Fans of the World

One week into the World Cup, one thing has been extremely noticeable.  The fans.  Soccer fans are lunatics.  Everybody knows this.  As Americans, we normally only get to see it from afar.  That hasn't been the case at the World Cup.  That passion has been on full display for everyone to see.  And it's been amazing!

Last Saturday was the first game at MetLife Stadium.  It featured Brazil.  Yellow-clad fans didn't just fill the stadium, they took over Manhattan!  The game ended right before Game 5 of the NBA Finals began.  The intermingling of the Brazil fans and the Knick fans created such a crazy, incredible party-like atmosphere.  Times Square was really the place to be!  It must've felt like New Year's Eve!

Brazil isn't the only South American nation whose fans have traveled well.  Every South American team in the tournament has.  Messi's 2026 World Cup debut might as well have been an Argentina home game.  It was played in Kansas City!  The Uruguayan faithful showed up in Miami.  And Azteca was also sea of yellow for Colombia's first game.  I can only imagine what the streets of those cities were like!

It's been so fun, too, to see FOX (or maybe it's the world feed, but it doesn't matter) cutting to the fans who aren't in stadiums cheering on their nation of choice at fan fests or bars across the country.  During the Canada-Bosnia game, they showed a packed house at a bar in St. Louis, which has the largest Bosnian population in the country.  Who knew?!  And I'm sure there were many similar situations going on in those different pockets of heavily ethnic communities all over the country.

That's been the case in the stadiums, too.  Seemingly every team has gotten support not just from their own fans, but from the Americans of that ethnicity who live in (or close to) the host city.  That was the case for Iranian-Americans in LA.  Despite the hostilities between the two nations and the fact that there's a travel ban in effect, Iran still had its fair share of supporters.  As I'm sure we'll see with other countries playing in other cities.

The United States is such a melting pot, though, that it almost doesn't even matter where you are.  You'll find fans wearing jerseys from different countries everywhere!  Case in point, I was wearing my Christian Pulisic jersey for the USA's opening game last Friday.  I'm walking down the street on my way to do some errands and I see a lady sitting in her car wearing...a Paraguay jersey!  That obviously led to some good-natured pointing to our respective national team's crest for a few seconds!

We knew that Mexico's games would have partisan home crowds.  We weren't sure how it would be in the U.S. and Canada.  After all, the U.S. often feels like the road team at friendlies played anywhere in the country, thanks to the people who live in that area supporting the nation of their family's heritage rather than the USMT.  Well, I'm happy to report, that the U.S. actually got to enjoy a home crowd in its opener against Paraguay.  And, at both of Canada's games, the fans have been almost entirely clad in red and rooting for the home team.

U.S. Head Coach Mauricio Pocchetino said that the opening game against Paraguay in Los Angeles was the first time he ever felt the crowd rooting for his team.  They'll have even more of a home field advantage against Australia in Seattle, which is a decidedly pro-American soccer city.  They obviously set it up so that the U.S. would play in cities that were more likely to support them over their opponent, but there's no way to know for sure that will be the case until the tournament actually starts.  Well, the American Outlaws got the memo and showed up to make sure the home team actually had home field advantage.

Teams don't even need to win for their fans to show tremendous displays of emotion.  Curacao lost 7-1.  But they also scored a goal.  Against Germany.  In their World Cup debut.  That moment alone is worth its weight in gold.  So is Cape Verde's performance against Spain, a 0-0 draw that turned their goalkeeper into an overnight sensation.  That may be the only point Cape Verde earns at the World Cup.  So what?  Their fans got to relish their tiny nation going toe-to-toe with Spain.

There's one fan group that is the undisputed winners of World Cup so far, though.  Scotland's Tartan Army.  They absolutely took over Boston.  To the point where the bars ran out of beer!  (Boston + Scottish fans = not a good combination.)  They had "Scotland Night" at Fenway Park, and the sound of bagpipes could be heard as they marched their way to the ballpark.

If you think the Tartan Army has limited itself to New England, you'd be sadly mistaken.  They took up an entire section at Yankee Stadium on Tuesday and Wednesday!  Throughout the game on Wednesday night, they were treating it just like a soccer game, standing and chanting virtually the entire time.  To say they drew the crowd's attention would be an understatement.  Their group grew as the game went on, with fans from other countries and even random other people making their way over and joining in the fun.  After the game, I asked one of them why they were in New York while Scotland's first two games are in Boston.  His response was "Why not?  We'll go back to Boston for the game."  It's Scotland's first World Cup in 28 years.  Their fans are making sure to enjoy the experience.

Scottish fans are far from alone, too.  Fans from all over many be here for the World Cup, but they're taking full advantage of being in the United States.  So, as my Scottish friend said, why not go to a baseball game while you're here?  And it's the Americans who've been the biggest beneficiaries.  It's just a small glimpse, but it's enough to see the incredible passion that's displayed everywhere else in the world.

All of this has me really excited for the Norway-Senegal game, when I'll get to see it for myself.  That's one of the biggest reasons I wanted to go to one of the games.  Any game.  It didn't matter.  The atmosphere will be electric regardless.  I went in thinking I'll end up rooting for Senegal because their fans seem more fun.  Then I saw the Norwegians with their Viking helmets and rowing chant, so maybe not.  It'll probably end up being a gametime decision now.

