Far Removed From Today’s Global Juggernaut, Soccer Was Born In The Well‑Heeled Boarding Schools Of 19th‑Century England

A soccer match in progress in 1885. Hulton Archive/Getty Images

BY THOMAS ADAM

PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE,

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS

Over the past two centuries, soccer – or football, as it is called in much of the English-speaking world – has become a truly global phenomenon that connects fans on all continents. It is also, come World Cup time, a deeply nationalist affair that pits teams and their fans from various countries against each other.

Yet today’s deeply competitive professional and spectator sport that spans the globe has far more local origins. As an expert on global history and author of a 2025 book on the subject, I know the game’s roots date back to early 19th-century England – and with a very specific social cause.

When English high school students and teachers created football as a sport in the first decades of the 19th century, it was to provide students at prestigious elite schools such as Eton with an opportunity to let off steam and excess energy. Students at such private boarding schools – they are called public schools in the United Kingdom – came mostly from wealthy families and were sent there not just for their education but also for socializing with their peers.

But boarding school students were often hard to control. Overprivileged students had a tendency to see teachers and headmasters not as authority figures but as people of lower social standing. Rebellions were common and pitted spoiled students against helpless teachers. Enter soccer: A strenuous physical activity such as kicking the ball across a field appeared to teachers as a means to regain control over their students and to redirect their energies.

The origins of soccer

Ballgames that pitted two groups of people against each other were nothing new in Britain.

“Folk football” existed long before it became a school sport. However, these early ballgames were unregulated, raucous and violent encounters of two parties formed by inhabitants of two villages or two neighborhoods. They did not need to involve an actual ball but something that could be kicked across a field or through the streets of a town.

Such events have little in common with modern-day soccer. They could involve hundreds of people. Playing fields were not marked. And the goal was to kick the ball once across a marker, such as a hedge or a field line. These ballgames were not about scoring but about taking on the opposing team by all means available. Such sporting affairs were known to anyone in England in the first half of the 19th century.

The games migrated from there to school grounds.

At Rugby School, a public school in central England whose name was given to the modern game of rugby, students in the 1820s began playing a game that involved the kicking of a ball. Students engaged in these games because they gave them tremendous freedom.

The game was not yet codified, and teachers let students organize games without interfering in their play. Football offered both students and teachers what they craved most. Paradoxically, what for students was freedom was for teachers a useful means of control.

Teachers allowed the game to become a cherished activity of students because it took the students’ minds off other temptations. Tired and exhausted students, teachers reasoned, were good students who abstained from committing mischief and sexual behavior they deemed inappropriate.

The development of different games

Since the game lacked rules, and teachers kept a hands-off attitude toward the game, it gave students an opportunity to make their own rules. And these rules were the result of collective decisions of students.

From the 1840s to the 1860s, students produced rules that regulated how the ball could be handled, how many members a team should have and how scores were counted.

Students at Rugby School were the first to codify the game. These rules of 1844 allowed players to use their hands for controlling the ball. The rules produced by students at Eton in 1847, by contrast, outlawed the use of hands for propelling the ball.

But these were just a few of the many sets of football rules that students wrote in the three decades from the 1840s to the 1850s. And these codes did not yet clearly distinguish between a game that was focused on propelling the ball with hands – a key aspect of the modern game of rugby – versus a game that was focused on using only one’s feet, a key aspect of soccer.

The result was a great diversity of rules for a game that high school students played for fun. However, the game – mandatory for all high school students – was also used as an instrument of institutionalized bullying of younger students by older ones, with physical attacks on younger students built into the game. In effect, football of this time was a participation sport without any spectators.

Students played games on meadows and fields in the near surroundings of the public schools. These playing fields often did not have markings for borders or goals. Walls, trees and bushes marked the borders. Gates and doors were used as goals.

The codification of what became soccer

Public school graduates took their versions of the game with them to the next level. At Cambridge, students began in 1837 to iron out some of the modern-day rules. There, three iterations of unified football rules were created over the course of the next 19 years. The third set in 1856 culminated in a game of kicking a ball with one’s foot.

In 1863, representatives of football clubs from the larger London area met to discuss the formation of a football association and a common set of rules. Ebenezer Cobb Morley, who served as captain of the London-based Barnes Football Club, convinced the other participants to accept unified rules that banned the use of hands for propelling the ball.

The 1863 rules of the Football Association stipulated that players were not permitted to “carry the ball,” to “throw the ball” nor “to take the ball from the ground with his hands while it is in play.” These rules provided the basis for modern-day soccer.

The game’s professionalization

The London rules of 1863 did not replace existing football rules, and these rules did not find acceptance everywhere. The 1863 London meeting did not include representatives of the public schools that were resolved to continue playing football according to their traditional rules. Rather than unifying football regulation, the London variant added just one more set of rules.

However, the London meeting showed a maturing game. The participants did not come from boarding schools but from football clubs that had formed independently of public schools. And these participants were not teenagers but adults.

Morley was 32 years old when he presided over the meeting that had become necessary because football was transforming into a competitive sport that pitted teams of different football clubs against each other. And for such competitive games, unified rules were needed.

In 1872, the honorary secretary of the Football Association, Charles W. Alcock, suggested the creation of the Football Association Challenge Cup Competition.

The introduction of this tournament helped transform football from a pure enjoyment into a competitive sport, first played by amateurs and later by professionals. With growing crowds of spectators came stadiums.

That’s the kind of highly professionalized and dynamic game that will feature in this year’s World Cup. And what a far cry it is from the chaotic boarding school pitches of 19th-century England.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Africa At The World Cup: 10 Teams, Local Coaches And Tactical Depth Usher I A New Era

Ghana fans will be cheering their team alongside nine other African nations at the World Cup finals. Adera Abdoulaye Dolo/Pexels, CC BY

BY WYCLIFFE W. NJORORAI SIMIYU

PROFESSOR AND CHAIR OF ALLIED

HEALTH STUDIES, STEPHEN F. AUSTIN

STATE UNIVERSITY

The 2026 men’s Fifa World Cup marks a seismic shift in the global football landscape. The decision to expand the final stage of the tournament from 32 teams to 48 has significantly benefited the Confederation of African Football (Caf).

In 2018 and 2022, Africa was represented by five nations; this year, a record 10 teams will take the stage. They are, in order of their Fifa world ranking: Morocco (ranked 8), Senegal (14), Algeria (28), Egypt (29), Côte d'Ivoire (34), Tunisia (44), Democratic Republic of Congo (46), South Africa (60), Cape Verde (69) and Ghana (74).

As a sport scientist who has spent decades researching African football, including the continent’s performances at the World Cup, I view this expansion as both a lasting legacy and a justified reward for African football’s sustained advocacy, boardroom activism, and robust on-field execution. It’s not just a numerical increase; it’s a major structural event.

The narrative surrounding African football has shifted since the hopeful prophecies made by Brazilian star Pelé in the 20th century. After touring the continent in 1977 and witnessing the tremendous talent and established pipeline to European football, he predicted that an African nation would win the World Cup before the year 2000. He later adjusted his timeline to 2010. In 2026 it is a concrete possibility thanks to African football’s tactical maturity.

Here I consider five trends and challenges facing the 10 African teams as they head to the US, Canada and Mexico to take part, and how the event may play out for them.

1. The significance of 10 teams

Until now, Africa’s qualification process for the tournament was arguably the most brutal in world football. Strong teams often missed out on the global showpiece due to a system that allowed no room for error. The jump to nine guaranteed spots – plus a tenth secured by Cape Verde through the inter-confederation play-offs – has finally aligned the continent’s representation with its competitive depth.

