They Pushed Back, and It Worked

FIFA is an incredibly corrupt organization.  This shouldn't be news to anybody.  Its President, Gianni Infantino, is an incredibly corrupt man.  This shouldn't be news to anybody, either.  But, in case there was any doubt as to the degree of his corruption, Infantino made sure everyone knew how bad it was with his stunt earlier this week.  A stunt that didn't exactly get the type of reaction he was expecting.

Literally less than two weeks after the end of the World Cup, Infantino announced the creation of a $20 billion subsidiary known as FIFA Forward Enterprise, which would "unleash the commercial potential and opportunity that FIFA has."  Essentially, FFE would've taken control of all aspects of FIFA tournaments, including the World Cup.  In Infantino's plan, FIFA would've sold a 20 percent stake in FFE to private investors (which would have minority, non-controlling interests), with a company that was launched by the brother of Donald Trump's son-in-law lined up to be one of those partners.  That tells you all you need to know about Infantino's motivation.

Infantino's cozy relationship with Trump has been a big source of controversy over the past, so the inclusion of a Trump-associated firm in this plan was a glaring red flag.  Trump runs in very rich, very influential circles.  Everybody just saw how much money the World Cup made and they wanted to cash in while the iron was still hot.  They hoped to exploit that popularity and make money for FIFA's 211 national federations, but also for themselves.  Because, make no mistake, these investors weren't getting into it if they didn't see the opportunity to line their own pockets.

To be clear, that isn't the reason why federations were against the plan (at least not entirely), but it certainly wasn't a good look.  And it was enough to raise questions about why Infantino thought this was so necessary that it had to be implemented immediately with no consultation from anybody.  Nor did they like how Infantino was essentially trying to bully everyone into submission by giving them a deadline to sign on, with the "or else" implied.

Members were told that a decision "must" be made by Sept. 19.  They were being given essentially six weeks to vote on such a seismic proposal that they were hearing about for the first time that day.  And Infantino said they just needed a majority vote for it to pass, even though FIFA's bylaws state that a 75 percent vote is required in order to change one.  But, since the 75 percent support was never gonna happen, that standard was conveniently lowered to a simple majority (which it still might not have gotten).

He also used the numbers in his attempt to get national federations on his side.  The financial infusion would bring in an additional $10 billion, which would mean about $40 million per association.  Without it, that amount would "only" be $2.7 billion.  So, FIFA obviously "needed" the extra cash to help out its members.  Why wouldn't they want those extra funds?

The backlash was immediate.  National federations weren't shy in their criticism of Infantino or his plan.  And the continental associations weren't particularly enthused about it, either.  Even the British Prime Minister chimed in with his disdain.  The lack of transparency was the biggest issue.  But, just as significantly, they were against the entire idea on principle.  There was plenty of legitimate concern about how much influence these companies with private equity shares would have and exactly what they would do with it.  Because, once they got in, nobody would expect them to stay uninvolved.  Would they act in FIFA's best interest, though?  Or their own?

What might some of those interests be?  For starters, expanding the World Cup to 64 teams (which it looks like Infantino is pushing ahead with anyway).  And why stop there?  It's not a reach to think there would be a push to hold the World Cup every two years instead of every four (pushing it up directly against the Euro and the Olympics).  Then, having the Club World Cup in the other two years.  Broadcasting was one element that would've gone under FFC's control, so would they get a say in who's awarded the TV rights?  Worse yet, would they make a push to move the World Cup off linear TV entirely and create a direct-to-consumer, pay-per-view platform that would require a subscription fee for anyone who wanted to watch any game?

UEFA had perhaps the best response of all, declaring that "None of us are the owners of football.  It's not FIFA's to sell."  And it was UEFA that led the crusade against Infantino's plan.  They threatened that UEFA could potentially boycott FIFA events if the plan wasn't reconsidered.  In an emergency meeting of UEFA's 55 member associations, pretty much everybody was on the same page.  After that meeting, UEFA made the announcement that they were following through on their boycott threat, starting with the Women's Under-20 World Cup in Poland, which starts on Sept. 5.

Just think about how impactful a UEFA World Cup boycott would be.  It's the largest confederation with the most teams and the greatest number of participants in the tournament.  But that's just the half of it.  Six of the eight World Cup quarterfinalists and three of the four semifinalists were UEFA members.  And Spain obviously won the World Cup.  Just as it did at the 2023 Women's World Cup.  No UEFA teams would make for a significantly depleted tournament.  Especially with an expanded field (that would need to be filled with somebody).

Practically speaking, a UEFA boycott would render the World Cup essentially meaningless.  It would also create some pretty significant logistical issues.  Spain and Portugal are the primary hosts of the 2030 World Cup.  If they're not playing, there's no chance they're still hosting.  Yes, Morocco is also a co-host, and there are individual games in Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay (another controversial Infantino decision that was made for reasons that weren't exactly transparent).  But, without Spain or Portugal, you'd be asking the other four co-hosts to take on a much bigger burden than the one they signed up for.

Shortly after UEFA's announcement, CONCACAF and the Asian Football Confederation followed suit.  They didn't go so far as to join the boycott, but they made it clear that they're in agreement with UEFA's stance.  As it turns out, so are some members of Infantino's own administration.  One resigned in protest and another released a statement condemning Infantino for his lack of openness regarding the project, which he made clear he thought should not proceed.

In the wake of all the negative feedback, Infantino did an about face and announced that the project will no longer move forward.  But, of course, in true Infantino form, he took no accountability for his role in the entire thing!  The statement from FIFA said: "Having listened carefully to all the views that the project created divisions of a nature that, regardless of the level of support, are no longer in the interest of the objective set out in the first place."  Translation: "Nobody but Gianni thinks this is a good idea, and he realized he can't bully his way into getting what he wants on this one, so he's gonna try to save face by acting like he suddenly cares about their opinion." 

Except the unforced error may end up bringing some consequences for Infantino.  Despite questions about his leadership and his blatant corruption, he stood to run unopposed for a final four-year term as FIFA President later this year.  Now that's not so guaranteed.  It's still likely that he'll be reelected.  But he may face some competition, even if it's just a token candidacy to force an actual vote, because of this unnecessary misstep.