When the United States was chosen as the primary host for this World Cup, this is what they hoped/expected would happen.  People coming from all over the world plus Americans of every nationality mixing together in one raucous celebration.  So far, that's exactly what's happened.  For all the pre-tournament concerns about people not coming because of the cost or having trouble getting a visa or whatever other reason, plenty of fans have shown up from all over the world.  And they've turned the World Cup into one big party.  A party that American fans in the host cities appear more than happy to join.

The Great Grass Debate

With FIFA mandating that grass fields be used for the World Cup, it meant that grass would be installed at all 11 NFL stadiums hosting games this summer, even if they ordinarily play on turf.  Which, of course, led to the inevitable calls that the NFL should make a similar mandate and those stadiums should switch to grass permanently, as if it was that easy.  I hate to break it to those people, but all seven NFL stadiums that are having grass temporarily installed for the World Cup will go back to having turf fields once the season starts.

If it were up to the players, all NFL fields would be grass.  They've always been clear about their preference.  Although, the common belief that turf leads to more injuries is simply incorrect.  It was true back in the 80s and 90s when turf was merely a carpet placed on top of a cement floor, often with baseball cutouts, there were more injuries on turf than on grass.  But modern artificial turf surfaces are so good and so similar to grass that there's very little difference.  In fact, the number of injuries is pretty much equal.

Here's the thing, too.  Every team has an indoor facility at their complex.  Wanna guess what type of field they use in the indoor facilities?  I'll give you a hint...it isn't grass!  Yet there's no clamoring for the indoor facilities to use grass.  Just the stadiums.  Even though, in most of them, it's simply not practical.

Including the preseason, NFL teams have 10 home games a year.  SoFi Stadium and MetLife Stadium each host 20 games per season since they're both the home of two teams.  There's always at least one week every season where the Rams and Chargers or Giants and Jets are both home.  In August, the Giants and Jets have home preseason games in back-to-back days.  Do you think the grass would hold up in the fourth quarter of that second game?

Beyond that are simply the practical effects of trying to maintain a grass field in the Northeast.  Winter weather isn't exactly easy to deal with.  Now imagine trying to keep a grass field playable in the Winter!  Green Bay has a heated field, as will Buffalo's new stadium.  But the other cold-weather cities that have open-air stadiums with grass fields have some of the worst field conditions in the league.  The Steelers share Acrisure Stadium with Pitt.  They also play high school championship games on that field.  It's notorious around the NFL for how bad and chewed up it gets.

As someone who lives and works in sports in the Northeast, I can tell you firsthand how having a turf field is actually vital logistically.  Now, college sports and their multipurpose fields are different, I get that.  But the principle remains the same.  Field maintenance is easier, significantly so, on turf.  Especially in areas where weather might be a concern, at least the condition of the field won't be.

Two Northeast stadiums hosting the World Cup are normally turf--MetLife Stadium and Gillette Stadium.  Both of their predecessors--Giants Stadium and Foxboro Stadium--had natural grass instead of turf for a few years in the early 2000s.  At Giants Stadium, the experiment only lasted three seasons before they reverted back to turf.  And MetLife has been turf since it opened.  There are practical reasons for this.  Reasons that make sense when you think about the stadium's many uses beyond just football.

NFL games are far from the only events that take place in these stadiums.  That's a very important (and relevant) point.  In fact, NFL games make up only a tiny portion of the stadium's schedule in a given year.  All those concerts and college football games and everything else are vital to the stadium's bottom line.  And they all require either using or covering up the field.  Just imagine what that would do to the grass, which would then need to be replaced each time!

One of the reasons FIFA was able to install grass at these NFL stadiums and have it remain pristine for the duration of the World Cup is because they were given exclusive use for that entire timeframe.  Every World Cup stadium was taken offline a month before the tournament, which gave FIFA time to install the grass and get it to the exact right specifications.  More importantly, since the games are the only things taking place in the stadium during that span, the grass has time to rest.  That's an aspect of grass maintenance that's just as important as any other.  It's why Wimbledon didn't play on the middle Sunday until a few years ago.  It's why golf courses (or at least certain areas of them) close at certain times of the year.

It's also not as easy as resodding the field and calling it a day.  The grass needs to set before it's usable.  Which means the stadium needs to be taken offline every time you were to do it.  It's expensive, too.  So, it really would defeat the purpose since, in order to cover that cost, you'd have to schedule more non-NFL events, which would require more resodding the field. 

Houston and Dallas, meanwhile, have retractable roofs, while SoFi Stadium is an indoor facility.  That creates its own challenges to maintaining a natural grass field.  Simply put, an indoor setting isn't ideal for growing grass.  Especially to the standard necessary for an NFL-quality playing field. 

When the Astrodome was first built in the mid-60s, they tried having a grass field and it quickly died.  As a result, Astroturf was created.  Artificial playing surfaces have come a long way since then.  To the point where you can barely tell the difference. 

