Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images

by Patrick ‘Rey’ Reynell

Setting: On June 11, South Africa will become the first host country from the African continent. The fifth match of this 2010 edition of the World Cup will be played the following day between England and The United States of America in the northwest city of Rustenburg at the Royal Bafokeng Stadium. Tickets have sold quickly for this match and surely the 44,000-plus capacity stadium will be abuzz with fans from both sides. The literal buzz heard will be coming from the many, many vuvuzelas.

Exposition: The English side, affectionately known as The Three Lions, will take on the American side for the tenth time in their history. Not surprisingly, England has dominated the previous nine matches by winning seven times. And, well, there’s also that whole revolutionary thing in the eighteenth century.

Plot: Despite its affluent footballing history, England has arguably had more disappointment on the international level, although much of that could be accredited to its own lofty expectations. They failed to qualify for the 2008 UEFA European Championship. The fallout involved bringing in Italian manager Fabio Capello to turn their fortunes in time for this year’s World Cup. But with the Americans serving as the only true threat in their 2010 group, the English have to be prepping for success during the knockout rounds.

On the other hand, the U.S side almost experienced a soccer renaissance of sorts during its 2009 Confederations Cup run in South Africa. They upset current European Champions and world’s #1 Spain in the semifinals. Then they nearly pulled off another monumental upset in the championship match against perennial football power Brazil, in which the American’s led 2-0 at the half (Brazil would eventually win 3-2). The national exposure of Bob Bradley’s squad took a hit, however, when they lost to neighboring Mexico on American soil in an embarrassing 5-0 thrashing in the 2009 CONCACAF Gold Cup final.

England should be viewing this first match as its only challenge in the group stage; if not, at least their fans see it as easy. With American ambiguity toward national soccer restored, the “Yanks” may be able to rekindle its guerrilla tactics from its founding members to sneak up once again on the Brits and pull the upset. Only this time, the stakes are not nearly quite as high as the U.S. certainly could finish atop the other two group members, Algeria and Slovenia, and advance.

Narrative Hook: As many fans of both countries know, the only time England and USA met in a game that counted was the 1950 World Cup where the world witnessed one of the biggest upsets in football history. The U.S. team defeated heavily favored England 1-0 in its second match (Joe Gaetjens, a Haitian born player for the United States, is still revered in his native country for scoring the game’s lone goal).

The Americans would go on a long drought after their 1950 appearance. Meanwhile England continued its success on the international stage thereafter, winning their lone World championship in 1966. Most recently at the 2006 World Cup, the U.S. team finished at the bottom of its group while England was eliminated in the quarterfinals by Portugal.

But trouble can often ensue when you have two teams with such a dichotomy of expectations. England’s international play is plagued by near misses and its fans have watched countries like Germany, France and Italy win both World Cups and European championships while England remains monogamous in its championship love life.

Conflict: The injury bug has bitten both sides, but perhaps more so the Americans who may be without talented striker Jozy Altidore, who suffered a mild ankle sprain and recently sat out the final friendly against Australia. Bradley has a number replacements to choose from, but few who can match the skill set of Altidore. This after another striker, Charlie Davies, broke his leg in late 2009 and subsequently left off of this World Cup roster.

England’s conflict with injury comes has not only bitten its skill but its leadership as well. English captain Rio Ferdinand has been ruled out of the 2010 World Cup with a knee injury. He garners plenty of experience having participated in the last two FIFA World Cups. Steven Gerrard, an experienced England national player himself, will captain The Three Lions in Ferdinand’s absence.

England’s biggest question remains who will stand between the posts when they open up their 2010. Goal scoring threats like Landon Donovan, Clint Dempsey, Herculez Gomez, Robbie Findlay and Eddson Buddle may find confidence with indecisiveness of the English goal keeping situation. David James brings the most experience though some English fans can recall some big game blunders on his part.

The U.S. side boasts many English Premier League players, but the least of their worries is who stands in the goal. Goal keeper Tim Howard will be tested frequently by the likes of Lampard, Gerrard, Terry and Rooney.