This expansion addresses a long-standing “geopolitical bottleneck”. By doubling its presence, Caf ensures that the World Cup is no longer just a snapshot of African football, but a comprehensive gallery.

Fans will witness the return of historical giants like South Africa and the DRC alongside perennial contenders like Egypt and Algeria and contemporary favourites like Morocco and Senegal, creating a diverse tactical mosaic.

2. The ‘Morocco effect’

The 2022 World Cup in Qatar was a watershed moment. Morocco’s journey to the semi-finals shattered the “quarter-final ceiling” that had frustrated African ambitions since Cameroon’s 1990 run. This achievement fundamentally altered the performance expectations of the 10 teams heading to North America.

No longer are African teams arriving with the primary goal of avoiding embarrassment. There is a palpable sense of entitlement to the late stages of the tournament.

Morocco enters the tournament not as a “Cinderella story” but as a top-tier seed. This shift from “participant” to “contender” is the single most important development in the African game over the last four years.

3. Old guard meets a new one

The 2026 roster is a fascinating blend of heritage and novelty. The return of South Africa (Bafana Bafana) – after a 16-year hiatus – and DRC (The Leopards) – appearing for the first time since 1974 – adds immense historical weight to the cohort. These are nations with deep footballing cultures that have spent years in the competitive wilderness.

Conversely, the first ever qualification of Cape Verde (The Blue Sharks) represents the “new guard”. A nation with a population of just over 500,000 has outperformed continental powerhouses. Their success is a testament to the efficient scouting of the Lusophone diaspora and a sophisticated tactical identity. Their presence serves as a reminder that, in the modern game, organisational stability and technical clarity can overcome lack of scale.

4. The rise of the homegrown tactician

A quiet revolution has also taken place on the touchline. In previous decades, African federations were criticised for a “white-coach-in-a-suitcase” approach – hiring European managers shortly before major tournaments. Today, the trend has reversed.

The success of Walid Regragui (Morocco) and Emerse Faé (Côte d’Ivoire) has validated the “homegrown” model. Eight of the 10 African teams are led by local coaches or members of the diaspora who share a cultural and emotional connection with their squads.

This technical “decolonisation” has led to better man-management and a more authentic tactical expression. These coaches understand the “transnational dynamics” of players who navigate elite European leagues but return to a different set of expectations for their national colours.

5. Navigating the North American vastness

Of course, there are many challenges. One clear hurdle is logistical. The 2026 World Cup spans four time zones and vastly different climates. The vast distances between Vancouver, Mexico City and Miami will be a test of endurance. African teams, whose administration and organisation have always attracted criticism for ineptitude, will have to step up.

However, there’s a hidden advantage: the diaspora. North America is home to massive African immigrant communities.

In cities like New York, Toronto, Houston and Atlanta, teams can expect significant “home” support. Despite potential visa and travel barriers for fans coming directly from the continent, the local diaspora has the potential to turn stadiums into vibrant hubs of African football culture.

What to expect from the teams

The success of the African cohort will be measured by the opening round. The draw has presented a mix of high-stakes drama and genuine opportunity.

South Africa faces a daunting atmospheric test in Group A, opening against co-host Mexico in Mexico City – a fixture that will require immense mental fortitude. Similarly, Senegal and Algeria face early trials against heavyweights France and Argentina respectively, matches that will serve as early benchmarks for Africa’s elite.

But the 48-team format offers a wider path to the knockout stages. Egypt, drawn with Belgium, and Morocco, facing Brazil, have the technical depth to navigate their pools even if they drop points to the group favourites. For debutantes like Cape Verde, a group featuring Spain and Uruguay is a mountain to climb, but the chance to progress as one of the best third-placed teams keeps the dream alive.

If these 10 teams can maintain the tactical discipline seen in qualification, the 2026 tournament will make Africa a major stakeholder ready to disrupt the status quo.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

The 1994 World Cup Helped Rescue ‘The Beautiful Game’ From Mediocrity. On Its Return To The US, Expect More Of That Beauty

BRAZILIAN CAPTAIN DUNGA RECEIVES THE WORLD CUP TROPHY FROM VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE AFTER DEFEATING ITALY IN THE 1994 WORLD CUP FINAL AT THE ROSE BOWL STADIUM IN PASADENA, CALIFORNIA. BRAZIL WON THE WORLD CUP ON A PENALTY SHOOT-OUT.

BY CESAR R' TORRES

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF KINESIOLOGY

AND PHILOSOPHY, PENN STATE

Ahead of the 1994 World Cup – the first staged in the United States – players were asked to do something they never had before: sign a fair play declaration. The document, in which the soccer stars of the day pledged to respect the rules and opponents, was part of a plan by governing body FIFA to restore soccer’s reputation as “the beautiful game.” And expectations ran high before kickoff.

After all, it could not be as bad as the previous edition of the tournament, held in Italy four years earlier. That dour affair left a sour taste in the soccer world. Noting that it had the lowest goals per game in World Cup history, Eduardo Galeano, known as the game’s global poet laureate, wrote that Italia ’90 consisted of “boring soccer without a drop of audacity or beauty.”

The remarks not only referred to the aesthetics of the game – tedious matches devoid of skillful merit that were unpleasing to watch. They also pointed to its ethics – questionable behaviors and strategies that belittled soccer and its practitioners. This was an era in which wasting time, intentional fouling, theatrics and defensive schemes predominated.

The state of soccer after Italia ’90 required a holistic approach to understanding and improving the game.

For almost 30 years, I have been studying the ethics and aesthetics of soccer as both a philosopher of sport and an aficionado of the beautiful game. In that time I have seen how thoughtful changes to the rules shaped the game for the better. It has left me hopeful that, borrowing from Galeano, soccer is not “condemned to mediocrity.”

FIFA’s response to an ugly tournament

Reviewing Italia ’90, Los Angeles Times sportswriter Grahame Jones urged that something had to be done to increase goal-scoring and put an end to “the cynical, don’t-lose-at-any-cost approach” that dominated the game.

FIFA was not oblivious to such criticism. This was strikingly evident in the governing body’s technical report of the tournament, which described the final between Argentina and West Germany – an ugly 1-0 victory for the latter – as “a dreadful advertisement for the game of football.”

The report was not wrong. Looking back, the final is marked out by intentional fouling, the first red card in a World Cup final and plenty of simulation, including diving – a ploy players use to deceive referees and get a favorable call. Indeed, the incident resulting in the penalty from which West Germany scored is widely seen as a case of diving. That match illustrated the unimaginative and negative soccer played throughout the tournament.

Sepp Blatter, then FIFA’s general secretary and later its reproved president, concluded that “something is wrong with this game.” His main concerns, shared with many within the soccer community, were the time-wasting, intentional fouling and theatrics that were extensive in Italia ’90.

To address these concerns and improve the game, FIFA established a commission composed mainly of former players and coaches. Largely based on the observations of this group shortly after the 1990 World Cup, FIFA and the International Football Association Board, the body that oversees the game’s rules, decided to implement changes.

One key change was the adoption of a three-point system for wins during the group phase of the 1994 World Cup instead of two. This meant that teams were rewarded more for winning, encouraging imaginative and positive play over unimaginative and negative play aimed at sneaking a win or grinding out a draw.