And grass technology has come a long way, too.  That's why they're able to temporarily install grass in the indoor stadiums that are hosting the World Cup while maintaining its quality.  We aren't to that point yet, though.  Maybe in the next few years, we will.  But right now, it's still more practical and logistically feasible to have a turf field.  Especially since these stadiums serve so many other purposes besides just NFL games.

But, of course, the players don't know or care about this (or both).  All they know is that they see grass fields being put on top of the turf, which to them means it can (and should) be done.  They see it as a "slap in the face," even though if they were to get their wish and get grass fields, they might not even be as good as the turf fields currently being used in those stadiums.  It would be totally impractical to even try playing on grass full-time, and it would cause more problems than it would solve. 

Yes, there are a few NFL stadiums hosting the World Cup that have grass full-time.  Miami even manages to have it at Hard Rock Stadium despite both the Hurricanes and Dolphins playing there.  Miami's in Florida, where the weather's much more conducive.  They also frequently replace the grass, which they're able to do because they grow their own.  That's obviously not something every team can do.

The players don't see it that way, though.  They see grass being installed for the World Cup as proof of concept and don't understand why there can't be natural grass in all 30 stadiums, especially since that's their stated preference.  Don't count on that happening anytime soon, however.  Because, as much as the players might want to play on grass, it really doesn't make sense as a full-time option at every stadium.  Whether they like it or not.

Is 64 Inevitable?

We're only a few days into the first 48-team World Cup.  A majority of the teams haven't even played their first game yet.  Yet, there's already talk of further tournament expansion as "inevitable."  Alexi Lalas has suggested that this is simply a "first step" on the way to 64, which he thinks will probably happen sooner rather than later.  In fact, if CONMEBOL had gotten their way, the Centennial World Cup in 2030 would've been a 64-team tournament.

FIFA was quick to shoot that down for 2030.  But, now that it's out there, you know it's something that'll stay in the back of everyone's minds.  And, knowing how much FIFA loves money, they'll see 64 teams as more games, which means more revenue.  So, yes, I do think we'll eventually see a 64-team World Cup.  Which isn't necessarily a good thing.  At least not right now.

When FIFA expanded the World Cup field from 24 to 32 in 1998, it was universally accepted practically immediately.  The 24-team tournament was simply too small.  It was almost too hard to qualify, and too many good teams were being left out.  Plus, 32 teams was much more straightforward.  The top two in each group advanced, and the bracket for the knockout stage was pretty much set.  No third-place teams advancing.  No five potential knockout stage opponents based on which third-place finishers qualified.

That's one of the big pros for going to 64 teams, which Lalas correctly pointed out.  In a 64-team tournament, you'd go back to not having third-place teams advancing and hundreds of possible combinations for the knockout stage bracket.  It would be like the 1998-2022 format, with the exception of it being 16 groups instead of eight and the top two in each group advancing to the Round of 32 instead of the Round of 16.  That's certainly much cleaner.  I don't think you'll find anyone who doesn't agree with that.

And, as I already mentioned, FIFA will look at the potential of expanding the World Cup and only see dollar signs.  They haven't just added 16 teams to the field.  They've added 40 games.  There were 64 games in Qatar.  There will be a total of 104 this year.  When/if they go to 64, that's four additional groups with six games in each.  So, it's not just 16 additional teams.  It's 24 additional games.  Just think about how much money FIFA can make off a 128-game tournament (double what they had in 2022).  You know they are!

After all, this year's World Cup initially wasn't originally supposed to be 104 games.  When the expansion was first announced, the plan was to have 16 groups of three and a total of 80 games.  That only became 12 groups of four playing 104 total games after the 2022 tournament.  The increased revenue that comes with playing 24 additional games wasn't the only reason that change was made, but you know it's something FIFA wasn't exactly mad about, either.

Among the reasons for the expansion to 48 teams was to give more countries an opportunity to qualify, especially in Africa and Asia.  Oceania was given a direct entry for the first time, allowing New Zealand to qualify without having to play in a playoff.  And, without the tournament expansion, we probably wouldn't see teams like World Cup debutants Curacao and Cape Verde in the field.  It's great that those teams finally have the opportunity, but we still don't know how their presence impacts the quality of the field.

Every time you expand a tournament, that's the risk you run (as the NCAA will find out come March).  There may be a handful of good teams that had previously been left out and are now being included.  But are there enough of those teams to fill the number of additional spots?  And it was absolutely phenomenal to see Curacao playing Germany.  Being on the same field as the Germans was enough.  Scoring a goal in that game instantly became the greatest moment in the country's sporting history.  But, as great as that experience was for Curacao, they still lost 7-1.

In the 32-team World Cup, the number of overmatched, low-ranked teams was limited.  Sure, there were still blowouts occasionally.  But, for the most part, the games were always competitive.  We aren't even through the first group games in the first 48-team tournament yet, so we have no idea how many of these additional teams can actually compete.  We'll need a bigger sample size than just this tournament before we can make any conclusions about that anyway.  So, let's wait for the tournament to play out first.  It's way too early to even start thinking about going to 64.

There are those who'll remain vigorously opposed to 64 no matter what, and only partially because of how it may dilute the product.  Qualifying for the World Cup is supposed to be difficult, and the tournament itself is designed to be exclusive.  Only those countries that make it through the rigors of qualifying get the honor of playing in it.  A 48-team field is still fairly exclusive.  If they go to 64, though, nearly 30 percent of all FIFA members will make the final tournament.  Would that take away some of the luster?

