World Cup 2026: Furia Roja

And there we have it: another World Cup in the bag, another name etched on the trophy, and another star on Spain's shirt. Every World Cup is a good one, even when the play is crap and the hosts are dodgy, so I'll leave other minds to reflect on whether this was a good tournament or not.

I suppose the only thing that I'll say in that direction is that the US remains a great venue for the World Cup. The size and diversity of the population are big enough that you can almost always fill a stadium, and  they're up for a party. I didn't get to any of the public parties down in San Jose, but when I did watch matches at pubs, there was always interest and full houses.

As for the game itself, it was a bit of a grim spectacle, watching Argentina resorting to playing dirty in an attempt to stop Spain from swamping them. I suppose they can't all be like 2022, when Argentina went up 2-0 in the first half, France equalized by the 81st minute, and then the game ended at 3-3 after extra time and Argentina won on penalties. But it's a pretty damning statistic that Argentina managed just two shots in the 120 minutes of game time, and no shots on target. That may indicate that Spain's superior midfield strangled Argentina's ability to link up play and bring Messi in, but Argentina also picked up 25 fouls (to Spain's 21) and 7 yellow cards, one of which led to a red card, compared with none for Spain.

It doesn't feel like a great final display for Messi, does it?

The other statistic is that this final cements 2026 as a particular over-performance by Western European teams, especially the EU5 (of whom only four were present). Western European teams picked up 2.13 points per game against teams from the rest of the world, the highest since 2006 (2.59); EU5 teams won 2.33 points per game, versus 2.67 in 2006.

Western European teams had it all their own way against almost every other region: they played 6 games against teams from CONCACAF and won all six, and won all three of their matches against Eastern European teams (they also have a perfect record against Oceania, but since they met just once, when Belgium played New Zealand, I'm not counting that). Their record against teams from Asia was more mixed, with 5 wins and 4 draws, but even there they didn't lose a single match. A Western European team did lose a match against a team from Africa (Scotland v Morocco), but won 10 of the other 16 matches against African opposition (I'm counting games won on penalties as draws, otherwise Morocco would have also notched a victory against the Netherlands).

Ironically, CONMEBOL was the confederation against which the teams from Western Europe had the worst record. Of 12 matches played, the South Americans won 5 and the Western Europeans won 4, with 3 draws. But when it counted the most, Spain came through and beat Argentina, which notched the most wins against Western European teams throughout the competition.

I've spoken before about the power of networks, and the fact that the core countries of England, Germany, Italy and Spain benefit from having the best leagues (and France from having players who play in those leagues). This result, and the good performance by these core countries, just shows how crucial that networking is to success in the World Cup.

The other notable thing from this result is that this is the first time a UEFA team has won a World Cup in North America. The previous editions were won by Brazil and Argentina in Mexico (1970 and 1986) and by Brazil in 1994 (USA), and always against European teams (Italy, West Germany and Italy). I always held that up as proof of the difficulty of traveling - until 2014 no UEFA team had won in the Americas, and both World Cups held in Asia were won by CONMEBOL teams (Brazil in 2002, Argentina in 2022). The only outlier was Spain's win in South Africa in 2010, but you could argue that that tournament represented less jet lag for Europe. That said, now that UEFA teams have won in South America and North America, this jinx against traveling can probably be consigned to history.

As a final thought, I want to come back to the point I made above about the US (and Mexico and Canada) being a great venue to host the World Cup. I don't have many memories of the 1994 tournament, apart from the disappointment of the final, but I kept thinking about the 1998 edition, which was the first I watched in its entirety. Like this one, I started out watching it on Telemundo, since I didn't have access to ESPN in my dorm that year. MLS was still relatively new, having only started a couple of years before thanks to the boost soccer got in the US from the 1994 tournament.

What a difference 28 years makes. MLS isn't considered a great league by any means, but it seems to have benefited from becoming a destination for European players who wanted to play without being seen to take a huge payout from China or Saudi Arabia. The arrival of David Beckham in 2007 helped raise the league's profile, and the game's, among US sports fans, and the arrival of Messi in 2023 (at a team co-owned by Beckham) raised it even further.

Here's an example: during Argentina's first match this tournament, against Algeria, I heard the Chinese family downstairs from me cheering Messi's hat trick, and it struck me that in 1998, no one in America would have recognized the game's most high-profile player or cared that he was playing. Yet that night we had Kansas City hosting the world champions and a bunch of fans there specifically to see Messi play, and more people tuning in to see him on TV.

I guess it makes me happy to think that 1994, which was derided as a cash grab at the time, did have far-reaching effects that still resonate. Without that tournament, MLS would probably never have been formed, certainly not with so much backing as it received, which would have given the US men's team access to fewer players and fewer academy facilities to develop them and send them to learn their trade abroad. You can trace the decent performance of the USMNT this year directly to their success and the excitement around USA 1994.