Another change was the refinement of the offside rule to make it less restrictive for forwards trying to score. In addition, referees were instructed to apply the rules regarding fouls and misconducts more strictly – a move meant to protect players and their inventiveness.

However, the most momentous change was the introduction of the backpass rule, which would eventually revolutionize the game. This rule prohibited goalkeepers from receiving the ball with their hands if a teammate deliberately kicked it to them. It was planned to curb typical time-wasting that was orchestrated by goalkeepers and defenders and was painful to watch.

As a whole, the aspirations of these changes were to improve the aesthetics of the game, by promoting matches with plenty of forward-looking and creative play that was pleasurable to watch, as well as its ethics, by discouraging and sanctioning behaviors and strategies that disrespected soccer’s defining skills and opponents.

All four of these changes were in place by the time 24 nations competed in the nine U.S. venues during the 1994 World Cup.

So, too, was FIFA’s requirement that players sign its fair play declaration. Although the latter was largely a symbolic gesture intended to emphasize desired behaviors and strategies and minimize skulduggery, the tournament was nonetheless an improved spectacle.

In its technical report of the tournament, FIFA proclaimed that “USA ’94 was much better than Italia ’90,” with “more goals, fewer fouls, more attacking play and almost no ugly incidents between players.”

While for FIFA it was “most encouraging to see that the new measures … were so successful,” it admitted that the final between Brazil and Italy, won by the former in a penalty kick shootout, “did not live up to expectations,” with “few highlights in terms of pure skills.”

A mediocre final aside, USA ’94 was seen favorably. George Vecsey, reporting for The New York Times, spoke for many when he said, “It was a very good World Cup.”

What to expect in Canada/Mexico/USA ’26?

Much has shifted in soccer since USA ’94. But the game has definitely benefited from the changes introduced ahead of that tournament and some that came after.

In 1998, for instance, FIFA introduced the six-second rule, which prohibits goalkeepers from controlling the ball with their hands for more than six seconds. Eventually, new sanctions for actions such as diving along with the use of video assistance for referees were also brought in. Other developments have helped advance the game, from better training methods and medical care to innovative tactics and skill improvement, expanded youth talent identification and development, and data-driven match plans.

Clearly, the level of the game has been elevated. FIFA considered the last World Cup, held in Qatar in 2022, to have “produced arguably some of the most intricate and entertaining technical and tactical football that the World Cup has ever seen,” culminating in “a scintillating game” that many consider as “one of the best FIFA World Cup final matches ever witnessed.”

Given the current state of the game, it is reasonable to expect exciting, enjoyable-to-watch soccer at the upcoming World Cup, co-hosted by Canada, Mexico and the United States. This does not mean that time-wasting, intentional fouling and theatrics – as well as occasionally prosaic play – will not rear their ugly heads. Such tactics have not been, and probably will never be, eradicated from the game. Consider, too, relatively new forms of trickery, such as manipulating substitution procedures or spying on rivals.

Yet, while there are still some who embrace the “dark arts” of soccer, such practices do not seem to have the favor they once had. Indeed, there is a widespread belief that soccer is experiencing another golden age. And even though soccer has many ethical and aesthetic flaws, both on and off the pitch, the beautiful game seems to have been largely restored.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

A Football World Cup Is A Global Cultural Exchange. How Will That Work In Trump’s America?

The FIFA 2025 Peace Prize was awarded to President Donald Trump ahead of a divisive World Cup outing. Aaron Schwartz/Getty Images

BY CHUKA ONWUMECHILI

PROFESSOR OF COMMUNICATIONS,

HOWARD UNIVERSITY

The most culturally diverse men’s football World Cup in history is taking place in the United States at a time when foreign nationals feel less and less welcome in the country.

The 2026 competition kicks off on 11 June with games in Canada, Mexico, and the US. The US will host by far the largest number of matches, including the championship game. The 2026 cup is also hosting the largest number of competing teams in history – 48.

Over its near century-long history, the competition has remained the premier sporting event, attracting the largest number of travellers. Some spend huge sums of personal savings to be at the matches to cheer on their country and favourite teams.

Held every four years, the International Federation of Association Football (Fifa) World Cup is a mega sporting event that serves as a large avenue for cultural meetings and exchanges.

The 2022 World Cup in Qatar attracted 1.4 million visitors to a country of slightly over 2 million people. The number of travellers for the 2026 World Cup is expected to drop to 1.2 million due in part to the activities of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. Still, the number remains significant.

As a professor of intercultural communication, with decades of research connecting culture to communication, I have found the World Cup of particular interest. The number of global travellers to the World Cup brings with it cultural communication exchanges that cannot be overstated.

Intercultural communication involves contact between people with differing beliefs, values and norms. Cultural communication theorists define such exchanges over a short period as the earliest stages of acculturation, called the honeymoon stage.

It is an important stage of cultural encounter that helps advance social comfort and learning. It eases anxiety in a different cultural environment. These encounters go beyond the stadiums that will host games. They include encounters in neighbourhood stores, transport systems, bars and hotels, among others. Even for those watching remotely.

Matches on the field have the power to rise above the politics of the day and bring cultural unity.
Football and cultural exchange

Cultural encounters at previous World Cups have led to the spread of fan culture across the world. Think of the spread of the stadium wave or use of the vuvuzela, a coloured plastic horn.

The wave involves sections of fans in a stadium standing up by turns. This provides a spectacle that is believed to have spread to most of the world after magnificent wave scenes at the 1986 World Cup in Mexico.

At the 2010 World Cup, a South African fan tradition of blowing the vuvuzela spread to the rest of the world. There were vigorous attempts to clamp down on it because it was so noisy. But a few fans have kept the tradition alive.

Cultural exchange remains a critical aspect of a World Cup. The 2026 event will be no different. While most media reports focus on the vivid exchanges like the wave and vuvuzela, there are others that happen at the interpersonal and small group levels. Those exchanges can be just as long lasting. They include friendships, cultural learning, and the countering of cultural loathing and stereotyping.

How will that work in the US?

The US is a strong location for such cultural exchange. The country has historically accepted the largest number of migrants in the world and the resulting interactions have led to indelible cultural impact over generations. There is, for instance, a large Asian population in the north-west parts of the country and a large Mexican population in the south.

Yet, in 2026, the US has created an unwelcome situation for potential travellers. ICE raids on suspected migrant populations have dominated the news for months. This has an impact on numbers.

Hotel bookings are far below expectation in 11 US host cities. One report claims there is a booking pace “below expectations, trailing even a typical June or July without any major events”. Human Rights Watch has urged Fifa to pressure the US government to establish an “ICE Truce” during the competition.

An expensive trip

Fans hoping to attend the World Cup are also reportedly concerned about ticket and transport prices. Recently, Fifa’s marketplace, which serves as a resale platform, advertised “four tickets to the final at a cost of $2.3 million each”. While Fifa does not control pricing on its resale site, it takes 15% of the purchase fee from the buyer and 15% from the seller. This means Fifa would make US$690,000 if just one of the tickets sold at that price. It’s a staggering sum for a football match.

Fifa president Gianni Infantino defended the high cost of tickets by claiming it was the cost of doing business in the US market. Yet, such prices are nearly five times higher than the last World Cup in Qatar.

The New Jersey transport system eventually set train roundtrip transport at US$105 after a public outcry after an initial plan to increase the fare to US$150. The fare normally costs US$18.

The high costs and hyper immigration control associated with attending the World Cup in the US are likely responsible for the dampened hotel bookings.