How would an expansion to 64 teams even work?  As it stands, 60 percent of CONMEBOL already makes the World Cup.  There are only 10 teams in the confederation and six have direct entry (plus one spot in the final qualifying tournament).  Even adding one spot for CONMEBOL would mean that 70 percent of South American teams get into every World Cup, which they would love, but I'm sure UEFA and the other confederations might have some different thoughts about.

UEFA currently gets 16 spots.  Part of the reason for that is because they didn't want European teams to have to play each other in group play, so when the expansion was first announced, the idea was that they'd have only one European team in each of the 16 groups.  That obviously isn't what ended up happening.  Four groups have two European teams.  So, you could conceivably give UEFA eight of the 16 additional spots to get to 24 (eight groups with two teams, eight groups with one).  Which is the same number of teams that's played in the Euro since 2016.  Would they then have to consider expanding the Euro to 32 teams, just to keep it so that it's easier to make the continental tournament?

Which leaves CONCACAF, Africa, Asia and Oceania for the remaining additional berths.  Those are the four weakest confederations, which would only add to the quality vs. quantity discussions.  Yes, the increased opportunity and exposure for nations in those confederations would have a positive effect in that it would lead to increased funding, etc.  But, you'd also be adding mainly smaller, lower-ranked countries to the World Cup field.  Which could lead to more overmatched teams getting blown out.  How exactly does that enhance the tournament experience for anybody?

So, moral of the story, let's not jump the gun.  Will the World Cup eventually expand to 64 teams?  Probably.  Anytime soon?  It's way too early to tell.  Let's let the first 48-team tournament (which only just started) finish.  Then we'll go from there.

Different Times, Different Expectations

At the 1990 World Cup, the United States entered as tourists.  They're the first ones to admit it.  They were a bunch of college kids who were happy to be there.  And why wouldn't they be?  It was the first time the U.S. had qualified in 40 years.  That alone was an achievement worth celebrating.  And they got to play Italy in front of 80,000 fans in Rome.  Nobody expected them to be any good, and they weren't.

The 1990 World Cup was important for what was to come four years later, however.  Hosting the World Cup in 1994 was huge for soccer in the United States.  Not much was expected from the team then, either, but the experience of being there in 1990 (overmatched or not) cannot be overstated.  There was no pressure on them, but they still wanted to put forth a good showing for the home fans.  And they did, upsetting Colombia in group play and holding their own in a Round of 16 loss to eventual champion Brazil.

Of course, there was a concerted effort to make sure the USMNT put on a good showing in their home World Cup.  That investment was just the start.  Then came the World Cup itself, which was the most financially successful tournament in history.  That funding helped launch MLS and grassroots programs across the country, not to mention turning the women's team into a powerhouse.  The effects of the 1994 World Cup are still being felt.

Fast forward 32 years as the United States hosts the World Cup for a second time.  Look no further than the expectations on this team to see how far soccer has come in this country.  In 1994, it was hoping they'd get out of the group.  In 2026, some would consider it a disappointment if they didn't win the group.  The talk is more about how far they'll advance in the knockout stage.  There's even been some chatter about the United States winning the whole thing!

While expecting the U.S. to win the World Cup (even on home soil) is a bit of a stretch, the fact that it's even thrown out there as a possibility shows how far this team has come.  The U.S. has shown it can compete on the world stage.  Everyone knows they're good.  American players are starters on some of the top club teams in Europe.  Those players understand the opportunity in front of them and those expectations...and they embrace it!

Thinking it's even possible for the United States men to win the World Cup used to be a ludicrous idea.  It no longer is.  Will they win the 2026 World Cup?  Probably not.  But that's not the point.  The fact that people think they can is.  And it speaks volumes.  Just as the fact that there's potential for people to be disappointed speaks volumes.

In 1994, no American soccer players were household names.  Sure, players like Alexi Lalas and Tony Meola and Cobi Jones became household names later on, mostly because of the tournament, but, for the most part, they were anonymous.  In 2026, that's far from the case.  Christian Pulisic isn't just a household name for American fans, he's recognized as one of the best players in the world.  Most of the squad, Pulisic included, is European-based, and American players are regulars in the Champions League.

It was a slow and gradual process to get here, of course.  At the 1998 World Cup, the United States finished last.  Then they made the quarterfinals in 2002 before failing to get out of the group in 2006.  Then they beat Spain to make the final of the Confederations Cup in 2009 and won their group at the 2010 World Cup.  That all led to rock bottom in 2017, when the U.S. was eliminated in World Cup qualifying and didn't even go to Russia!

That might be the biggest indication of how the United States' place in the global soccer hierarchy has changed.  Certainly within CONCACAF at the very least.  When the U.S. qualified for its first World Cup in four decades in 1989, it was a big moment.  When they didn't qualify in 2017, it was equally big.  For a totally different reason.  Qualifying for the World Cup had become the bare minimum expectation.  (So is performing well in regional tournaments.  A terrible Copa America performance at home in 2024 is what got Gregg Berhalter fired.)  That wouldn't have happened without the investment that's been put into soccer (in many different ways) since the 1994 World Cup.