If all of this sounds familiar, it should.  It wasn't too long ago that several of the top European clubs (led by Real Madrid and Barcelona) tried to create the UEFA Super League, a breakaway competition with permanent members designed to challenge the Champions League.  Negative backlash led to the English teams withdrawing, followed by the German teams, and the idea of the Super League fell apart in about the same amount of time as it took for FIFA.

Perhaps the biggest takeaway from all this is how much power FIFA's members actually have.  Infantino tried to jam the FFE down their throats and expected everybody to just fall in line.  Except they didn't.  They fought back instead.  And it worked!  They forced him to stand down.  As much as it was a big loss for Infantino and his rich partners, it was a massive win for FIFA, its member nations and the game of soccer as a whole.

Territories On the International Stage

We're in the midst of the 2026 Commonwealth Games, which are taking place in Glasgow.  One of the unique things about the Commonwealth Games is how it's the only multi-sport competition where the four nations that make up Great Britain compete separately.  England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own national teams in several sports (soccer and rugby being the most prominent), but always combine as Team GB for the Olympics.  It isn't just the four Home Nations, either.  All of the British territories field separate teams at the Commonwealth Games.

For many of these athletes, the Commonwealth Games are their only opportunity to represent their native territory instead of Great Britain as a whole.  Not all of them, though.  The British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda all have their own Olympic committees and field their own Olympic team, as does the Cook Islands, which is an associated state of New Zealand.  Whether the others want to represent Great Britain or not, they don't have a choice.  Because the IOC no longer recognizes Olympic committees that aren't from independent states.

The IOC made that rule change in 1996, with territories that already competed separately grandfathered in.  That's why Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands continue to have their own Olympic teams, as do the aforementioned British territories, as well as Aruba and Hong Kong (a former British territory).  There are actually 13 more IOC members than UN members, including Palestine, Kosovo and Taiwan (aka Chinese Taipei), internationally recognized countries that aren't UN members for mainly political reasons.

FIFA actually has more recognized members than the IOC does, but IOC membership has become very restrictive because of its sovereignty requirement.  The most recent new nations to join the Olympic family (not counting the Refugee Olympic Team or the various names for Russia at recent Games) were Kosovo and South Sudan in 2016.  As it stands, they'll be the last for a while.  But should they be?  Or should the IOC go back to the old rule and set a pathway for more territories with their own Olympic committees to compete separately?

This became a topic of discussion at IOC headquarters fairly recently.  The Faroe Islands (which has a UEFA-recognized soccer team) and Greenland are both semi-autonomous territories of Denmark.  It was actually the Danish Parliament that submitted the request to the IOC for those two to be given Olympic recognition.  The request was denied, however, since neither the Faroe Islands or Greenland qualifies as a "country" under the 1996 definition.  Their athletes are still free to participate in the LA Games, but they'd have to represent Denmark.

One of the reasons the discussion came about is because the men's handball team from the Faroe Islands will make its debut at the 2027 World Championships.  That tournament serves as an Olympic qualifier.  The Faroese women made their World Championships debut in 2025, and qualifying for 2027 is still ongoing.  So, there's a chance they could be in both World Championships next year.  However, they won't be taking part in either 2028 Olympic tournament no matter what.

There's also a question about Olympic participation for the Haudenosaunee lacrosse team.  The Haudenosaunee represents the Iroquois Confederacy in international lacrosse and is actually ranked third in the world on the men's side.  However, the Iroquois Confederacy, like all other Native American groups, lacks its own NOC.  With lacrosse back in the Olympics at the LA Games, though, there's obvious interest in seeing the Haudenosaunee there.  They have the support of both the U.S. and Canada, but, as of now, no word from the IOC.  A decision needs to come soon, though, since qualifying starts soon.

Based on the IOC's ruling regarding the Faroe Islands and Greenland, the chances of the Haudenosaunee playing in the 2028 Olympic lacrosse tournaments don't seem very good.  Although, there's also a precedent for making an exception allowing them to play.  Lacrosse was first played at the World Games in 2022, and the Haudenosaunee qualified based on their bronze-medal finish at the 2018 World Championships.  However, they were later ruled ineligible because the Iroquois don't have a National Olympic Committee.  That disqualification was eventually overturned and they took part in both the men's and women's events.

That case is specific to lacrosse, which is what makes it a little more complicated.  The Haudenosaunee really has no other reason to form an NOC, and lacrosse isn't even guaranteed to stay on the Olympic program beyond LA (although, Australia has a strong national team, so there's a chance we'll see it again in 2032).  So, I can see where the IOC wouldn't make the exception and allow the Haudenosaunee to participate in the lacrosse tournaments.  Especially since it would be sending a mixed message to all of those territories that do have their own NOCs and are desperate for IOC recognition of their own.

Should the IOC soften its stance on territories competing in the Olympics on their own, they wouldn't need to go crazy.  Some of these territories may not even necessarily want to or have the capacity to field their own separate Olympic team.  And they absolutely need to have their own NOC first.  That should be the first requirement.  But some of these places do already have that.  So, why not give them the opportunity to represent their territory at the Olympics?

One territory I'm thinking of specifically is Curacao.  Curacao, of course, is having quite a year with the soccer team playing in the World Cup for the first time and Andruw Jones being inducted into the Hall of Fame.  Curacao was once a part of the Netherlands Antilles, which had its own Olympic team until its dissolution in 2010.  Since then, athletes from Curacao have only had the option of representing the Netherlands.  (The Dutch team at the World Baseball Classic was made up mainly of players from Curacao.)

Then there's Macau, which, like Hong Kong, is a special administrative region of China.  Macau is unique in that its athletes compete under their own flag at the Paralympics, but not the Olympics.  Macau has had its own Olympic Committee since 1987, and China supports Macau having its own team, just as Hong Kong does.  However, since Macau isn't an independent state, their case is complicated.  It becomes even more complicated by the fact that Macau law prevents their athletes from competing for China.  So, they have no chance at all of going to the Olympics right now!

While I doubt it would ever happen, the idea of a separate Scottish Olympic team has been tossed about in the past.  And the topic has again been broached with them currently hosting the Commonwealth Games.  Since the British Olympic Association represents all four of the Home Nations and the country is recognized as "Great Britain," Scotland would need to separate itself for that process to even begin.  And you can bet there would be plenty of resistance from England and Wales about that.  So, that one seems unlikely (even though the Great Britain curling team is exclusively represented by Scottish players).

