Lost in Translation: France-Ireland TV Issues

Ireland and France are paired in one of the four European playoffs for a 2010 World Cup berth.

I'm keen to find out what's going on, so I've been poking around the Web sites of Ireland's leading newspapers, looking for what they have ... and not seeing much.

So, I then went to France's well-known sports newspaper, "L'Equipe." And it has some news about the upcoming matches -- at Ireland on Nov. 14, in Paris on Nov. 18.

The problem being ... it's in French. Which I don't actually speak.

Anyway, there appears to be issues about TV rights for showing these matches. Which will create a lot of consternation on both sides of the English Channel ... if it doesn't work out. It may not be shown, is what I take. And the issue appears to be the second leg. Showing it back to England and Ireland, that is.

Anyway, some of you might find it amusing to see the French text ... and then the English translation through "translate.google.com

Here are the two versions.

"Décidément, rien n'est simple pour la diffusion du barrage entre la France et l'Irlande des 14 et 18 novembre. Pour le match aller en Irlande, M6 avait acquis les droits de retransmission au nez et à la barbe de TF1 en négociant en direct avec une petite agence outre-Manche pour 5 millions d'euros. Selon Le Parisien, mercredi, c'est au tour de la FFF de faire monter les enchères pour la diffusion en Grande-Bretagne du match retour.

"Selon le journal, la Fédération, propriétaire des droits de diffusion des Bleus à domicile, a mis à prix la rencontre du Stade de France à 1,5 millions d'euros. Problème, les offres cumulées du bouquet payant Sky et de la chaîne nationale irlandaise RTE atteignent pour l'instant à peine 600.000 euros. Si la FFF n'assouplit pas sa position, les Britanniques seront privés du match retour... et la Fédération d'une rentrée d'argent non négligeable."

OK, and now the "translate.google.com" translation.

"Really, nothing is simple for the dissemination of the dam between France and Ireland on 14 and 18 November. For the first leg in Ireland, M6 had acquired the broadcasting rights to the nose and beard of TF1 by negotiating directly with a small agency for the Channel 5 million euros. According to Le Parisien on Wednesday, it was the turn of the FFF to raise the stakes for distribution in Britain's second leg.

"The newspaper said the Federation, which owns the broadcasting rights of the Blues at home, put a price on the encounter at the Stade de France 1.5 million. Problem, offers the combined Sky pay-TV bouquet and the Irish national broadcaster RTE reach for now just 600,000 euros. If the FFF does not relax its position, the British will be deprived of leg ... and the Federation of money coming significant."

Clearly, that "nose and beard" thing is a French idiom. It seems to have to do with somebody stealing the rights from under the nose of somebody else.

Anyway, the point of this whole exercise is to demonstrate how difficult it is to gather information on a global sport when it is reported in so many languages. In this case, only French and English.

One of the four playoffs is between Greece and Ukraine. I don't even want to go there. Yes, it would all be Greek to me. Except for the part that would be Russian. Read more!

Kiwis Find Soccer Lesson in Rugby History

Only in New Zealand.

Well, maybe in South Africa or Australia, too.

We have a professional sports journalist here, at the New Zealand Herald, writing (in all seriousness) a story about how the All Whites -- meaning New Zealand's soccer team -- can "learn from the mistakes" of the All Blacks -- meaning the Kiwis' rugby team -- that were made during the 2007 Rugby World Cup.

Now that soccer/rugby connection/comparison would not have occurred to me.

Here is the link to that story.

The gist of this is ... a former coach of the New Zealand national soccer side says it would be a bad idea for the current coach of the national side to rest players ahead of the Nov. 14 showdown, in Wellington, with Bahrain.

The match that has a 2010 South Africa berth at stake.

Yeah. That match.

New Zealand is the champion of Oceania (Australia the Fair having bolted for Asia), and that got the Kiwis a home-and-home playoff with Bahrain, the No. 5 team out of Asia.

The first leg of the playoff was a scoreless match in Manama, Bahrain, back on Oct. 14.

It's a very straightforward thing, now. If the Kiwis win, they're in. A scoreless tie goes to overtime and then to a shootout.

But any tie in which Bahrain scores ... means Bahrain goes forward on the basis of "away goals." And New Zealand is out. Again. Same as every World Cup since 1982.

And back to the Herald story. New Zealand's soccer talent is so thin (it has one professional club in the country, and it plays in the Australian league) ... that some suggest the Kiwis should make bloody sure no one gets hurt here in the last 10 days before the match.

But the former coach is saying, "No, you have to play matches to be ready for a big match."

And then we have the 2007 rugby World Cup squad invoked. Apparently, that team rested or sat many of its key players before some key matches, and when they finally got back to playing, they were rusty or unfit, or both ... and the Kiwis crashed out.

So. Play the soccer guys ... because we learned our lessons from rugby. Sports which have as little to do with each other as team handball and basketball. But never mind. It's New Zealand, and over there, I'm sure it all makes perfect sense. Read more!