FIFA knew they were taking a risk by awarding the 1994 World Cup to the U.S.  There was no professional league and soccer was more of a curiosity than anything else.  Then a record number of fans filled the stadiums.  It led to a soccer boom.  It led to the 2026 World Cup being a completely different experience for everyone involved.

Soccer's not a curiosity anymore.  Every week, people are watching the Premier League on Saturday mornings and the Champions League during the week.  Everybody has "their" team in one of the European leagues.  Domestically, MLS, which was founded as one of the conditions to host in 1994, just celebrated its 30th anniversary and is thriving.  There are 30 teams, many of which have their own soccer-specific stadiums.

None of this would've been possible if not for the 1994 World Cup.  It's what turned the United States into a soccer country.  It'll never get to the point of popularity as it is in the rest of the world.  It'll never be on the same level as baseball, basketball, hockey and "the other" football.  But that's OK.  That doesn't mean the American soccer fan doesn't exist.  And those American soccer fans will help make the 2026 World Cup a spectacle.  A spectacle where they expect to see their team perform well.

While I'm too young to remember what the level of hype was heading into the 1994 World Cup, I can't imagine it being anywhere close to the degree of anticipation that surrounded this year's tournament.  The World Cup being back in the United States is a big deal.  With the excitement to match.  Sure, the ticket prices are exorbitant, but people wouldn't be complaining about the ticket prices if they didn't want to go.  And it isn't just because of the hype.

Hosting the World Cup is like hosting the Olympics.  It's only gonna happen once in your career if you're lucky.  For the USMNT in 1994, it was about the experience.  For the USMNT in 2026, it's about so much more than that.  The fact that there's a possibility of fans being disappointed in their performance says all you need to know about the difference 32 years can make.

Soccer's Spectacle Is Here

After months of anticipation and endless negative headlines about everything from the ridiculously overpriced and impossible to get tickets to heat concerns to the planned mid-half breaks to the halftime show to various teams' visa issues to the political climate that threatens to cast a pall over the entire event, it's finally time for the World Cup.  I, for one, am very curious to see if the actual soccer ends up taking over the conversation.  I sure hope it does.  Because the actual soccer promises to be incredible.

As FIFA has reminded us repeatedly, this is the largest World Cup history.  There are 48 teams and 104 games, and there are plenty of storylines surrounding so many of those teams.  Can Messi and Argentina defend?  What about France?  Will Spain do what it did in 2010 and back up a Euro title with a World Cup win?  How will the three host countries, particularly the United States, do?  Who will be that surprise team?  We'll find all that out within the next month, leading up to the Final at MetLife Stadium (sorry, New York New Jersey Stadium).

With the expanded field, we've also lost the nice and tidy (not to mention convenient) advancement procedure of the top two teams in each group reaching the knockout stage.  Now, eight third-place finishers move on to the round of 32.  Which obviously makes it easier to advance, but it also creates an incredibly cumbersome bracket where there are 495 possible combinations of third-place teams and nobody will have any idea who they're playing pretty much until the end of group play in every group.  You seriously can play just about anybody.  More on that later, though.  First, let's see who those 32 teams that advance will be.

Group A: Mexico, South Korea, *Czechia, South Africa
Fun fact: With Mexico facing South Africa in the opening game at Azteca, this is the first time the tournament opener has been a repeat matchup.  They also played the first game in 2010 when South Africa hosted.  Anyway, El Tri had a good draw even before Czechia beat Denmark in the European playoff.  I do think the Czechs can move on as one of the best third-place teams, but I have Mexico winning the group and South Korea advancing in second.

Group B: Switzerland, Canada, Qatar, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Italy would've been in this group had they not inexplicably lost to Bosnia-Herzegovina and missed out on a third straight World Cup.  Having both Italy and Switzerland in the group would've made it really difficult for Canada to advance (even with the Canadians playing at home).  As it is, I see them getting out of the group in second place, while Switzerland wins the group.  That could end up being significant, too.  Because only the group winner stays in Canada for the Round of 32.  The second-place team goes to LA.  Also, congratulations to Qatar on actually qualifying for the first time.

Group C: Brazil, Morocco, *Scotland, Haiti
Brazil and Morocco both come into the tournament with reasonable expectations of winning the group.  So, that opening game at MetLife Stadium could very well decide that.  They should be 1-2 in either order.  Scotland's back in the World Cup and will need to beat Haiti to have any shot at reaching the knockout phase.  Haiti not losing all three games would be a surprise.

Group D: United States, Turkiye, *Australia, Paraguay
This group looked much better for the United States when the draw was made in December than it does on the eve of the tournament in June.  That's because Turkiye is a strong European opponent who beat them pretty badly in a friendly not too long ago. The good thing is they don't play each other until the last game, which may end up deciding the group.  Likewise, the Australia-Paraguay game could decide which one of them makes the Round of 32.