Global broadcasts

There are even concerns with global broadcasts of games. China and India, the two most populated countries in the World Cup, may not often reach the final stages, but they are avid viewers of the games. Neither has access as Fifa has yet to reach TV and digital coverage agreements with providers in those countries. At the 2022 World Cup, the two countries reportedly accounted for 22.6% of total global TV reach. China alone accounted for 49.8% of viewing hours on digital and social platforms. The dispute involves the huge sums Fifa is asking for broadcast rights.

There are cultural exchanges that the World Cup provides even for those who watch from home in different parts of the world. While not as powerful as cultural learning through in-person contacts, there are still opportunities to learn, depending on the focus of the media coverage.

The men’s World Cup, which celebrates 100 years in 2030 and is co-hosted by an African country (Morocco), remains a key event in fostering cultural understanding and exchange. While the 2026 World Cup will do this, it has also brought to the fore the event’s ability to create division.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Yoruba Vs Igbo: How A 1977 Football Cup Caused Ethnic Tensions To Boil Over In Nigeria

AUTHORS:

CHUKA ONWUMECHILI

PROFESSOR OF COMMUNICATIONS

HOWARD UNIVERSITY

UWANA AKPAN

LECTURER IN MASS COMMUNICATION,

UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS

Football is a game of passion, and passions can become particularly inflamed when the sport represents larger political struggles. In Nigeria in 1977, an Africa-wide football contest fuelled the ethnic rivalry between the Yoruba and the Igbo people to the point that the military had to intervene. The game was to be played as a semi-final in the Africa Cup Winners’ Cup, the club football tournament that would go on to become the Caf Confederation Cup.

As scholars of sports communication, we recently published a research paper about that 1977 confrontation between Shooting Stars of Ibadan (Ibadan is home to a Yoruba majority in the south-west) and Enugu Rangers (Enugu is an Igbo state).

Our study adds to a history of football and politics that is not well documented in Africa. In the process it shows that football represents more than just sport, but can also be a way of understanding cultural and political issues.

Yoruba vs Igbo

The rivalry between the Igbos and Yorubas is almost as old as the formation of Nigeria in 1914. Both groups vie politically and for jobs. Each forms roughly a fifth of the Nigerian population. The Igbo had lost political power after the Nigerian Civil War of 1967-1970.

This rivalry became particularly visible in Nigerian football from the 1950s when ethnic groups contested annually for the Alex Oni Cup. The Yorubas often won, the Igbos a close second but the tournament was eventually discontinued because of fights between players and spectators.

After this, Igbos did not have a representative club team in national competitions until after the war ended in 1970. Top Igbo footballers were employed at various clubs across the country, particularly in Lagos. Yorubas played for various clubs in their home region. One such club was the Shooting Stars. They made up the bulk of the Ibadan Lions team that won the national Challenge Cup four times from 1959 to 1969.

After the civil war, most Igbo footballers – who had fought unsuccessfully for the secession of Biafra state – were afraid to live in other parts of the country. Enugu Rangers was formed and the club dominated Nigerian football in the 1970s and 1980s.

Shooting Stars had become the beacon club of the Yorubas and quickly developed a rivalry with Enugu Rangers.

The semi-final that caused all the trouble

This ongoing rivalry escalated when the two clubs beat off opposition from across the continent to meet in the two legs of the semi-final of the Africa Cup Winners Cup in 1977. Shooting Stars were defending the title. Rangers chose not to take part in the more prestigious Africa Champions Club’s Cup – instead they sought to equal Shooting Stars’ feat of winning the Cup Winners Cup.

To add to the tension, Nigeria’s national team was made up of mainly by players from these two clubs – and the national team was competing in the last stage of the qualifiers for the 1978 men’s football World Cup. It was feared that the rivalry would affect its chances. Almost daily, the newspapers reported on accusations levelled by officials of the two teams at each other and the Nigerian Football Association (today the Nigeria Football Federation).

The association had to find solutions – fast. Both teams had played their home matches in their own cities so far. The association decided that their two semi-final games should be played in a “neutral” location: Lagos.

But after the first leg, a designated “home game” for Shooting Stars, ended 0-0, controversy erupted. Lagos is in the west of the country, home of the Yorubas. This was seen to give the Shooting Stars an advantage. There was also controversy about whether the teams could call up some or all of their players in the national team. The association’s authority to re-schedule the second leg was then called into question. These issues were argued at fever pitch and publicly by fans and in the media, with threats and ethnic undertones.

The association wanted to bar both Rangers and Shooting Stars from using their national team players, but was eventually forced to agree on the release of all players to play in the final leg of the Africa Cup Winners’ Cup semi-final. But not before making a very late request that the Confederation of African Football put off the game until after the national team’s World Cup qualifying games.

Shooting Stars, frustrated by the postponement, lashed out publicly and in the media. They accused Nigeria’s federal sports commissioner, Dandeson Isokrari, of ethnocentrism and favouritism. Isokrari was an easterner, from Enugu Rangers territory.

With tension boiling over and threats issued from both sides, the second-in-command of the Nigeria state, Major General Musa Yar’ Adua, stepped in to avoid ethnic strife and possible violence. He instructed the match to move to Kaduna, a northern city, away from the homes of the clubs. This decision by the country’s military leadership calmed nerves.

An overflowing crowd packed the Kaduna venue from the early morning. In the early minutes of the game, Shooting Stars mounted a siege in the Rangers’ goal area. It was so tense that journalists and photographers converged behind the Rangers goal. Angry Rangers supporters claimed they were not journalists and photographers, but disguised juju men concocting mystical incantations that kept the ball rooted in the Rangers goal area.

The match ended in another 0-0 tie but Rangers advanced when goalkeeper Emmanuel Okala helped to turn the penalty kick tiebreaker in the club’s favour, 4-2. Despite the tensions, there were no reported incidents of violence during the match.

This epic contest between two clubs during a continental cup contest in 1977 reminds us of the rivalry that persists even today among ethnic groups across the continent. Football often represents such ethnic rivalries beyond the field of play – and in the case of Enugu Rangers and Shooting Stars it reached a dangerous level that forced the state to step in.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Why America Is Buying Up The Premier League – And What It Means For The Future Of ‘Soccer’

BY KIERAN MAGUIRE AND CHRISTINA PHILIPPOU

When the Premier League broke away from the rest of English football in 1992, its 22 clubs generated £205 million in its debut season, and the average player earned £2,050 a week. Thirty years later, despite having two fewer clubs, the league’s revenue had increased by 2,850% to £6.1 billion and the average player earned £93,000 a week.

At the heart of this extraordinary growth is an American revolution. In the Premier League’s inaugural season, football was still in recovery from the horrors of the stadium disasters at Hillsborough and Heysel. Owners tended to be from the local area and with a business background. The only foreign owner was Sam Hamman at Wimbledon, a Lebanese millionaire who bought the club on a whim having reportedly been much more interested in tennis. The season ended with Manchester United (under Alex Ferguson) winning the English game’s top league for the first time in 26 years.

Now, if the Texas-based Friedkin Group’s recent deal to buy Everton goes through, 11 of the 20 Premier League clubs will be controlled or part-owned by American investors. The US – long seen as football’s final frontier when it comes to the men’s game – suddenly can’t get enough of English “soccer”.

Four of the Premier League’s “big six” are American-owned – Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea – while a fifth, Manchester City, has a significant US minority shareholding. Aston Villa, Fulham, Bournemouth, Crystal Palace, West Ham and Ipswich Town also have varying degrees of American ownership.