It also has to be said that the Women's World Cup contributed a lot to raising the profile of the game here. When it was held here in 1999, it became another opportunity for normal sports viewers to see the world gathered in the US to play together, and the fact that the USWNT won must also have helped - US fans could say that the men weren't up to the standards of the best, but the women were the best. That excitement was replicated in 2019, when the games were all over TV here in the US, despite the tournament being played in France. It helped that, once again, the US fielded a great team that looked like they were playing for each other.

So the success of this World Cup is due to 1994 and 1999, as well as 2002 when the men got to the quarterfinals and 2019 when the women won and turned it into a platform for advocating against Trump. It leaves me wondering how this year's edition will affect the game, both here in the US and abroad - next month normal US sports fans will go back to ignoring whatever's happening outside our borders, but they may carry the images and fun of this tournament with them for a long time, leading to more interest in future tournaments and more demand for games here.

It'd even be fun to see the US men win a World Cup - just once, though. I'd like to see another Italy win someday soon, or even just a qualification. But that's a dream that'll have to wait four years.

World Cup 2026: On to the Quarterfinals

Today's the first day without football since the World Cup started, so I took the opportunity to catch my breath and work on some of the stats for the tournament so far. The main thing is how rampant European teams were in the round of 16: the only UEFA team to exit at this stage was Portugal, which was knocked out by another UEFA team (Spain). All of the other European teams knocked out their opponents and progressed to the quarterfinals, which means the count stands at 8 UEFA teams, one CONMEBOL team (Argentina) and one African team (Morocco).

On the stats side, that means that UEFA teams so far lead the tournament with 1.81 points per game, having overtaken CONMEBOL with 1.74. The irony is that European teams have fared the worst against South American teams at this tournament, having lost three matches against them. In comparison, the only other confederation to have notched a win against a Western European team has been Africa, when Morocco beat Scotland in the group stage, but otherwise Western European teams have racked up 9 wins against African teams.

Teams from Western Europe have, so far, picked up 2.14 points per game against teams from the rest of the world, including Eastern Europe, which is the highest points-per-game since 2006, when Germany hosted and the entire continent had home field advantage. The average points-per-game across the tournaments from 2002 to 2022 is 1.88, so teams from Western Europe are doing historically well.

Part of that is how limited the other teams have been. Not to be mean, but the three hosts, all CONCACAF teams, got found out in this round just gone. Canada wasn't knocked out by a European team, but they were taken apart fairly convincingly by Morocco, who are just a win against France away from reaching their second semifinal in a row. Mexico gave the best go of it, but home field advantage, altitude and storm-related delays couldn't paper over the fact that England's individual players are just better.

And then there's the USMNT's performance against Belgium, which has been discussed at length by everybody, so I'll spare you for the moment. But regardless of off-field shenanigans and whether or not certain politicians' actions fired up Belgium while unsettling the US, that game was simply another case of a team of better individual players winning against spirited but limited opposition.

That point about good individual players bears repeating, because we're seeing it reflected in the race for the golden boot. I don't think I've ever seen the most heralded players showing up the way they have this year, but Lionel Messi is on 8, Kylian Mbappé and Erling Braut Haaland are on 7 each and Harry Kane is on 6 - and all four players could add to those totals. Messi and Mbappé both roared past Miroslav Klose's record, and now they're both a couple of good games away from matching or passing Just Fontaine's record for scoring 13 goals at a single World Cup.

By the way, as a digression, I was sorry to see Klose's record get eclipsed like that. There was something endearing about the idea that the top scorer in men's World Cups was a relatively unknown German (of Polish ancestry) who was never a household name like Messi or Pelé. On the other hand, now I'm curious to see if Harry Kane will manage to pass Klose, and whether Haaland will manage to add to his tally in the next World Cup in 2030.

But coming back to my point about the best players showing up for this tournament: those four leading the goal rankings right now were all expected to perform, and so far all of them has. You might argue that Cristiano Ronaldo has disappointed, but I'd argue that he over performed, given how limited his play has become; same with Neymar Jr. for Brazil.

There have been disappointments from big teams, of course. Without mentioning Italy's failure to qualify, Uruguay should have gotten more from their group, and Germany should have beaten both Ecuador and Paraguay. Brazil also seemed like they might come good, but then couldn't cope with Haaland or with the rest of Norway's movement. But other than Germany losing to Paraguay on penalties, there haven't been any shocks - the big teams mostly showed up and the unheralded teams have tended to over perform (in the case of Cape Verde) or at least give a decent account of themselves.