Group E: Germany, Ivory Coast, *Ecuador, Curacao
No team wants to make a good showing at this World Cup more than Germany.  Since making four straight semifinals from 2002-14, capped by winning the title 12 years ago, they haven't gotten out of the group in the last two tournaments (but, hey, at least they're not Italy!).  That shouldn't happen with this group.  Especially with an overmatched World Cup debutant is Curacao (or, as Wayne Gretzky calls it, "Kuhrockoh") as their opening opponent.  If Germany doesn't dominate this group, it'll be a surprise.  The real question is who'll finish second.  Ivory Coast or Ecuador?

Group F: Netherlands, Japan, *Tunisia, Sweden
I really have no idea who'll win Group F.  On paper, the Netherlands is the favorite, and I do expect it to be them, but I also wouldn't be shocked if they got upset.  Japan is a consistent World Cup performer, and this is a great opportunity for them.  I could say the same thing about Tunisia, though.  And Sweden got out of the European playoffs, so you know they're no slouch.

Group G: Belgium, Egypt, *Iran, New Zealand
The futbol gods smiled down on Belgium by granting them by far the weakest group.  Getting out if it in first place should be absolutely no problem.  Under normal circumstances, I'd like Iran to join them in the Round of 32, but these are anything but normal circumstances for Iran.  Maybe they'll surprise all of us and go on a run, but it also wouldn't shock anyone if all of the off-the-field stuff is too much.  Even still, the winner of that Iran-Egypt game should advance.

Group H: Spain, Uruguay, *Saudi Arabia, Cape Verde
Cape Verde is another overmatched smaller nation making its World Cup debut against a heavyweight.  In their case, it's a Spain team that many think can win the whole thing (fun fact: this blog is called "Joe Brackets" because I was given that nickname after I correctly picked Spain as the winner in 2010).  I'm not ready to completely anoint them yet, though, because Uruguay had a great run at the Copa America, which was played in several World Cup stadiums, two years ago.  And Saudi Arabia beat eventual champion Argentina in the first game at the 2022 World Cup.

Group I: France, Senegal, *Norway, Iraq
Every World Cup has its "Group of Death."  The stronger teams are a little more spread out in a 48-team, 12-group field, but this World Cup still has one, and it's Group I.  France is obviously one of the top teams in the world.  Senegal is the top team in Africa.  Norway went undefeated in European qualifying (in Italy's group) and boasts one of the world's best players in Erling Haaland.  All three should advance in any order.  It really could depend on how they all do against Iraq.

Group J: Argentina, Austria, Algeria, Jordan
Jordan and the A's in Group J.  Messi is back for another World Cup, as Argentina looks to become the first repeat champions in more than six decades (Brazil in 1962 was the last to do it).  Winning the group shouldn't be an issue.  The rest of it, though?  That's where it's questionable.  Austria is probably the strongest of the other three teams, so I'll give them the second-place nod.

Group K: Portugal, Colombia, DR Congo, Uzbekistan
Don't discount how important winning the 2024 Copa America was for Colombia.  They're a huge threat in this tournament.  So much so that Ronaldo and Portugal winning this group isn't a foregone conclusion by any means.  They end group play against each other in Miami, where the difference between winning and losing could be huge (the winner gets a third-place team, the loser gets L2, which should be either England or Croatia).  DR Congo is in its first World Cup since 1974 (as Zaire), and Uzbekistan is here for the first time ever after coming so close in qualifying at the last several editions.

Group L: England, Croatia, Panama, Ghana
England and Croatia are in the same group for the UEFA Nations League.  They're also in the same group at the World Cup.  So, they'll be seeing a lot of each other over the next few months.  Like Portugal and Colombia, they know the importance of winning the group and avoiding one of the other two.  Unlike Portugal and Colombia, they face each other in the first game.  I'm also curious to see how well Panama does.  They obviously play in the U.S. a lot and had a very good tournament at the 2024 Copa America.

One of the problems with the expanded tournament and the third-place teams advancing is that it's impossible to know the bracket ahead of time.  Based on my group predictions, combination 285 would be used to set the field for the knockout phase (the third-place teams who advance have asterisks).  I won't go through the entire bracket, but I've got Canada losing in the Round of 16 and the United States and Mexico both reaching the quarterfinals.  My semifinals are a pair of border wars: France vs. Spain at Jerry World and Brazil vs. Argentina in Atlanta.  And, in the end, I've got Spain hoisting the trophy after defeating Messi & Co. in the final.

Texas Tech 1, Common Sense 0

No gambling of any kind has always been the golden rule at all levels of sport.  For very obvious reasons.  Protecting the integrity of the game is paramount.  There needs to be no doubt that the final score was the result of fair, honest competition and nothing more.  That's why gambling is taken so seriously and there's no tolerance for it.  Unless you're a judge in Texas.

In an absolutely shocking decision, a Texas judge granted Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby an injunction that overturned the NCAA's ruling and declared him eligible to play for the Red Raiders in 2026.  This despite the fact that Sorsby violated that golden rule.  Notice I'm not using the word "allegedly" here.  There's nothing alleged about it!  Sorsby has admitted to placing thousands of bets worth at least $90,000 on pro and college sports over a four-year period...including more than 40 involving Indiana football WHEN HE WAS ON THE TEAM! 