And it’s not even just the glamour clubs at the top of the tree. American investment has also been significant lower down the football pyramid, led by the high-profile acquisition of then non-league Wrexham by Hollywood actors Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenny, and Birmingham City’s purchase by US investors including seven-time Super Bowl winner Tom Brady. American investment in football has reached places as geographically diverse as Carlisle and Crawley in England, and Aberdeen and Edinburgh in Scotland.

So why the American obsession with English football? And how real are concerns that these US owners could collude to “Americanise” the traditions of the Premier League – whether by reducing the risk of relegation, introducing some form of “draft pick” system, or moving matches and even clubs to other cities?

The Premier League’s first US owner

Manchester United was the first Premier League club to come under American ownership – after a row about a horse.

In 2005, United was owned by a variety of investors including Irish businessmen and racehorse owners John Magnier and J.P. McManus. Their erstwhile friend Ferguson, the United manager, thought he co-owned the champion racehorse Rock of Gibraltar with them – a stallion worth millions in stud rights. They disagreed – and their bitter dispute was such that Magnier and McManus decided to sell their shares in the football club.

The Miami-based Glazer family – already involved in sport as owners of NFL franchise the Tampa Bay Buccaneers – had already been buying up small tranches of shares in United, but the sudden availability of the Irish shares allowed Malcolm Glazer to acquire a controlling stake for £790 million (around £1.5 billion at today’s prices).

The fact Glazer did not actually have sufficient funds to pay for these shares was a solvable problem. In the some-might-say commercially naive world of top-flight English football before the Premier League, Manchester United was a club without debt, paying its way without leveraging its position as one of the world’s most famous football clubs. Glazer saw the opportunity this presented and arranged a leveraged buy-out (LBO), whereby the football club borrowed more than £600 million secured on its own assets to, in effect, “buy itself” in 2005.

Despite the need to meet the high interest costs to fund the LBO, United continued winning trophies under Ferguson – including three Premier League titles in a row in 2007, 2008 and 2009, as well as a Champions League victory in 2008. Amid this success, the club felt that ticket prices were too low and set about increasing them, with matchday revenue increasing from £66 million in 2004/05 to over £101 million by 2007/08.

Commercial income was another area the Glazers were keen to increase. United set up offices in London and adopted a global approach to finding new official branding deals ranging from snacks to tractor and tyre suppliers – doubling revenues from this income source too.

But in this new, more aggressive world of “sweating the asset”, the debts lingered – and most United fans remained deeply suspicious of their American owners. (Following their father’s death in 2014, the club was co-owned by his six children, with brothers Avram and Joel Glazer becoming co-chairmen.)

Today, despite its partial listing on the New York Stock Exchange and the February 2024 sale of 27.7% of the club to British billionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe for a reputed £1.25 billion, United still has borrowings of more than £546 million, having paid cumulative interest costs of £969 million since the takeover in 2005. But with the club now valued at US$6.55 billion (around £5bn), it represents a very smart investment for the Glazer family.

Indeed, while the prices being paid for football clubs across Europe have reached record levels, they are still seen as cheap investments compared with US sports’ leading franchises. Forbes’s annual list of the world’s most valuable sports teams has American football (NFL), baseball (MLB) and basketball (NBA) teams occupying the top ten positions, with only three Premier League clubs – Manchester United, Liverpool and Manchester City – in the top 50.

With NFL teams having an average franchise value of US$5.1 billion and NBA $3.9 billion, many English football clubs still look like a bargain from the other side of the pond.

The risk of relegation

The latest to join this US bandwagon, the Friedkin Group – a Texas-based portfolio of companies run by American businessman and film producer Dan Friedkin – is reported to have offered £400m to buy Everton, despite the club’s poor financial state.

“The Toffees” have been hit by loss of sponsorships as well as two sets of points deductions for breaching the Premier League’s financial rules, leading to revenue losses from lower league positions. While the new stadium being built at Liverpool’s Bramley-Moore dock has been yet another financial constraint, it will at least increase matchday income from the start of next season.

A wider reason for the relative bargain in valuations of European football clubs is the risk of relegation – something that is not part of the closed leagues of most US sports. While the threat of relegation (and promise of promotion) has always been an integral part of English and European football, the jeopardy this brings for supporters – and a club’s finances – does not exist in the NFL, NBA, Major League Soccer and similar competitions.

The Premier League, with its three relegation spots at the end of each season, has featured 51 different clubs since it launched in 1992. Only six clubs – Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea, Manchester United, Liverpool and Everton – have been ever present, with Arsenal now approaching 100 years of consecutive top-flight football.

Other Premier League clubs have experienced the dramatic cost-benefit of relegation and promotion. Oldham Athletic, who were in the Premier League for its first two seasons, now languish in the fifth tier of the game, outside the English Football League (EFL). In contrast, Luton Town, who were in the fifth tier as recently as 2014, were promoted to the Premier League in 2023 – only to be relegated at the end of last season.

While it is difficult to compare football clubs with basketball and American football teams, the financial difference between having an open league, with relegation, and a closed league becomes apparent when you look at women’s football on both sides of the Atlantic.

Angel City, a women’s soccer team based in Los Angeles, only entered the National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) in 2022 and is yet to win an NWSL trophy. But last month, the club was sold for US$250 million (£188m) to Disney’s CEO Bob Iger and TV journalist Willow Bay – the most expensive takeover in the history of women’s professional sport.

In comparison, Chelsea – seven-time winners of the English Women’s Super League and one of the most successful sides in Europe – valued its women’s team at £150 million ($US196m) earlier this summer. While there are a number of factors to this price differential, the confidence that Angel City will always be a member of the big league of US soccer clubs – and share very equally in its revenue – will have made its new owners very confident in the long-term soundness of their deal.

A further attraction for American investors is the potential to enter two markets – one mature (men’s football) and one effectively a start-up (the women’s game) – in a single purchase. In the US, the top men’s and women’s clubs are completely separate. But in Europe, most top-flight women’s teams are affiliated to men’s clubs – with the exception of eight-time Women’s Champions League winners Olympique Lyonnais Feminin, which split from the French men’s club when Korean-American businesswoman Michele Kang bought a majority stake in the women’s team in February 2024).

While interest in, and hence value of, the WSL is now growing fast, the women’s game in England is dwarfed by viewer ratings for the Premier League – the most watched sporting league in the world, viewed by an estimated 1.87 billion people every week across 189 countries.

These figures dwarf even the NFL which, while currently still the most valuable of all sporting leagues in terms of its broadcasting deals, must be looking at the growth of the Premier League with some jealousy. This may explain why some US franchise owners, such as Stan Kroenke, the Glazer family, Fenway Sports Group and Billy Foley, have subsequently purchased Premier League football clubs.

Ironically, for many spectators around the world, it is the intensity and competitiveness of most Premier League matches – brought on in part by the threat of relegation and prize of European qualification – that makes it so captivating. However, billionaire investors like guaranteed numbers and dislike risk – especially the degree of financial risk that exists in the Premier League and English Football League.

European not-so-Super League

In April 2021, 12 leading European clubs (six from England plus three each from Spain and Italy) announced the creation of the European Super League (ESL). This new mid-week competition was to be a high-revenue generating, closed competition with (eventually) 15 permanent teams and five annual additions qualifying from Europe. According to one of the driving forces behind the plan, Manchester United co-chairman Joel Glazer:

By bringing together the world’s greatest clubs and players to play each other throughout the season, the Super League will open a new chapter for European football, ensuring world-class competition and facilities, and increased financial support for the wider football pyramid.