It's understandable that the IOC grandfathered in those territories that were already competing separately at the Olympics when they created the "sovereign nation" requirement in 1996.  And, even though it sounds like it, I'm not advocating they remove that requirement.  All I'm suggesting is that they make it a little more flexible.  Especially in situations like the Faroe Islands, which already has its own Olympic Committee and had the support of Denmark.  In cases like that (or Macau's), I'd like to see some room for an exception to be made.

Like Father, Like Son

As a part of the Baseball Hall of Fame's induction weekend, Joe Buck received the Ford C. Frick Award for excellence in broadcasting.  It's an award his father, the legendary Jack Buck, was presented in 1987.  Jack Buck is also a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame's broadcasting wing.  As is Joe Buck.  They're the only father & son pair that have both been selected to both Hall of Fames.  (And Joe, of course, is far from done. He'll call the Super Bowl this season.)

It was a deserved honor for Joe Buck.  I know he wasn't everybody's cup of tea, but you don't call 24 World Series (22 of them consecutively) by accident.  In football, he's widely acknowledged as one of the best in the business, generally ranking either first or second behind only Mike Tirico in "best play-by-play man" polls.  It's a shame that he never got his proper due for baseball until he moved to ESPN and starting doing football exclusively.  Because he was one of the best in the business at calling baseball, too.

My biggest issue with Joe Buck has nothing to do with him as a broadcaster.  It has to do with the reaction people had to him, especially early in his career.  There were way too many accusations of nepotism, which is as unfair as it is insulting.  It also couldn't be further from the truth.  Because being Jack Buck's son might've gotten him in the door.  But that's all it did.  Everything else was because of his talent.

There's no denying that being Jack Buck's son gave him an inherent advantage.  He's the first one to admit that.  But that "advantage" can be interpreted in multiple ways.  Because Joe also got to learn the trade by watching his father, invaluable experience that he's carried over into his own career.  He learned how to do the job from Jack, just like any other son who follows in his father's footsteps learns their profession.  Jack and Joe Buck's family business just happens to be a little different and a little more public than everybody else's.

What annoys me the most about it, though, is how Joe Buck is seemingly the only son of a famous broadcaster singled out for nepotism.  Where are the same complaints about Kenny Albert?  Or Noah Eagle?  No one questions either of their talent or credentials, and no one should've questioned Joe Buck's either.  Because just like Joe Buck, Kenny Albert and Noah Eagle have forged their own careers that have nothing to do with their fathers.

Kenny Albert is perhaps the most versatile play-by-play man there is.  He's the lead national voice for the NHL On TNT, as well as the Rangers' local announcer on MSG.  He's also filled in for Knicks games on MSG.  And, let's not forget, NBC's lead Olympic hockey commentator (while also having covered various other sports at the Olympics).  He also has a weekly assignment for the NFL On FOX and has also covered baseball for FOX.  None of that has anything to do with his being Marv Albert's son.

Noah Eagle, meanwhile, is a rising star in the profession.  He's the No. 2 NBA play-by-play man for NBC, as well as their lead announcer for the WNBA and the Big Ten Saturday night game.  He'll also be heading to Australia to call the Rams-49ers season opener for Netflix and has called the French Open for TNT.  Noah Eagle isn't even 30 yet.  This is just the start of what figures to be a long career for Ian Eagle's son.

Much like Joe Buck, Kenny Albert and Noah Eagle got in the door because of their family connections.  But all three not only put in the work, they had the talent to forge their own path.  Which is why to even suggest that they are where they are is only because of nepotism isn't just incorrect, it's flat ignorant.  Yet no one seems to have any issue with Kenny Albert or Noah Eagle.  Just Joe Buck.  Why?

If Joe Buck didn't have the talent, he wouldn't have lasted, let alone have the long, illustrious career that he did.  He's not Jac Collinsworth.  That's a clear case of the talent level not matching up to the high-profile assignments he was being given, which made the calls of nepotism seem more justified.  NBC eventually realized that, too, and scaled back Jac Collinsworth's presence at major events.  He still works for the network.  We just don't see (or hear) him nearly as much.

That's the difference.  And why the complaints of nepotism, specifically regarding Joe Buck, are so infuriating.  He wasn't hired as FOX's lead announcer at 27 because he was Jack Buck's son.  And he certainly didn't keep the lead play-by-play job on the sport's primary national broadcast for 24 years because he was Jack Buck's son.  If he wasn't the right man for the job, do you really think FOX wouldn't have replaced him?  Instead, they made him their primary football play-by-play man, as well, ad he was calling both World Series AND Super Bowls for the network.

I think part of the negative sentiment towards Joe Buck has more to do with fans of particular teams just not liking him more than anything else.  And because he did all the postseason games, you didn't have a choice of listening to him.  It will always be funny, too, how fans of both teams would always accuse him of rooting against their team and for the other team.  I guess that means he was doing something right then!

Calling a national broadcast is very different than being a local announcer.  One of the reasons Jack Buck was so beloved was because he spent so many years doing Cardinals games.  Joe couldn't show that same sort of enthusiasm on a national broadcast.  He even admitted that his call of the final out when the Cardinals won the 2011 World Series "sucked" (his words) because he didn't put enough enthusiasm into it.  It takes someone who takes his craft seriously to make such an admission (Doc Emrick said something similar about his call of Patrick Kane's Stanley Cup-clinching goal against the Flyers in 2010).

Over the weekend, MLB Network aired a special where Buck was interviewed by another broadcasting legend, Bob Costas.  They touched on many of these topics during the hour.  It's very revealing, and it gives you a much different appreciation of him and his career.  He knew that being Jack Buck's son helped give him a foot in the door.  He doesn't take that for granted.  But it also put a significant amount of pressure on him.  And he put in the work.  Work that paid off with a Hall of Fame-worthy career of his own.

For baseball fans, Joe Buck's voice provided the soundtrack of so many memorable moments over the past 25 years.  You can't think of the Red Sox, White Sox or Cubs finally winning their long-awaited championships without him.  Love him or hate him, there's no denying his place among the legendary baseball broadcasters.  A list that includes his beloved father.  Who Joe Buck now joins in Cooperstown.  And deservedly so.