This is as clear-cut as it gets!  The NCAA was obligated to declare Sorsby permanently ineligible.  Just as MLB Commissioner Bart Giamatti had no choice but to give Pete Rose a lifetime ban.  And, going back more than a century, Judge Landis had that same obligation with the eight players involved in the Black Sox Scandal.  Even the appearance of impropriety is enough to bring the result into question.  Whether there actually is or not doesn't even matter.  Just wondering if there is does plenty of damage on its own.

Everybody except one Texas judge seems to understand that fairly obvious fact.  In his ruling granting the TRO, the judge (whose name I'm choosing not to use because, frankly, he doesn't deserve it) said that Sorsby could suffer "irreparable harmed" if he weren't allowed to compete while the legal process played out (which, coincidentally, likely won't happen until after the football season when his eligibility is exhausted).  The irreparable harm that will be done not just to college football, but college sports as a whole, is evidently irrelevant.  So is the irreparable harm that will be done to Texas Tech's opponents, who'll be taking the field questioning the legitimacy of the very game in which they're playing.  And what happens when Sorsby's ban is reinstated (or, more likely, the case is dropped since he already got what he wanted and it won't matter come February)?

Needless to say, this decision hasn't been well-received anywhere other than Lubbock, Texas.  Georgia's AD has ordered his coaches not to schedule non-conference games against Texas Tech until further notice.  The Big 12 AD's and coaches have a conference call scheduled for Tuesday, where this will undoubtedly be the main topic of discussion.  Some Big 12 schools have even suggested a reluctance to play Texas Tech and wondered what the consequences with the conference might be should they take that extreme stance (which they may do anyway to get their point across).

Consequences are something that don't apply to Brendan Sorsby.  That's the message that was sent loud and clear with the judge's ruling.  He violated the golden rule.  The one that preserves the sanctity and integrity of clean sport.  Which is apparently totally fine!  (Just think about how asinine that sounds.)  And, I'm sorry, he will face some consequences.  His punishment is a two-game suspension!  That'll teach him!

Sorsby's defense was that he's a gambling addict who received treatment during a 35-day stay at an in-patient rehab facility.  As such, his lawyers argued that, because he was diagnosed with an addiction, not letting him play would impact his mental health by having a negative effect on his recovery.  The judge bought this ridiculous argument.  Because being around the sport that helped feed his addiction can't possibly lead to a relapse!

He also made an argument that they were impacting his potential for future earnings because not allowing him to play would directly affect his NFL Draft prospects.  Sorsby played for Cincinnati last year before transferring to Texas Tech.  He didn't take part in the Combine or enter the Draft because he was planning on playing for the Red Raiders this season...and making him ineligible would impact his preparations for the 2027 Combine and Draft. 

The problem with this argument, however (and one Sorsby clearly failed to consider), is that the NFL's stance is just as clear as the NCAA's.  And the NFL has a collective agreement with the NFLPA, so Sorsby can't rely on the courts to get what he wants.  He has no NFL prospects.  Because the NFL's CBA expressly prohibits gambling in any form.  Even if it wasn't, Sorsby's radioactive.  No NFL team is going anywhere near him.  But that's beside the point.

Over the past few years, there have been numerous high-profile lawsuits that resulted in rulings against the NCAA.  This is just the latest.  It's also by far the most damaging.  It doesn't just put the integrity of the competition at stake.  Which is bad enough.  It undermines the NCAA's authority to enforce its own rules.  Worse, if the TRO holds, the NCAA will be the first sporting organization anywhere at any level to be forced to allow someone who's actively undermined the integrity of the game to play.

For months (years?), there have been calls for Congress to step in and pass some sort of federal legislation to cover college sports.  Because leaving up to the state courts creates a patchwork of 50 different interpretations.  As we saw in the early days of the NIL, that's an unworkable situation.  Which NCAA President Charlie Baker made very clear in his response to the Sorsby ruling.  There needs to be one interpretation that applies to everybody.  Not one that's decided by a friendly judge in one state that 49 other states completely disagree with, yet are forced to abide by.

While not even remotely close to the same, I can't help but compare this to the Lia Thomas situation.  In that case, Lia Thomas was allowed to compete for the women's swimming team at Penn after transitioning from male to female.  After being just an average male swimmer, Thomas became a dominant NCAA champion in the women's events.  That ruling was controversial, obviously.  As were all other eligibility cases regarding transgender athletes.

I don't bring that up to get into the politics of those cases.  I bring it up because of the impact the rulings had on the rest of the competitors.  They're narrow focused, which I get.  That's the point of bringing a lawsuit.  To get a favorable ruling for yourself.  But these cases have a far-reaching impact beyond just that one individual.  Biological women were losing to Lia Thomas.  Who was advocating for them?

That's the point I'm trying to make here.  This isn't about NCAA rules.  It's not even entirely about Brendan Sorsby.  It's about protecting the integrity of the competition.  That's why rules prohibiting gambling exist in the first place.  Rules that are common sense to just about everybody except Brendan Sorsby, his lawyers, a handful of people at Texas Tech (who obviously have a vested interest in his being able to play) and one Texas judge.

If this ruling is allowed to stand and Sorsby is eligible to play for Texas Tech this season, what kind of message does that send?  What's to stop coaches from actively encouraging their players to bet on their own games?  And how are fans supposed to believe that these games are being played on the level?  That's the heart of the issue.  If people lose confidence in what they're watching, it puts the entire operation at risk.