Another World Cup without Bora?

Bora. As in Bora Milutinovic.

For five consecutive World Cups (1986-2002), our favorite Serbian/Mexican/citizen of the world coached somebody in the finals. And never the same somebody.

And four of those times (Mexico in 1986, Costa Rica in 1990, the U.S. in 1994, Nigeria in 1998), he got his team into the knockout round of the World Cup. Which is no small feat. Well, actually, it's an unparalleled feat. No one has taken three different sides to the knockout rounds, let alone four.

So, here we have the man with the best track record of wringing something out of teams (including two quarterfinal appearances) in environments as vastly different as the U.S., Nigeria and Mexico ... and seven months ahead of the World Cup ... he doesn't have a job.

I don't get this. Why isn't Bora Milutinovic getting somebody ready to spring a 2010 South Africa surprise?

I dealt with him, a lot, back in the early 1990s. I was covering the national team during the run-up to the 1994 World Cup, which meant I saw a lot of Bora and heard a lot of his fractured English. English being, to be fair, no more than his fourth-best language (behind Serbian, Spanish and Italian).

I remember interviewing him for a story in 1991, shortly after he had taken over the U.S. team. He let me drive him from practice at Denver's Mile High Stadium to the team hotel, a day or so before a friendly with Uruguay, and we talked ... though it was hard to take notes while driving.

This is a guy who should, absolutely, write an autobiograpy. The things he has seen and the places he has been ... from the day of his birth (during World War II Yugoslavia, a very rough place) to his stints running this, that and the other national team.

I have a sneaking suspicions a bunch of his relatives died at the hands of other Balkan ethnic groups, during World War II. Maybe both of his parents, actually. In that Denver conversation, I asked him about his languages. And I mentioned "Serbo-Croation" -- which was what the tongue was commonly called, before Yugoslavia completely fell apart. And Bora said, "No. Serb." So, yes, I think he may have some issues with Croats ... though 99.9 percent of the time he alleges to love all mankind, and maybe he pretty much does.

Ok, he was a bit of a phony, in what struck me as more of a Mexican than Serbian way. (But it could be Serbian, too; I don't know Serbia like I know Mexico.) A backslapper and a guy who tossed around a far from convincing (but still emphatic) "hello my friend!" when he couldn't come up with your name, which was often. There were times, more than a few, when I wondered why the United States had a coach who could barely communicate with his players, never mind journalists.

But the man could coach. He seems to have an ability to almost immediately size up a team's strengths and weaknesses, and go about emphasizing the former and hiding the latter.

He has been described as being a defense-first kind of guy, and a bit stodgy and, perhaps, now a bit old-fashioned, at age 65 ... but anyone who saw him with his last three World Cup teams (the Americans, Nigerians and Chinese) recognized that he did what he had to do to give those teams a chance to win.

The fact that he got the U.S. to the second round, in 1994, with players from a country with no professional league worthy of the name and only a handful of guys who had played overseas, was nearly miraculous. (The own goal by Colombia in the 2-1 victory at the Rose Bowl helped.) Nigeria had some players, but that was the first and only time it has been in the final 16. And then China ... OK, the Chinese didn't win a game ... or tie a game ... or score a goal ... at Japan/Korea 2002 ... but getting that motley crew into the 2002 World Cup was a feat that hasn't been managed since.

Anyway, this is a guy who can adapt to anything. Who can coach anywhere. We most recently saw him leading Iraq at the Confederations Cup. Where he actually had Iraq with a shot at advancing up till the final match of group play.

But now ... he does nothing. (Unless he's somehow still on Iraq's payroll, and I don't think he is.)

He was mentioned as a candidate for the South Africa job, the moment there it was open. Indeed, two of his four second-round jobs came with host teams -- Mexico in 1986, and the U.S> in 1994. Maybe he has some special talent for whipping together teams that don't "enjoy" the rigors of qualifying.

I think the guy has something left. He always has been lean and active and seemingly full of joie de vivre (he remains me of USC football coach Pete Carroll, actually) ... but he can't get at South Africa?

It's not too late. Someone who hires Bora in the next month can get six solid months of him before South Africa 2010, and have more than a decent shot of advancing. And I don't care if you're Honduras or either of the Koreas. Bora could take you as far as you could go.

He absolutely would make Argentina better than Diego Maradona will manage. I would rather have Bora than Carlos Alberta Parreira, actually. And, well, fill in the blanks.

Bora is being left behind, it seems. Which is too bad. I think he had another couple of World Cup shockers left in him. Read more!

Maradona, 'Violent Emotion' and His Job Future

The investigation of Diego Maradona's profane outburst directed at reporters on Oct. 14 has begun.

The lawyer for the Argentine Football Association said the national team's coach was in a state of "violent emotion" when he directed lewd remarks at journalists after Argentina qualified for the World Cup in its 18th (and last) match in South American competition.

So, the question is ... is "violent emotion" an excuse? An explanation? Or should we expect more from the man in charge of one of the planet's top teams?