Where Would He Play?

As we approach the MLB Trade Deadline, I've seen more than one suggestion that the Yankees should pursue Luis Arraez.  Their reasons are pretty much exclusive to the fact that Arraez is a contact hitter with a high average who doesn't strike out much and would thus be a "perfect" fit in the lineup.  What those people seem to ignore, however, is equally if not more important.  Arraez would also need to play somewhere on the field!  And that's why the Yankees not only don't "need" to get him, it's something they really shouldn't even consider.

Luis Arraez is an excellent hitter.  I'm not disputing that fact.  How much his presence would make a difference in the lineup is debatable, but that's not even the point.  Adding Arraez would "solve" a nonexistent "problem" while not addressing other ones.  Worse than that, it would create more problems than it would supposedly "fix."  So, sorry, but, no, whatever value he may add to the lineup would be negated by all of the other maneuvering that would need to be done just to make it work.  Especially since it would be completely unnecessary.

Arraez is not a good defender.  He never has been.  That's why, for a lot of his career, he's been used as a DH.  He's also played first base, but has been primarily a second baseman this season.  And his defense at second is markedly improved this season under Giants infield coach Ron Washington.  Arraez has stressed that should the Giants trade him, he'd prefer to remain a second baseman.

The Yankees, of course, already have Jazz Chisholm at second base.  If they were to bring in Arraez to play second, that would require moving Chisholm to third and pushing Ryan McMahon to the bench.  McMahon's main (only?) value is his defense.  So, accommodating Arraez at second would weaken the defense at both positions!

Likewise, Paul Goldschmidt's biggest attribute is his defense.  So, it's not like putting Arraez at first would improve the defense there, either.  And, sure, Arraez could DH for the time being, but that option is only available temporarily (and would require sitting either Goldschmidt or Ben Rice).  Once Judge and Stanton come back, they'd need to find somewhere on the field for Arraez to play.  Which you can't do without moving other guys around!  And which still doesn't address the team's biggest need.

There are already four players who can play second base on the Yankees' roster--Chisholm, Jose Caballero, Amed Rosario and Max Schuemann.  Arraez would make it five guys who play the same position (six if you include McMahon, who spent some time at second while he was on the Rockies).  You know how many total outfielders the Yankees have on their roster, including the injured Judge?  Four!  And half of them are injured!  Adding another infielder wouldn't change that.

Another outfielder is a far bigger need than whatever Luis Arraez might bring.  Especially when two of the four are out!  We saw the lack of outfield options in full effect while Trent Grisham was on the IL and both Caballero and Schuemann started games in center field.  We may see that again if Bellinger's hamstring injury requires an IL stint.  Either way, getting somebody who doesn't play the outfield wouldn't exactly help that situation.

A common criticism of the Yankees (and an accurate one) is how they're too left-handed.  The lack of a right-handed bat is even more pronounced with Judge and Stanton both out of the lineup.  Arraez would be another left-handed hitter!  So, again, what need would he actually address?  You'd still be in the market for a right-handed bat, an outfielder and a backup catcher.  Arraez isn't any of those things!

It's also worth noting that Judge and Stanton are both expected back at some point this season.  "When?" is the million-dollar question.  But the point remains.  Could that change and do you still want some insurance in case it does?  Sure!  Assuming they both do make it back, though, that's effectively two Trade Deadline acquisitions that don't cost you a thing.

This hasn't been the strongest season for the American League as a whole, either.  That's an important thing to remember, as well.  They just need to get to October, and they're well-positioned to get there.  Assuming they get their injured players back, they'll be a better team come October than they are today (and the team they are today isn't as bad as some people want to believe). 

And, to get to October, they really only need to play .500 ball over the final 60 games and that should be enough.  You obviously want to perform better than that, and winning the division should be the goal.  But, the point is, the current roster is capable of doing what needs to be done.  I'm not saying they won't or shouldn't make any moves at the Trade Deadline.  An unnecessary one that isn't necessarily an improvement at second base shouldn't be one of them, however.

Two other points about Arraez.  He's a free agent after this season, so you'd be giving up roster pieces or prospects for a two-month rental.  To replace another guy who's also a free agent after this season.  The whole point of dealing a pending free agent who you don't think you'll be able to or want to re-sign is to get something for him.  Not to lose players with multiple years of team control and still potentially see the Trade Deadline acquisition leave!

More significantly, the Giants are one of the few known Deadline sellers.  There will be plenty of teams in the market for Luis Arraez.  He's already been liked to Texas, and I'm sure others have inquired about him.  San Francisco will likely be able to name its price.  There are other teams that are a better fit and have a bigger need that will probably be willing to meet that price.  Would the prospect/player haul be worth it to the Yankees for two months of Arraez?  Frankly, I don't think so.

While those who are fully on the Luis Arraez train may not agree, I simply don't see how adding him would make the Yankees that much better.  Any difference would be negligible, if there is one at all!  Especially when he wouldn't help in the areas where the team is actually looking to improve.  Bullpen, outfield and a right-handed-hitting backup catcher are the things the Yankees need and should prioritize at the Deadline.  Luis Arraez checks none of those boxes.  So, no, they don't "need" him.  And they don't even need to think twice about it.

Year One With 84

A few weeks ago, when discussing Houston's prospects of landing an NHL expansion team (a hot-button topic around the league for several months), Gary Bettman was asked about how the league would navigate having an odd number of teams.  He correctly pointed out the fact that the NHL had 31 teams for a few seasons between when Vegas (how was that 10 years ago, BTW?!) and Seattle joined the league.  However, what he said next is where he lost me.  He argued that, because 31 teams worked, the NHL could easily do 33 because the number of teams in the league "doesn't matter" when it comes to figuring out the schedule.

The reason this take confused me is because it absolutely did matter to NHL teams that they were playing an unbalanced schedule.  When the Kraken entered the league, the NHL kept an 82-game schedule.  However, since everybody played a home-and-home with Seattle, they had to take away two division games.  Which meant teams weren't playing the same number of games against divisional foes.  They played four games against five opponents, but only three against the other two.  Teams didn't like that imbalance.