College sports in general, and college football in particular, are at a crossroads.  This is the latest, and most dangerous, example of that.  Because the integrity of the competition is at stake.  Which is why there was so much shock and outrage to the ruling.  Because most people understand that.  Unfortunately, the Texas judge who issued this ridiculous ruling is one of the few who isn't one of them.

Bring Back the NHL Awards

Remember when they used to have the NHL Awards?  That televised black-tie event after the Stanley Cup Final where they presented all of the league's trophies in one two-hour show?  What happened to that?  Why did they get rid of it?  Because the way they're doing it now is terrible!

Instead of announcing the NHL Awards all at once, they've been trickling them out one at a time.  Sometimes two at a time.  And there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason behind it, let alone a schedule.  Just a bunch of disjointed press releases accompanied by those videos where somebody "surprises" the winner by telling them they won.  Since, you know, everybody just randomly has an entire camera crew in their backyard at every family party.  That isn't suspicious at all!

There is one thing they've started doing that's good.  They're announcing the three finalists for each of the awards.  But what's the point of doing that if you're not inviting them to an awards show where one will receive it?  When all they're doing is putting out a press release, they could just as easily announce only the winner and release the results of the full voting at that time (which they already do anyway).

And, again, what's with the schedule?!  We found out Matthew Schaefer won the Calder like a month ago!  Meanwhile, they still haven't announced the winner of the Hart Trophy.  Which, as MVP, should be last.  But a month after Rookie of the Year?!  Talk about anticlimactic!

The NFL Honors will never be confused with quality television.  It's even pretty bad as an awards show.  But, the one thing the NFL Honors has going for it is that every award is announced during the two-hour show.  And they, of course, cap it with the NFL's highest honor...the Walter Payton Man of the Year.  So, in that regard, the NFL Honors is great.  They do all of the awards at the same time.

Baseball is the only sport where the postseason awards aren't presented until after the playoffs.  But there's no denying that they've also got the schedule figured out.  They do the Gold Gloves and Comeback Players of the Year ahead of time, but their major awards are all announced in the same week.  There's a one-hour show on MLB Network every day from Monday-Thursday, where they do Rookie of the Year, Manager of the Year, Cy Young and MVP in order.  Even when the winners are obvious, it builds up anticipation nonetheless.

That, to me, is the biggest problem with the NHL's current system of giving out its postseason awards.  There's absolutely no build up and no anticipation.  It's just "here's who won."  I'm sure there's some sort of formal schedule, but has anyone in the public ever seen it?  And why are the awards so spread out?  If they were doing it one per day for a week, that would be one thing.  But I don't even know what this is!

This is more like the NBA's haphazard system of announcing its postseason award winners.  The NBA has always done their awards the same way.  But even that has some sort of structure.  Oftentimes, they'll present the award to a player on the court before a home playoff game.  And that at least makes sense.  Unlike what the NHL does.

I can only assume they want to have some sort of personal touch with the award winner finding out from a friend or family member.  The idea was probably inspired by what the Pro Football Hall of Fame does with their knock on the door videos.  But some of those Pro Football Hall of Fame knock on the door videos are clearly staged (as much as they want us to believe they aren't).  And, by doing basically the same thing, the NHL is taking the suspense away from some of their award winners.  I'm sure some are genuinely surprised, but for the rest it's a dead giveaway.  Especially since they've been doing the same thing for a while now.

Are there those who prefer it this way, who like the awards having that little personalized touch?  I'm sure.  For the award winners, is it more meaningful to get the trophy from somebody they're close to in front of family members instead of on a stage in a tuxedo from some random celebrity or NHL luminary where they have to give an acceptance speech after?  Perhaps.  But I'm sure there are others who like it the other way, where they can celebrate with their NHL brotherhood.

Bringing it back to the NFL Honors, that's where they've gotten it right.  The players are honored and celebrated with each other.  It gives a sense of camaraderie.  That used to be the case in the NHL, too, when they did the NHL Awards show.  Getting your award in front of your family is one thing.  Getting it in front of your family and the guys you spend the entire season playing with and against?  That's something else entirely.

An argument could be made that giving out all of the awards together perhaps makes some seem less important than others.  By contrast, announcing each award separately puts them all in the spotlight individually.  The Norris Trophy gets its due one day, and the Selke Trophy gets its the next.  Although, if somebody wins multiple awards, he's not getting all of them at the same time, which is another point against not having a centralized NHL Awards.

Did they ever even give the reason why they stopped doing the NHL Awards?  Was it the league's choice?  The NHLPA's?  Both?  Was it a matter of not being able to find a venue or coming to an agreement with their American and/or Canadian TV partners for the broadcast?  Is it simply a matter of the timing being too tight between the end of the Stanley Cup Final and the NHL Draft to squeeze it in between them?

Whatever the reason, I hope this situation is only temporary.  Because I'd love to see the NHL Awards return someday.  At the very least, they need to figure out something better than what they're doing now.  Because, while I get the idea of having each award announced separately, it was so much better when they were presented at the same at a formal awards show.