As the story notes, Maradona could be suspended up to five matches, if he is found to have been out of order. Well, he was out of order. Out of order enough that FIFA actually does something about it and punishes an oftimes sacred cow.

If that punishment comes down -- and it would be a shock if it does -- Argentina would have to think hard about sending the squad to South Africa with Diego in charge.

So, he made the tournament. Does anyone really think he can get Argentina deep into the tournament, given his record (two victories in nine qualifying matches) and clearly fragile emotional state?

Could he get Argetnaine out of group play ... before losing his stuff? Past one round of knockout play? To the championship match?

I think not. Here, then, is an excuse for Argentina to uncouple itself from its moody, explosive, irrational coach ... and get someone who can run a team without "violent emotion." Read more!

Potential Playoff in Africa Group C?

This would be strange. And probably exciting, as well.

A one-game playoff at a neutral site to determine the winner of Africa Goup C.

Here is a link to that story.

In short, the playoff will happen if Egypt defeats Algeria by two goals, in Cairo, on Nov. 14, the last day of Africa qualifying. (Or so we thought.) That would leave Egypt and Algeria with 13 points and identical goals-scored and goals-allowed.

Apparently, the "away goals" tiebreaker sometimes employed ... is not in effect here.

Which brings even more tension to a match that already carried lots of it.

Here are the standings in Africa Group C.

Algeria goes to the World Cup with a victory or a tie. It also goes in the case of a one-goal defeat.

Egypt wins the group if it wins by three goals. (And the Egyptians know well that sort of swing can happen, having been part of it at the Confederations Cup, when the United States defeated the Pharoahs 3-0 to jump into the semifinals.)

But if Egypt wins by two goals ... 2-0, 3-1, whatever ... here comes that one-game neutral-site playoff.

North Africa would be riveted. People in Egypt and Algeria would be almost crazy with anticipation. It would be fun. And it would be a little weird. But that's world soccer for you, isn't it. Read more!

This Is the Second 'Soccer' World Cup

I've been referring to football, on this blog, mostly as "soccer." It's the American way. In the United States, another sport known as "football" beat soccer to the name.

But soccer also is a South Africanism.

Making this the second "soccer" World Cup. Following the 1994 World Cup -- in the soccer-not-football US of A.

The proof?

It's all over the South African media.

The Johannesburg Sunday Times? It tracks the sportr known as soccer. Never football. Soccer.

The Independent on Saturday in Durban? Soccer. Soccer. Soccer.

Even in Afrikaans, it's not football. Die Burger, in Cape Town, refers to "sokker" ... as does Die Beeld in Johannesburg. Making it a "sokker" country, in Afrikaans. (Though it could be some version of "football" among the black population.)

So, you futbol-football-fussball world ... you're playing for a soccer trophy next year.

I spent some time poking around, looking for the rest of the planet's "soccer countries," and it's actually a short lists. It has to be an English-speaking country, and it probably has to have some other sport that has appropriated the name of "football."

Actually, the list of soccer countries is only 4.5 countries long. The States and South Africa ... and Canada (which has Canadian football) and Ireland (which has Gaelic football and maybe doesn't call soccer "football" because the English do). There are the four.

And the half? New Zealand. The New Zealand Herald refers to soccer ... but the Dominion Post of Wellington calls it football. Apparently, the Kiwis haven't quite figured out what they want to call it.

You might expect Australia would be a "soccer" country, what with Australian Rules Football ... but the Sydney Morning Herald calls soccer "football" ... and Aussie Rules "Footy." Solved that problem.

If there are any other "soccer" countries out there, I'd like to hear about it. Read more!

Speaking of Stadiums: Brazil Paying the Price

I noted in the previous post, the one about the stunning new stadium in Cape Town ... that I don't know if a country like South Africa really ought to be spending its money on things like that.

Well, the same goes for Brazil.

It's an emerging economy, and all, but it's not as if there's no poverty. (Check out the crime rate in Rio, if you wonder about impoverished masses.)

Now, we've got Brazil's state development bank opening a line of credit for $2.8 billion to the 2014 World Cup organizers to have 12 stadiums ready for the event. This story tells you about it.

The problems with that $2.8 billion?

1. Brazil said no public money would be used for stadiums, when it pitched its bid to FIFA. Now, FIFA almost certainly doesn't care where the money comes from, but it is dishonest and disingenuous for the bidders to have maintained that a country with zero FIFA-caliber stadiums would be able to find private money for 12 of them in time for 2014.

2. Brazil isn't exactly the richest country in the world. This site has them at No. 86 in the world in per capita income, at a modest $7,500. Leaving them behind countries such as Mexico, Malaysia, Botswana -- and even South Africa ($10,300).

Stadiums cost lots and lots of money. Money that could be used for, oh, food. Things like that.

But, in theory, Brazil will have some really nice stadiums, by 2014. Won't be able to eat them, may not be able to afford to get inside them, but poor people can look at them from a distance and ... be proud? Read more!