That's the primary reason why the NHL went to an 84-game schedule this season.  Those two division games have been restored.  Now, they're back to playing four games against each of the other seven teams in their division.  Which is what teams wanted.  This will be the NHL's first 84-game season since 1993-94, and the first where it's completely balanced since I don't even know when (I'm not counting 2020-21 when they played only against their realigned divisions because of COVID).

Anyway, the entire point of moving to an 84-game schedule was to give those two division games back.  The ridiculous playoff system that only Bettman likes is all about having those division rivalries highlighted in the first two rounds.  Yet, for the last five years, teams were playing only one regular season home game against one of those division opponents (the same as every team in the other conference and fewer than against four teams in the other division in their own conference).  It didn't make any sense, and now it's been fixed.

So why is Bettman now talking about immediately unbalancing the schedule when the first season of an 84-game slate hasn't even started yet?!  And, make no mistake, it's gonna be unbalanced again at some point fairly soon.  Because all signs are pointing towards the NHL adding a second team in Texas.  Bettman all but confirmed it.  There was even an article on NHL.com.  You don't post something like that on the official league website if it's not already in the works.  It's really just a question of whether it'll be Houston or Austin.  Although, even that isn't really a question.  It'll be Houston.

Regardless of whether it's Houston or Austin, that'll immediately throw the NHL schedule out of whack once again.  Right after they just fixed it!  The Central Division would suddenly have nine teams in it, and the Eastern Conference teams would suddenly go from 32 games against the West to 34.  So, guess what happens to those two division games that were brought back when they expanded the schedule to 84?  We're right back to having an uneven number of division games!

And once they add Houston, you know the NHL won't stop there.  Whether it's Atlanta (which it shouldn't be, since they'll just move to Canada within 10 years anyway) or back to Phoenix or Quebec, it'll be an awkward number until they get to 36...which obviously won't be immediate.  But, Houston being the 33rd team does seem inevitable.  Especially after what Bettman said about already negotiating with a potential ownership group.  So, we'd better enjoy the nice, evenly-balanced 32-team, 84-game schedule while we can.

Because, even when/if they do get to 36 teams, the schedule won't be anywhere close to balanced.  The math simply doesn't work!  And that even accounts for going from four eight-team divisions to six six-team divisions.  So, in one way, what Bettman said is true.  They'll figure out a schedule for however many number of teams are in the league.  But it won't be balanced.  Which was the entire point of going to 84 games!

With the addition of the two regular season games, there are a few other changes to the NHL schedule this season.  They squeezed the extra two games into the existing calendar, but also moved up the start of the season.  Opening night is September 29, when the Hurricanes will raise their Stanley Cup banner against the Panthers (no word on how many of the owner's children, who were all vital to the team's success last season, will be there).  The season had always started the first week in October.  The last week of the season has also been bumped up, with the last games being played on April 10.  I actually love that change since it means the playoffs will start earlier, which means the Stanley Cup Final will be done by early June at the latest.

As a part of the agreement to increase the regular season slate to 84 games, they reduced the preseason from six games to four.  What's interesting about that, though, is how everybody's preseason schedule is entirely local.  That's always been the case.  But this year, it's even more so.  The Rangers, Islanders and Devils are only playing each other.  The Maple Leafs, Canadiens and Senators have an MLB Spring Training split-squad thing going on.  The Ducks only play the other California teams.  Seattle only plays Vancouver and Calgary, etc.

One thing that has always bothered me about the NHL schedule will continue, though.  Teams don't start or end on the same days!  The Rangers have three games in the season's first four days.  The Islanders don't play their second game until the fifth day of the season.  Likewise, on the back end, some teams will be done while others still have multiple games left.  That obviously creates a potential rest advantage/disadvantage heading into the playoffs.  And that really shouldn't happen.  Especially since it's an easy enough thing to avoid.

I get that the primary reason for this is TV.  The NHL wants to make sure it fulfills its contractual obligations with ESPN/ABC, TNT and the Canadian broadcast partners.  But, still, there has to be a way to accommodate TV while also having a uniform start/end date for all teams.  If you want to have Opening Night be a separate thing, that's fine.  But then have everybody else play the following day!  Not the first or second or third or fourth day of the season.

At the end of the season, though, is the real problem.  There are 32 teams.  They could easily have 16 games on Wednesday and just give TNT a Monday or Tuesday doubleheader to make up for not playing on Thursday.  That way, you can have Game 1 of all eight first-round playoff series on the weekend without having to worry about a rest disparity (or having to wait until Monday because one team played on Thursday, which throws off the schedule for the entire series!).

But, hey, those are minor things to nitpick about.  The point is we're getting more NHL hockey than ever before this season.  The 1,344 regular season games are the most in league history.  And the season starts a week earlier!  Both of those are good things.  So is the fact that the schedule is finally balanced.

Best Games of the World Cup

Well, kids, it's over.  After five weeks and 104 games, the World Cup is history.  Congratulations to Spain on winning the title and making me prophetic.  (This was the last sentence of my World Cup preview on June 11: And, in the end, I've got Spain hoisting the trophy after defeating Messi & Co. in the final.)  It's actually the second time I've correctly picked Spain to win.  This blog got its name, in part, because of the 2010 World Cup.  Spain also becomes the first nation ever to hold the Men's & Women's World Cups simultaneously and will be the first-ever defending champion to host the World Cup in 2030 (which was guaranteed no matter who won since Argentina will also be hosting a game at the next World Cup).

The final was by no means a classic.  Certainly not compared to that epic we saw between Argentina and France four years ago.  In fact, I wouldn't even say it was one of the better games in the World Cup.  There are plenty of memorable contests over the past five weeks.  Here are 10 of my favorites.

Honorable mentions go to outstanding, dominant efforts by two of the hosts.  The United States set the tone for its World Cup with a 4-1 victory over Paraguay in its opener.  Without that performance in the first game, I'm not sure the country gets behind this team the way it did.  Canada, meanwhile, had six losses and a draw in their first seven all-time World Cup games.  Their eighth was against Qatar in Vancouver.  And it was a 6-0 demolition.  Granted, Qatar wasn't very good.  But it was still an outstanding effort by the Canadians.