The problem facing the Premier League’s “big six” clubs – and their ambitious owners – is there are currently only four slots available to play in the Champions League. So, their thinking went, why not take away the risk of not qualifying? However, the proposal was swiftly condemned by fans around Europe, together with football’s governing bodies and leagues – all of whom saw the ESL proposal as a threat to the quality and integrity of their domestic leagues. Following some large fan protests, including at Chelsea’s Stamford Bridge, Manchester City was the first club to withdraw – followed, within a couple of days, by the rest of the English clubs.

Under the terms of the ESL proposals, founding member clubs would have been guaranteed participation in the competition forever. Guaranteed participation means guaranteed revenues. The current financial gap between the “big six” and the other members of the Premier League, which in 2022/23 averaged £396 million, would have widened rapidly.

For example, these clubs would have been able to sell the broadcast rights for some of their ESL home fixtures direct to fans, instead of via a broadcaster. All of a sudden, that database of fans who have downloaded the official club app, or are on a mailing list, becomes far more valuable. These are the people most willing to watch their favourite team on a pay-per-view basis, further increasing revenues.

At the same time, a planned ESL wage cap would have stopped players taking all these increased revenues in the form of higher wages, allowing these clubs to become more profitable and their ownership even more lucrative.

American-owned Manchester United and Liverpool had previously tried to enhance the value of their investments during the COVID lockdowns era via ProjectBig Picture – proposals to reduce the size of the Premier League and scrap one of the two domestic cup competitions, thus freeing up time for the bigger clubs to arrange more lucrative tours and European matches against high-profile opposition.

Most importantly, Project Big Picture would have resulted in changing the governance of the domestic game. Under its proposals, the “big six” clubs would have enjoyed enhanced voting rights, and therefore been able to significantly influence how the domestic game was governed.

Any attempt to increase the concentration of power raises concerns of lower competitive balance, whereby fewer teams are in the running to win the title and fewer games are meaningful. This is a problem facing some other major European football leagues including France’s Ligue 1, where interest among broadcasters has dwindled amid the perceived dominance of Paris St-Germain.

So while to date, American-led attempts to change the structure of the Premier League have been foiled, it’s unlikely such ideas have gone away for good. The near-universal fear of fans – even those who welcome an injection of extra cash from a new billionaire owner – is that the spectacle of the league will only be diminished if such plans ever succeed.

And there is evidence from the women’s game that the US closed league format is coming under more pressure from football’s global forces. The NWSL recently announced it is removing the draft system that is designed (as with the NFL and NBA) to build in jeopardy and competitive balance when there is no risk of relegation.

Top US women’s football clubs are losing some of their leading players to other leagues, in part because European clubs are not bound by the same artificial rules of employment. In a truly global professional sport such as football, international competition will always tend to destabilise closed leagues.

Why do they keep buying these clubs?

Does this mean that American and other wealthy owners of Premier League clubs seeking to reduce their risks are ultimately fighting a losing battle? And if so, given the potential risks involved in owning a football club – both financial and even personal – why do they keep buying them?

The motivations are part-financial, part technological and, as has always been the case with sports ownership, part-vanity.

The American economy has grown far faster than that of the EU or UK in recent years. Consequently, there are many beneficiaries of this growth who have surplus cash, and here football becomes an attractive proposition. In fact, football clubs are more resilient to recessions than other industries, holding their value better as they are effectively monopoly suppliers for their fans who have brand loyalty that exists in few other industries.

From 1993 to 2018, a period during which the UK economy more than doubled, the total value of Premier League clubs grew 30 times larger. And many fans are tied to supporting one club, helping to make the biggest clubs more resilient to economic changes than other industries. While football, like many parts of the entertainment industry, was hit by lockdown during Covid, no clubs went out of business, despite the challenges of matches being played in empty stadiums.

Added to this, the exchange rates for US dollars have been very favourable until recently, making US investments in the UK and Europe cheaper for American investors.

So, while Manchester United fans would argue that the Glazer family have not been good for the club, United has been good for the Glazers. And Fenway Sports Group (FSG), who bought Liverpool for £300 million in 2010, have recouped almost all of that money in smaller share sales while remaining majority owners of Liverpool.

Despite this, the £2.5 billion price paid for Chelsea by the US Clearlake-Todd Boehly consortium in May 2022 took markets by surprise.

The sale – which came after the UK government froze the assets of the club’s Russian oligarch owner, Roman Abramovich, following the invasion of Ukraine – went through less than a year after Newcastle United had been sold by Sports Direct founder Mike Ashley to the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund for £305 million – approximately twice that club’s annual revenues. Yet Clearlake-Boehly were willing to pay over five times Chelsea’s annual revenues to acquire the club, even though it was in a precarious financial position.

Clearlake is a private equity group whose main aim is to make profits for their investors. But unlike most such investors, who tend to focus on cost-cutting, the Chelsea ownership came in with a high-spending strategy using new financial structuring ideas, such as offering longer player contracts to avoid falling foul of football’s profitability and sustainability rules (although this loophole has since been closed with Uefa, European football’s governing body, limiting contract lengths for financial regulation purposes to five years).

Chelsea’s location in the one of the most expensive areas of London, combined with its on-field success under Abramovich, all added to the attraction, of course. But there are other reasons why Clearlake, along with billionaire businessman Boehly, were willing to stump up so much for the club.

From Hollywood to the metaverse

While some British football fans may have viewed the Ted Lasso TV show as an enjoyable if slightly twee fictional account of American involvement in English soccer, it has enhanced the attraction of the sport in the US. So too Welcome To Wrexham – the fly-on-the-wall series covering the (to date) two promotions of Wales’s oldest football club under the unlikely Hollywood stewardship of Reynolds and McElhenney.

The growth in US interest in English football is reflected in the record-breaking Premier League media rights deal in 2022, with NBC Sports reportedly paying $2.7 billion (£2.06bn) for its latest six-year deal.

But as well as football offering one of increasingly few “live shared TV experiences” that carry lucrative advertising slots, there may also be more opportunity for more behind-the-scenes coverage of the Premier League – as has long been seen in US coverage of NBA games, for example, where players are interviewed in the locker room straight after games.

According to Manchester United’s latest annual report, the club now has a “global community of 1.1 billion fans and followers”. Such numbers mean its owners, and many others, are bullish about the potential of the metaverse in terms of offering a matchday experience that could be similar to attending a match, without physically travelling to Manchester.

Their neighbours Manchester City, part-owned by American private equity company Silverlake, broke new (virtual) ground by signing a metaverse deal with Sony in 2022. Virtual reality could give fans around the world the feeling of attending a live match, sitting next to their friends and singing along with the rest of the crowd (for a pay-per-view fee).

Some investors are even confident that advancements in Abba-style avatar technology could one day allow fans to watch live 3D simulations of Premier League matches in stadiums all over the world. Having first-mover advantage by being in the elite club of owners who can make use of such technology could prove ever more rewarding.

More immediately, there are some indications that competitive matches involving England’s top men’s football teams could soon take place in US or other venues. Boehly, Chelsea’s co-owner, has already suggested adopting some US sports staples such as an All-Star match to further boost revenues. Indeed, back in 2008, the Premier League tentatively discussed a “39th game” taking place overseas, but that idea was quickly shelved.