Resolution: Don’t be fooled by what the coaches are saying; both of these teams have to be thrilled with their group draw. It would come as surprise if these two teams did not finish first and second and advance. This match will give either side the jumpstart it needs to confidently compete in the knockout rounds.

Though the U.S. has played well under Bradley and has now seen some of its youth from the past qualifying stages now gain invaluable experience outside the States, Altidore’s injury creates a void not easily replaced. Goal keeping questions aside, England comes prepared more experienced and talented throughout the pitch and should continue to thrive under Capello’s guidance. Expect no revolutionary surprises here. England takes this opening match 3-1.

>Landon Donovan and David Beckham exchange words; MLS could use the publicity

Six months away playing for one of Europe’s elite teams, David Beckham made his return to the Los Angeles Galaxy for practices earlier this week. His return did not come without media attention thanks to teammate Landon Donvan. Apparently Donovan bashed the beloved international star in an upcoming book questioning Beckham’s commitment among other things.

Here’s a rundown of what Donovan said in the book:

The Galaxy currently find themselves out of a playoff spot and could use the savvy play of Beckham. Still, MLS officials have to be happy about the timing of this story. Beckham returning was not nearly as big a story in America as his initial arrival, and even that subsided after less than a week.

Photo by Toby Canham/Getty Images

One of America’s best players calling out what was once one of the world’s best players? Publicity gold! Playoffs or not, this should cause more than expected to pay attention to Beckham’s return. Beckham, who still says he will honor his five-year contract with the Galaxy, will return to play tonight against New York. Seems as though his time spent with AC Milan has the thirty year old midfielder in top form and impressing Galaxy teammates.

The spat with Donovan, according to Beckham, has now been resolved. This is nothing new to the American sports frontier. In fact, this might be Donovan’s way of challenging Beckham to see his vision of improving the MLS through. Many MLS faithful were displeased when the Galaxy agreed to loan him to Italian power, AC Milan, which meant Beckham would miss most of the first half of this season.

>South African workers spent past week striking, will resume work on 2010 World Cup facilities Thursday

Workers in South Africa spent this past week on strike for wage increases. The Washington Post reported that some workers were earning as little as $1.50 an hour and an average of about $200 a month.

Here’s a brief rundown of the wage dispute:

The striking workers could have caused a delay in the reported December deadline of all World Cup facilities. Some officials even worried early on that the strike could push back the start of the World Cup in June 2010.

The workers agreed to a slightly less wage increase (1 percent less than what they were seeking) and were expected to resume construction today.

This issue has done nothing than bring more international attention to the dire situations in one of African’s more affluent countries. Violence ensued earlier in the week, which has to be World Cup promoters worst nightmare.

>Can the 2010 World Cup have a lasting impact on host South Africa?

Additionally to the strike, the selection of South Africa as the first African country to even host the World Cup is not without its critics. Some believe hosting the World Cup will do little to shed light on the economic woes of African nations. One has to ask: is it FIFA’s concern what happens to a host city after one of its major tournaments leaves?

I’m more ignorant to the problems there than anyone else, but I can’t imagine that hosting the World Cup would hurt the nation in any way. It isn’t FIFA’s job to save it from any of its problems; certainly by choosing South Africa to host allows officials to shed some light on what is plaguing nations there and how the world can help.

For one, the facilities look as though they will be top-notch. This has to give South Africa the edge in hosting other international tournaments, soccer or not, in the near future. Cricket is very popular as is rugby.

If the World Cup goes off without a hitch, why wouldn’t this happen? More tournaments means more jobs for stadium workers, hotels, food services, transportation and so on. It may not be the answer, but certainly FIFA envisioned this by selecting South Africa.

Meanwhile, ESPN’s Outside the Lines investigated just what the conditions are for some of the poorest South African residents.

Most powerful line from the piece with Bob Ley comes from a young South African man who realizes that it will be life after the World Cup that truly matters to South Africans:

“The money coming in is just to make the streets look better so that the stadium look good for people to say it looks like Germany over here. But actually we’re not eating like Germans, we’re not.” Tells it like it is.