10. Argentina vs. Cape Verde (Round of 32): Everyone thought Argentina had such an easy draw in the Round of 32.  That's what they thought, too.  Problem is nobody told Cape Verde.  Twice Argentina took the lead.  Twice Cape Verde tied it.  Unfortunately, a Cape Verde own goal in the 111th minute proved to be the difference, as Argentina earned a 3-2 victory.  Cape Verde, meanwhile, earned the hearts and respect of the world for their memorable World Cup run.

9. Paraguay vs. Germany (Round of 32): Thanks to the addition of the Round of 32, none of the favorites were eliminated in group play.  That immediately changed in the Round of 32.  Paraguay, the same team that got blown out by the U.S. and tied Australia, only got into the knockout round as one of the best third-place teams.  Yet they had the lead at halftime against heavily-favored Germany, and it was 1-1 after extra time.  Paraguay made its first three attempts in the shootout, but missed its next two, sending it to sudden death.  After the Germans missed, Paraguay converted.  It was Germany's first-ever loss in a penalty kick shootout at the World Cup (and first loss in one period since Euro 1976...as West Germany!).

8. Norway vs. Brazil (Round of 16): Norway Viking Rowed its way into the Round of 16, where Erling Haaland once again displayed his brilliance against Brazil.  He scored in the 79th minute to give Norway the lead, then added another in the 90th minute.  Neymar scored on a penalty kick in stoppage time, but it was too little, too late.  The Round of 16 loss was Brazil's earliest World Cup exit since 1990.  The win guaranteed Norway its best-ever World Cup result.
 
7. Argentina vs. Egypt (Round of 16): Late Argentina comebacks were a theme throughout the World Cup.  In the Round of 16, Egypt scored early, then had a second called back on a controversial VAR decision before adding a second that did count a few minutes later.  Cristian Romero cut the deficit in half with a 79th-minute rocket, then Messi tied it in the 83rd minute.  Enzo Fernandez capped the comeback with a beautiful header in stoppage time, moving Argentina into the quarterfinals.

6. Belgium vs. Senegal (Round of 32): Senegal had a 2-0 lead and was completely dominating the game.  Then Belgium decided to start playing.  Romelu Lukaku entered as a sub and scored minutes later.  In the 89th minute, Youri Tielemans headed one in to force extra time.  Just when it looked like the game was headed to PKs, Belgium was awarded a late penalty that Tielemans put home to give the Red Devils a 3-2 win and set up a Round of 16 matchup with the U.S.

5. Spain vs. Cape Verde (Group H): Spain opened the World Cup with a 0-0 draw against debutant Cape Verde, the third-smallest nation ever to qualify.  A little more than a month later, they were the champions.  Who would've seen that coming after that opening game?!  Of course, little did we all know that this was just the beginning for Cape Verde, which would become the tournament darlings.  It was also the start of the Legend of Vozinha, who stood on his head and made seven saves while posting a clean sheet against the eventual champions.

4. Argentina vs. England (Semifinals): These two have a well-documented history of not liking each other.  This World Cup semifinal did nothing to dispel that animosity.  It was 0-0 at halftime, then Anthony Gordon scored in the 55th minute.  England held that lead until the 85th minute, when Argentina went on one of its trademark late comebacks, scoring two late goals to steal a 2-1 victory.

3. England vs. France (3rd Place): After losing in the semifinals, England Manager Thomas Teuchel questioned the value of having a third-place game.  Those questions are valid.  But you can't argue that the third-place game wasn't entertaining!  In the first half, it looked like France didn't want to be there and England went up 4-0.  Then Didier Deschamps put his starters in at the start of the second half and France cut it to 4-3 in the blink of an eye.  Then Bukayo Saka converted a PK to complete a hat trick.  Then Dembele scored to make it 5-4.  Then Jude Bellingham responded seconds later to finish off the highest-scoring World Cup game since 1982.

2. Algeria vs. Austria (Group J): This was the final game of the entire group stage.  They both knew that they only needed a draw to advance (and if somebody won, it would eliminate the other).  So, who would've blamed either for kicking the ball around for 90 minutes and finishing 0-0?  That's not what we got at all.  It was frenetic!  It was crazy!  It was great!  Both teams had the lead at one point.  Just when you thought they remembered the script and Algeria spent 10 minutes passing it back and forth, they suddenly went down and scored in the 93rd minute.  Austria was out for a grand total of three minutes.  They scored in the 96th minute to tie it at 3-3, give both teams the draw they needed to advance, and eliminate Iran, who could only sit there and watch.

1. England vs. Mexico (Round of 16): Mexico had never lost a World Cup game at Azteca and had only lost there twice before period.  Throw in the altitude and the fact that England had played in Atlanta four days earlier and, yeah, the Three Lions had their work cut out for them.  Jude Bellingham didn't care.  He scored twice in about 20 seconds of actual game time to give England a 2-0 lead.  Mexico cut it to 2-1 at halftime, both teams converted a penalty kick in the second half after a Jarell Quansah red card.  Mexico's furious late rally fell short, though, and El Tri were eliminated tres a dos.

Are some of these games interchangeable?  Of course!  Are there others that could be on this list?  Absolutely!  But I don't think there would be much argument about my selection for No. 1.  It wasn't just the best game of this World Cup.  It was one of the most entertaining World Cup games I've ever seen!  Period.

VAR Highs & Lows

Throughout the World Cup, two things have been a source of controversy more than any other.  VAR and the automated offside rule.  Both could definitely use some tweaking, for sure, and I'm sure that will be done in time for the 2030 World Cup.  And I think the problems with VAR come down to the same thing.  Overuse.  VAR officials are involving themselves in the game too much.  And when they do, issues arise.

That's the most obvious thing about pretty much every VAR decision that's been made at this World Cup.  I can only think of one exception where the referee went to VAR and stood by his original call.  Otherwise, they've essentially let VAR make the call for them.  Once you see the ref go to the monitor and Dr. Joe or Mark Clattenburg join the broadcast, whatever was called on the field is going to be overturned.  Even though the point of VAR is to correct "clear and obvious errors," which sometimes is exactly not what VAR is checking.

There are a few examples where VAR intervention had direct impact on the game.  The most obvious was Folarin Balogun's red card in the Round of 32 against Bosnia.  The referee didn't even call a foul on the field.  He only went to the monitor after the VAR official used slow-motion and freeze frame replays to see that Balogun had stepped on the Bosnian defender's leg, which can be a red card offense.  However, it's also in the rules that you're not supposed to use slo-mo and freeze frames to make VAR decisions unless it's for a hand ball. 