The American owners of Birmingham City were keen to play this season’s EFL League One match against Wrexham in the US, but again this proposal did not get far. Liverpool’s chairman Tom Werner says he is determined to see matches take place overseas, and recent changes to world governing body Fifa’s rulebook could make it easier for this proposal to succeed.

The potential benefits of hosting games overseas include higher matchday revenues, increased brand awareness, and enhanced broadcast rights. While there is likely to be significant opposition from local fans, at least American owners know they would not face the same hostility about rising matchday prices in the US as they have encountered in England.

When the Argentinian legend Lionel Messi signed for new MLS franchise Inter Miami in 2023, season ticket prices nearly doubled on his account. And while there is vocal opposition to higher ticket prices in England, this is not borne out in terms of lower attendances for matches against high-calibre opposition – as evidenced by Aston Villa charging up to £97 for last week’s Champions League meeting with Bayern Munich.

Villa’s director of operations, Chris Heck, defended the prices by saying that difficult decisions had to be made if the club was to be competitive.

For much of the 2010s, with broadcast revenues increasing rapidly, many Premier League owners made little effort to stoke hostilities with their loyal fan bases by putting up ticket prices. Indeed, Manchester United generated little more from matchday income in the 2021-22 season, as football emerged from the pandemic, than the club had in 2010-11 (see chart above).

However, this uneasy truce between fans and owners has ceased. The relative flatlining of broadcast revenues since 2017, along with cost control rules that are starting to affect clubs’ ability to spend money on player signings and wages, has changed club appetites for dampened ticket prices. This has resulted in noticeable rises in individual ticket and season ticket prices by some clubs.

However, season ticket and other local “legacy” fans generate little money compared with the more lucrative overseas and tourist fans. They may only watch their favourite team live once a season, but when they visit, they are far more likely not only to pay higher matchday prices, but to spend more on merchandise, catering and other offerings from the club.

Today’s breed of commercially aware, profit-seeking US Premier League owners – pioneered by the Glazer family, who saw that “sweating the asset” meant more than watching football players sprinting hard – understand there is a lot more value to come from English football teams. The clubs’ loyal local supporters may not like it, but English football’s American-led revolution is not done yet.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Mauricio Pochettino Instills Hope That The USMNT Can Win The World Cup In Fiery Press Conference

USMNT Coach Mauricio Pochettino

BY MARK HARRIS, OUTKICK

Mauricio Pochettino isn't just looking for the U.S. men's national team to play in the 2026 World Cup and perhaps make a little noise in the tournament, he was brought in to do far more than that. He and the U.S. Soccer Federation have their sights set on winning the World Cup on U.S. soil, and Pochettino isn't shying away from letting the entire world know it.

Pochettino was formally introduced as the USMNT's newest manager on Friday, and when asked what he's hoping to accomplish between now and the start of the World Cup in less than two years, he laid out the loftiest of goals.

"We are winners. We are going to compete, and compete is completely different than to play…We have time, and we need to really believe in things, in big things," Pochettino explained. "We need to believe that we can win all the games, that we can win the World Cup."

That brief quote personifies the change in culture that the U.S. men's team must undertake if it wants to not only perform well in the World Cup, but be taken more seriously on the global stage.

You could take any former managers of the USMNT and ask them what they are hoping to accomplish in the World Cup, and everyone would deliver some form of coach-speak about ‘playing to our highest level.’ Not Pochettino, he actually said the words "win the World Cup."

Words, of course, are only words, and legitimately contending for a World Cup in 2026 is the loftiest goal imaginable, but Pochettino, not shying away from said goal, is already instilling excitement among U.S. supporters. The first item on the list to get the American squad moving in the right direction is to re-gain confidence.

"Of course the confidence was a little bit low after the Copa América," Pochettino said, referring to the U.S. being bounced from the group stage of the tournament this summer "I think it's a very good generation of players. We need to show that we play like a collective on the pitch."

Pochettino has never coached at the international level, but he brings more accolades to the USMNT managerial position than anyone else who has manned the role before. The 52-year-old managed Chelsea last season, took Tottenham to the Champions League final in 2019, and previously won a league title with Paris Saint-Germain.

Former Chelsea Manager Pochettino Named US Soccer Men’s National Team Coach

Mauricio Pochettino

Former Chelsea manager Mauricio Pochettino has been named the new coach of the United States (USA) men’s team, US Soccer announced in a statement.

Pochettino, who parted ways with English Premier League side Chelsea in May after one season in charge, will take the reins of the national team ahead of the 2026 World Cup, which will be co-hosted by Mexico, Canada and the United States.

The Argentinian, a former Paris Saint-Germain and Tottenham Hotspur manager, said his decision to join US Soccer was not just about football, but about the journey the country was on and he could not pass up the opportunity.

“The energy, the passion, and the hunger to achieve something truly historic here – those are the things that inspired me,” he said in a statement on Tuesday.

“I see a group of players full of talent and potential, and together, we’re going to build something special that the whole nation can be proud of.”

US Soccer Sporting Director Matt Crocker said Pochettino was a “serial winner with a deep passion for developing players”.

“His track record speaks for itself, and I am confident that he is the right choice to harness the immense potential within our talented squad. We are thrilled to have Mauricio on board as we embark on this exciting journey to achieve success on the global stage.”

USA have been without a permanent coach since a humiliating early exit from the Copa America on home soil in July led to the sacking of Gregg Berhalter after his second stint as head coach.

The 51-year-old boss was first appointed in 2018 and led the Americans to the knockout stages of the 2022 World Cup, but just weeks later found himself embroiled in a bitter public row with one of the team’s brightest emerging talents, Gio Reyna.

US Soccer’s search for a new coach began when Berhalter’s contract expired at the end of 2022 and included names such as Canada coach Jesse Marsch, but they ultimately rehired Berhalter in June last year with the full support of the players.

However, it proved unsuccessful as the US failed to progress beyond the group stages of the Copa America after a shock 2-1 defeat to Panama and a crushing 1-0 loss to Uruguay.

Pochettino will take over after Mikey Varas, who has been appointed interim coach, oversaw friendlies against Canada last Saturday and New Zealand on Tuesday.

USA drew 1-1 with New Zealand in Cincinnati after Christian Pulisic’s goal was cancelled out by Ben Waine’s late equaliser.

They will next play friendlies against Panama on October 12 and Mexico three days later.

‘Equivalent To Winning A World Cup!’ Did Cristiano Ronaldo Issue A Message To Lionel Messi After Scoring 900th Career Goal?

Christiano Ronaldo (Facebook)

BY RITAYAN BASU

Cristiano Ronaldo had a message for Lionel Messi after reaching 900 career goals. The five-time Ballon d’Or winner made history after scoring against Croatia in the UEFA Nations League. The landmark goal also enabled Portugal to win the fixture 2-1 against Croatia. After the match, Ronaldo was asked about the prospect of playing in the upcoming edition of the FIFA World Cup. The former Real Madrid and Manchester United footballer insisted that the World Cup did not bother him much since he had already lifted the European Championship in 2016. “Portugal winning Euros is equivalent to winning a World Cup,” Ronaldo said, as per multiple outlets.

Cristiano Ronaldo remained unhinged about the prospect of finishing his career without a FIFA World Cup title. The Portuguese icon would be 41 years old should he choose to compete in the next edition of the FIFA World Cup, scheduled to be held in the United States in 2026. Speaking in the post-match conference after defeating Croatia, Ronaldo did not reveal if he was going to feature in the next edition of the FIFA tournament. But he voiced his contentment in a couple of titles he won with Portugal. “I’ve already won two trophies for Portugal that I really wanted. I’m not motivated by that. I’m motivated by enjoying football and the records come naturally,” he said.