Got some soccer news or comments from around the globe? Take a seat on the bench and let your ‘pickins’ be heard.

South Africa will host the 2010 World Cup. Nine cities – including Cape Town, Johannesburg, and Durban – will be the center of the world between June 11 and July 11. FIFA’s decision to hold the world’s biggest tournament on the oft war ridden continent is not sitting well with the rest of the world.

If you haven’t followed the world news at all, Zimbabwe is muddled with violence and alleged political corruption. Now I can’t give you the details of who is who or the acronyms of any political factions; all I know is that the situation has affected South Africa. Leading up to a recent election and its conclusion, which was delayed many times, Zimbabweans sensing political strife and out lash from a suspicious delay fled to their more economically stable neighbor, South Africa. Those who fled early were lucky: they have escaped the daily violence that ensued.

This past week, FIFA has finally admitted that they are concerned with the situation in Zimbabwe and how it may affect the safety of the players and hundreds of thousands of fans that will descend upon South Africa in 2010. They have revealed that there is a backup plan in place, but refuse to disclose any details including the possible country. Rumors have also been swirling that FIFA is considering the suspension of the Zimbabwe National team, who is still in place to advance to the next stage of qualifying.

Lost in all of this is Zimbabwe’s plight to use soccer as a tool for peace. Zimbabwe originally had high hopes of hosting some of the World Cup fixtures in Harare, but ultimately lost that chance due to the inadequacies of its stadiums. They thought hosting some games would promote national pride. One stadium in particular, Rufaro Stadium in Harare, began renovations in hopes of hosting. However, problems with the drainage and turf put the stadium’s progress eight months behind schedule. In fact, up until recently, FIFA was not even going to sanction the use of Rufaro for qualifying matches, which would force the Zimbabwe team to play qualifying matches elsewhere.

FIFA eventually approved Rufaro and the dilapidated stadium hosted a couple of qualifying matches. Zimbabwe performed valiantly, most recently drawing against Kenya and defeating Namibia. There will be at least one more qualifying match played in Harare’s Rufaro Stadium on September 7 against Guinea. Zimbabwe remains in third place in Group 2, two points behind Kenya; they have two more matches to finish in the top two spots in order to advance.

My guess is that FIFA is in fact considering disbanding the Zimbabwe National team, but has chosen to wait out the qualifying round to see if Zimbabwe can just eliminate itself. On one hand, it’s hard to argue with one point of view FIFA could make – they may be protecting them from violence. But on the other hand they may actually prolong it.

A few years ago the Iraqi National team experienced success beyond expectations despite a war in their country. They practiced and played all “home games” in Dubai. Many of them were witnesses to unspeakable horrors experienced by many athletes during Hussein’s reign in Iraq. Yet, they continued to compete. They finished fourth in the 2004 Olympics, and in 2006 and 2007 won gold and silver medals in two different Asian tournaments. These Asian tournaments exposed nationalism in Iraq. During their participation and success in these tournaments, it was widely reported on American news channels that violence was down in Iraq. I can recall CNN running a video of Iraqi celebrations after a big victory and was enthralled at the power of soccer.

(It is unfortunate to reflect back on this now. Iraq was recently eliminated from World Cup qualifying after losing to Qatar. The government decided to dismiss the manager and disband the team until a later time. Victory begets pride, defeat begets shame.)

FIFA understandably refused to allow Zimbabwe to host any World Cup games, but why suspend the team if they continue to be successful? All it needs to do is look at what the Iraqi team did for its country. Soccer can be a powerful force when allowed to run its course. Maybe “The Warriors,” as the Zimbabwe team is so affectionately called, are destined for something bigger. Normally perennial underachievers in Africa, they have shown signs of an undeniable will during qualifying. Why interrupt that? Just look at the games played at Rufaro thus far. There has been no violence whatsoever and national pride was palpable. Rufaro has a capacity of 35,000. The attendance at Rufaro for both qualifying games? 35,000 proud Zimbabweans.

2008 Zimbabwe presidential election
FIFA has no plans to suspend Zimbabwe
Details on Rufaro Stadium
2010 FIFA World Cup