That might be because of the venue. The US, where most of the games are played, is diverse enough that you can fill a stadium with fans from pretty much any country in the world, just from that country's diaspora - the Iran games played in LA were apparently pretty lively, for example. Even if only 0.01% of the US population hails from somewhere like Ghana, that still means about 35,000 fans to liven up games and watch parties.

With that kind of support, you expect all teams will do well. The question will be whether this 48-team format will hold up in the next few cycles. 2030's going to be weird, with games in Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay, Spain, Portugal and Morocco, while 2034 will be weird in the other extreme, as it'll feature Saudi Arabia as the sole host. While 2030 will have opportunities for lots of fans to travel, it likely won't have that diversity that the current tournament has brought.

That point about diversity brings me back to the US's exit, for a brief political coda to this blog post. Donald Trump can't have it both ways: he can't claim credit for an admittedly successful tournament while also demanding that the US be only white and English-speaking. Whereas 2006 was a nice showcase for Germany's inclusiveness and openness, 2026 feels like a success in spite of the US's government and general attitude toward the rest of the world. Trump's interference, and Gianni Infantino's acquiescence, have spoiled that a bit, but my hope is that the remaining fans who have traveled to the tournament will still have a good time and be able to take home stories of how welcoming the US was, regardless of who's in the White House.

The US is doing its damnedest to cut itself off from its friends, and when crisis hits, as inevitably it must when we've got a shitty government like this, the hope will be that enough goodwill remains from the rest of the world to get through it. A fun World Cup should help toward rebuilding bridges that this administration has insisted on burning.

America at 250

It occurred to me today that the big party for the 250th anniversary of the founding of the US has been a bit of a no-show. I didn't mark it with friends or family, or even see friends or family in person today - the only people I interacted with were a couple of employees at the Menlo Park Safeway, plus texting a couple of people here and there.

That's a reflection on how little of a deal it seems to be here in the Bay Area, but also how little notice my media bubble seems to have paid to the big event. I've been seeing some news stories about how chaotic and useless the "official" celebrations have been, but I haven't seen anything about celebrations here in Palo Alto or other areas nearby.

It could be that I'm cut off from stuff. My brain has been taken up primarily by the World Cup, which leaves room for little else other than memes and working on my spreadsheet (in case you're wondering, Western European teams are over performing at this stage in the competition, compared to their average points per game going back to 2002). I also don't see a lot of news locally - my subscription to the SF Chronicle ran out and the Palo Alto Daily is a bit of a rightwing rag these days, though neither seems to have much on the 250th anyway.

But I do go out into the world, and I don't see a lot of signs of anything out of the ordinary. I was in downtown Palo Alto yesterday morning, and it certainly didn't look like a place that was gearing up to celebrate our country's 250th anniversary. More to the point, my friends didn't make a big deal out of it, and my family's not even in the country, other than my dad, so there was no one around for me to celebrate it with.

There's also the argument to be made that there isn't much to celebrate. I'm 16 months unemployed, because of this administration, ICE is still out there terrorizing communities of color, and Trump's enabled a cabal of grifters and thugs who are daily chipping away at people's rights. Plus, the east coast is in the grip of a heatwave that's canceling all the parades and events - a little sadly ironic, given that it's worsened by climate change, a fact that this administration refuses to acknowledge.

But I have been reading other people's reflections about this anniversary, usually in the context of their memories of the celebrations in 1976. It feels like the country made an effort then, from special quarters to individual communities celebrating. It was a rough time then, too, with the OPEC oil shocks and the repercussions of the Watergate scandal, and our president was Gerald Ford, an incumbent I've rarely heard described as anything other than a seat warmer for the next guy.

It could be that my media bubble isn't into celebrating 250 years of America, because that smacks too much of the other team's thing, but that would be a shame. Sure, there's a lot wrong with America and not much hope of it improving in the near future, but our left and progressive arms are still part of the American body politic, which means we play within the rules and norms of the US. We aim to improve things for working people, women and minorities because we want the promise of America to extend to everybody - and so we should be celebrating the fact that, out of a beginning that absolutely didn't live up to our founding ideals of equality for all, we've made big strides since the founding.

And it has to be said, if waving the flag is the right's thing, then what imagery do we have on the left? I don't want to cede the flag or the Constitution to those bozos. I'm leftwing and progressive because I want to see a better America - and if I didn't care about a better America, I'd never have moved back 12 years ago.

So, yeah, it's a shame we're letting the 250th anniversary pass with a whimper, at least around here where I live. The fact that we took an imperfect document and have slowly extended the promised liberty to a greater share of the population than we did in 1776 should be a thing for progressives to celebrate.