer. — Walid Neaz
This is almost certainly true, and only partially because it is true of every nation. Elite managers are incredibly reluctant to move to international management — most prize the cut-and-thrust of working with players on a daily basis — until they reach the autumn of their careers.
But, and this is important, living and working (and building a brand) in the United States is something that people in soccer take extremely seriously. It may not appeal to everyone. It would not, for example, tempt Pep Guardiola or Mikel Arteta at this point. But there are advantages that, leveraged correctly, make the job more appealing than the team’s world ranking might suggest.
Comments