That didn't happen in Balogun's case.  The referee didn't call it a foul on the field for a reason.  Not only was it a soccer play, Balogun had nowhere else to put his foot.  Pretty much everyone agreed that the red card wasn't deserved.  (The controversy surrounding it being overturned is a whole separate issue.)  And it was clearly a case of VAR intervening where it probably shouldn't have.  That's not the purpose of VAR.

Another red card that was controversially given due to VAR came in the Argentina-Switzerland quarterfinal.  Although, in this case, it was because VAR was being used correctly.  "Mistaken identity" is one of the criteria where VAR intervention is warranted.  We saw it early in the tournament when Tim Ream was given a yellow card against Paraguay, but VAR found that Ream hadn't made contact with the Paraguayan player, so Ream's yellow card was reversed and the Paraguayan player was booked for simulation instead.

It was the exact same situation in Argentina-Switzerland.  The Argentinian player was issued a yellow card for a hard foul, but VAR noticed it wasn't actually a foul.  If no card had been given on the field, they could've just reversed the free kick.  However, since a card was given, it had to go to the Swiss player instead for simulation.  Unfortunately, he was already sitting on a yellow card, which meant it was his second yellow and the referee had no choice but to issue a red.  Harsh?  Absolutely.  But it also would've been harsh for the Argentinian player to be stuck with a yellow card he didn't earn.  So, the intervention led to the right result.  It only became an issue because it was a second-yellow-turned-red.

Argentina obviously benefitted from that call (which was correct).  A common frustration among fans (especially those of other teams) is that Argentina seems to benefit from a lot of officiating decisions (both called and not called, both on the field and via VAR).  It's the same "FIFA wants Messi to win" conspiracy theory that NFL fans constantly make about the Chiefs.  However, in Argentina's game against Egypt, Argentina was definitely the beneficiary of another questionable VAR intervention.

Egypt had a 1-0 lead when they went down and scored a brilliant second goal.  The goal was waved off, though.  Why?  Because of a foul on the other side of the field 15 seconds earlier that didn't involve any of the players who factored in the goal.  So, instead of the score being 2-0 Egypt, it was still 1-0 and Argentina had a free kick in their offensive zone.  There was no need for the VAR official to intervene there, but they did anyway.  And they took away a goal because of it.

One of the most frustrating things about VAR, too, is how certain things can go to replay and others can't.  Corner kicks and goal kicks are perhaps the most confusing element of this rule.  VAR can overturn a corner kick and turn it into a goal kick, but not the other way around.  Why not?  It's incredibly stupid that you can do one and not the other.  Especially since it's literally the exact same technology.  If you can use VAR to say it actually went off the offense and should be a goal kick, why can't you use the same replays to see that the goalie was actually the last one to touch it and it should've been a corner instead?  It makes absolutely no sense!

If they're not going to change that part of the rule (which they should, since it's such an obvious and easily correctable flaw in the system), officials should just start pointing to the corner spot every time they're unsure.  That way, it at least can be reviewed.  If he got it right, great.  If not, VAR can reverse it.  That's a lot better than awarding a goal kick that should've been a corner and no one being able to do anything about it.

With offside, the confusion stems from what exactly constitutes offside and what doesn't.  It should be straightforward, but it isn't.  There was one game (I think it was Croatia-Portugal) where a goal was taken off the board because they found the ball hadn't touched the defender's head, which put the Croatian player offside.  If it had grazed his head, though, he wouldn't have been off and the goal would've counted.  What?!  How would that have made any difference whatsoever?  The referee didn't think it did.  That's why he called it a goal on the field.

Likewise, the precision by which the automated offside makes its determination might be a bit too precise.  It's a great tool to have.  There's no denying that.  But whether the offensive player is behind the last defender is something that you should be able to see with the naked eye.  He shouldn't have a goal taken away and be called offside because that little animation showed his left big toe was 1/8 of an inch behind the last defender.  That clearly gave him such a big advantage!

In the NHL, a player is only offside if his entire body enters the offensive zone before the puck.  It should be something similar in soccer.  If should be an entire body part that makes you onside.  Not a shoulder.  Not an elbow.  Not a knee.  Not a finger.  Not a toe.  (Which begs a different question: Would he not be offside if he wore smaller cleats?)

Will changes be made to either VAR or offside before the 2030 World Cup?  Who knows?!  But there's no denying that they can both be improved.  And I think the easiest way to do that is starting simple.  They're both tools designed to fix "clear and obvious errors" that have strayed far from that original purpose.  So, go back to what VAR and the automated offside are supposed to be and stop overusing them.  That alone will go a long way, since it'd bring common sense and logic back into the equation.  Two elements that have clearly been missing.

Baseball at LA28

If the acrimony between the MLBPA and the owners wasn't already prevalent, it was made even more obvious during the All*Star Break.  Rob Manfred gave a press conference that didn't exactly inspire confidence.  In addition to talking about the owners' insistence that the sport "needs" a salary cap (which it doesn't), he also discussed MLB participation in the 2028 Olympic tournament at Dodger Stadium, a topic that should be a home run after the success of the World Baseball Classic.  Instead, it's yet another issue where the owners and players are very far apart.

Some of the information Manfred provided about Olympic baseball was useful.  The tournament starts on Thursday, July 13, the day before the Opening Ceremony, with the gold medal game on Wednesday, July 19.  To accommodate Major League players participating, they'd have the All*Star Game somewhere else on the West Coast (San Francisco would seem like the logical choice) and extend the All*Star Break.  The season would resume on Friday, July 21 instead of Friday, July 14 (the day of the Opening Ceremony), and the first week of the season would be moved up so that the World Series still ends at the same time.  That and the fact that they want to figure out a way for MLB players to take part are the only details both sides can agree on.

Three teams have already qualified for the Olympics.  Venezuela and the Dominican Republic qualified based on their WBC performance, and they'll join the host United States.  Two of the remaining three spots will be filled at next year's WBSC Premier 12, then a final qualifying tournament in March 2028 will determine the last team.  Japan is widely expected to claim one of those last three places.  And that would be a fourth nation that could fill its roster with Major Leaguers (Los Angeles Dodgers, in particular).