Cristiano Ronaldo also spoke about the landmark 900th goal he scored against Croatia. As per multiple outlets, he said, “Only me, and the people around me know how difficult it is to work daily to be physically and psychologically well and reach goal 900. It’s a unique milestone in my career and it was with a lot of emotion I celebrated that goal. It represents a lot. It was the number I wanted to achieve for a long time and I knew I would achieve it because, as I continue to play, it would happen naturally.”

The FIFA World Cup trophy is a major crown that has eluded Cristiano Ronaldo’s trophy cabinet. The farthest Ronaldo has managed to reach in the tournament was the semi-finals in 2004. They were eventually knocked out by France back then. Portugal failed to crack the Round of 16, in the following edition and lost 0-1 to Spain.

In 2014, Portugal could not get past the group stage whereas Lionel Messi’s Argentina went on to play in the final. Portugal were eliminated by Uruguay in 2018 thanks to a brace from Edinson Cavani. In Qatar, two years back, Portugal conceded a defeat to Morocco in the quarter-finals. Meanwhile, Argentina completed a dream run to win the FIFA World Cup title in 2022.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

2026 World Cup: How Nations From Around The world Can Qualify

BY DALE JOHNSON, GENERAL EDITOR, ESPN FC

Qualifying for the 2026 FIFA World Cup began on Oct. 12, 2023, when minor nations from the Asian confederation played their first round of matches. Myanmar's Lwin Moe Aung scored the very first goal in a 5-1 win over Macau.

Most confederations now have qualifying well underway, but we're a long way from discovering who will join hosts United States, Mexico and Canada.

Here's where we're at around the globe.

EUROPE(UEFA)

12 AUTO + 4 VIA CONFEDERATION PLAYOFF

There are 55 European nations, and qualifying will run from March to November 2025. However, Russia remain suspended due to the invasion of Ukraine and are unlikely to compete, leaving 54 nations.

There will be 12 groups of four or five teams, playing home and away matches. The group winners will qualify directly for the World Cup.

There is no date for the draw as yet, but it's likely to be in November or December. The seeded teams will be the top eight nations from the current edition of the UEFA Nations League, which ends on Nov. 19, plus the top four by FIFA World Ranking who aren't yet seeded. Despite being in Nations League B, England are almost certain to be in Pot 1 on World Ranking.

The final four places at the World Cup will be determined via confederation playoffs, to be played in March 2026. There is no path to the World Cup through FIFA's intercontinental playoffs.

The UEFA playoff involves 16 teams: the 12 runners-up plus the four best-ranked group winners from the UEFA Nations League, who did not finish in the top two in World Cup qualifying. This creates four routes, each with four teams featuring a semifinal and a final for a place at the World Cup.

SOUTH AMERICA (CONMEBOL)

6 AUTO + 1 ENTERS PLAYOFF

As in recent qualifying competitions, all 10 nations play each other home and away. The top six nations qualify directly to the finals. The seventh-placed team will go into the intercontinental playoffs in March 2026.

The first qualifiers took place in September 2023, with the league phase to be completed in September 2025.

NORTH AMERICA, CENTRAL AMERICA , CARIBBEAN (CONCACAF)

3 AUTO + 2 ENTER PLAYOFF

Usually, Concacaf would have six automatic places in qualifying -- but for the 2026 finals three of the six are taken up by the hosts. That leaves three places to be won, plus two spots in the intercontinental playoffs.

Concacaf saw 32 nations enter the race to make the finals.

Round 1: The four lowest-ranked Concacaf nations battled it out in two-legged ties. Anguilla and British Virgin Islands eliminated Turks and Caicos Islands and U.S. Virgin Islands respectively, both on penalties.

Round 2: The top 28-ranked nations, plus the two winners from Round 1, were drawn into six groups of five teams. The six group winners and six group runners-up will move on to Round 3. This stage will be played in two blocks, with the first held in June 2024 and the second in June 2025.

Round 3: The 12 remaining teams will be drawn into three groups of four teams. The group winners will qualify for the World Cup, with the two runners-up with the best record going on to take part in the intercontinental playoffs. This phase will be played in September, October and November 2025.

AFRICA (CAF)

9 AUTO + 1 ENTERS PLAYOFF

There were 54 FIFA-affiliated nations in the draw, but Eritrea subsequently withdrew.

Round 1: The 53 teams are in eight groups of six nations, and one group of five. The nine group winners qualify for the World Cup,

This stage began in November 2023 and will be completed in October 2025.

Round 2: The four best runners-up will enter playoffs (two semifinals and a final) to decide which one country will go to the intercontinental playoffs. This stage will be played in November 2025.

ASIA (AFC)

8 AUTO + 1 ENTERS PLAYOFF

This is by some distance the most complicated route to the World Cup, with a layered qualifying process which creates a dual group stage to find the eight automatic qualifiers.

Round 1: The 20 lowest-ranked nations played two-legged ties in October 2023. Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Singapore and Yemen advanced.

Round 2: Those 10 winners joined the 26 best-ranked nations. The 36 teams were drawn into nine groups of four teams, with the top two nations going through to Round 3. This stage began in November 2023 and was completed in June 2024.

Advanced: Australia, Bahrain, China, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, North Korea, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan

Round 3: We're now left with 18 nations, who have been drawn into three groups of six teams. Matches began in September 2024 and will run through to June 2025

The group winners and runners-up will take the first six places at the 2026 World Cup.

The six nations who finished in third and fourth move on to round 4.

Round 4: The six teams in this stage will be drawn into two groups of three. They will play each other once, so two matches, on neutral ground in October 2025.

The group winners take the final two automatic places at the World Cup.

The runners-up continue on to Round 5.

Round 5: The two runners-up will play a two-legged tie in November 2025 to earn the place in the intercontinental playoffs.

OCEANIA (OFC)

1 AUTO + 1 ENTERS PLAYOFF

All 11 members of the OFC region take part.

Round 1: The four lowest-ranked nations play a knockout format (two semis and a final) in September 2024 for a place in round two. The games will be played in Samoa.

American Samoa, Cook Islands, Samoa and Tonga are in this round.

Samoa beat Tonga 2-1 in the final to move on to Round 2.

Round 2: Samoa join the seven top-ranked nations.

The eight nations have been drawn into two groups of four nations, with matches played in October and November 2024. Games will be held in New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu.

Group A: Solomon Islands, Fiji, New Caledonia and Papua New Guinea
Group B: New Zealand, Tahiti, Vanuatu and Samoa

The top two countries in each group go on to Round 3.

Round 3: Four countries remain, and will play a knockout format (two semis and a final) in March 2025.

The winners of the final qualifies for the World Cup, with the losers playing in the intercontinental playoff.

INTERCONTINENTAL PLAYOFFS (2 PLACES)

The playoffs, to be held in March 2026, will determine the final two qualifiers.

Six countries will take part. Each of the five confederations (apart from UEFA) will have one country in the playoffs. The host confederation (so for this edition Concacaf) receives a second slot.

1 Africa
1 Asia
2 Concacaf
1 Oceania
1 South America

The two nations with the best FIFA World Ranking will be seeded and go straight into one of the two finals.

The four other countries will be drawn to play a semifinal, feeding through to play a seed for one of the two places at the World Cup.

The playoffs are due to be held in one of the World Cup host nations as a test event.