While there are pros and cons to the idea Major Leaguers playing in the LA 28 baseball tournament, it's easy to see the appeal for all interested parties.  Players like Bryce Harper have long been advocates of Olympic participation.  The opportunity to do that at Dodger Stadium (a place they're all familiar with) would be the icing on the cake.  Likewise, LA28 organizers and the IOC love the idea of a sold out Dodger Stadium for a week.  And the owners will love all the positive publicity Olympic participation would generate, even if it means putting the season on hold for 10 days.

They're riding the high of both the WBC and the Olympic hockey tournament (and, to a lesser extent, the World Cup) and see the potential of the Olympic baseball tournament doing the same.  The owners are specifically looking at the hockey tournament, which saw NHL players return to the Olympics for the first time in 12 years and the United States win gold.  That Olympic return came with certain considerations that the IOC and IIHF made to accommodate the NHL and NHLPA.  Without those accommodations, the NHL might not have returned to the Olympics in Milan.

It's worth noting that the deal between the NHL and IOC/IIHF wasn't finalized until very late.  For Major League Baseball, there are so many logistics involved that everything will need to be locked in much further in advance.  The schedule comes out in August, so they'd probably have to decide one way or the other by next year's All*Star Break (if there is one) at the absolute latest.  For one, they need select a site for the 2028 All*Star Game.  So, you'd better believe 2028 Olympic participation will be one of the topics discussed during the CBA negotiations.

And the details of Olympic participation is one of the areas where the players and owners are very far apart.  The players are looking for simple things that were a part of the NHLPA's agreement.  Mostly economic issues.  Hotel rooms and the ability to purchase tickets for their families are their primary concerns, along with the same insurance question they have in the WBC and Olympic hockey.  However, the players are vehemently opposed to the owners' mandatory play requirement regarding LA28.  And that, more than anything else, could be the deal breaker.

The owners want to guarantee that, if they're going to shut down the season for 10 days to accommodate the Olympics, the players will definitely be there.  One way they seek to do that is requiring their participation or facing stiff penalties if they don't.  That includes potentially being placed on the restricted list and/or suspended or fined.  While the players, by in large, have made it known they want to play, they're balking at idea that they should be required to play.  Which is the heart of the disagreement.

Under the owners' proposal, Olympic participation would be mandatory (assuming a player is selected to his national team).  Any players running afoul of that requirement would be placed on the restricted list from July 12-August 3.  That means they wouldn't be paid or get credit for service time during those three weeks.  In addition, the Commissioner would have the ability to "discipline with just cause" with a "fine and/or unpaid suspension."  The players are obviously opposed to both of these ideas.  With good reason.

Here's the kicker: the players want to participate.  Kyle Schwarber summed it up best, "You want to make that team."  They're simply opposed to the idea of not being given a choice in the matter.  They also want to have fair treatment that aligns with the value they'll bring to the LA28 Games, especially for non-athlete stakeholders.  The players also want to make sure they don't lose money by participating.  But reaching an agreement with LA28 is only half the battle.  An agreement needs to be reached with the owners, too.  And that's the big issue.

In the owners' eyes, meanwhile, mandatory participation isn't seen as particularly unreasonable.  Especially since the players would otherwise be with their teams in mid-July.  In their view, if they're shutting down the season for the Olympics, they want to make sure they showcase the absolute best the sport has to offer (much like the NHL).  They want to avoid the opt-outs that we've seen at the All*Star Game and in the WBC (remember in the first few editions of the WBC when owners didn't want their players, especially pitchers, going, and sometimes outright forbade it?  Boy, how times have changed!).

Of course, when a player opts out of the All*Star Game or WBC, there's usually a valid reason.  With the All*Star Game, it's either because of an injury (or injury concern) or a starting pitcher who pitched on Sunday and wouldn't be available anyway.  (And how many of those Sunday starters show up and participate in the All*Star festivities anyway?  Most of them.)  With the WBC, it's a little more complicated, but that generally comes down to insurance issues, injury (including rehab) and changing teams.

For the Olympics, there probably wouldn't be many opt-outs, if any.  Those rosters would potentially be even more stacked than the loaded teams we saw at the WBC.  Especially since, as important as the WBC has become, the pinnacle of national team competition in any sport (with the exception of soccer) is the Olympics.  Even if there are a few opt-outs, there will still be more players available than roster spots for each of the six teams in the field.  So, a mandatory requirement shouldn't even be necessary.  And, if a player can't or doesn't want to play in the Olympics, for whatever reason, they shouldn't be penalized for it.

Figuring out Olympic baseball in 2028 shouldn't have been hard.  The players want to do it, the owners want them there, and so do the IOC, the WBSC and LA28.  Yet, it looks like they might find a way to screw it up anyway.  Which isn't the most encouraging sign for the upcoming CBA negotiations.

Midseason MLB Accolades

We've hit the All*Star Break, the point of the Major League Baseball season where you take stock of what's happened over the first three months and start thinking about who'll be buyers and sellers at the trade deadline.  Although, there are so many teams close enough to a playoff spot that the number of sellers might be very limited.  The next two weeks could go a long way in determining that.  And, if one thing's for certain, it's that the final standings will look a lot different than they do now. 

How things are now, though, are all we can use to determine who would be MLB's award winners if the season ended today.  That's almost certain to change, too.  Some of the frontrunners at the All*Star Break go on to win, but we're just as likely to see someone come out of nowhere and snatch the award from them with a monster second half.  As it stands at the All*Star Break, though, here are my award winners for the 2026 season, including the recipients of the prestigious LVP and Cy Old for the worst hitter and pitcher in each league so far this season.

AL MVP: Yordan Alvarez, Astros-With Aaron Judge out of the running, the AL MVP is there for the taking.  And Yordan Alvarez has taken full advantage.  In fact, he's running away with it.  Alvarez is flirting with a Triple Crown for an Astros team that has him and really not much else.  He's, fact, flirting with the Major League lead in the three Triple Crown categories.  Alvarez is only four points behind Yandy Diaz in average.  Otherwise, he would have it.  (And he's the runaway Major League leader in both on-base percentage and slugging percentage, as well.)

AL LVP: Austin Wells, Yankees-Austin Wells was good for the Dominican Republic in the World Baseball Classic.  For the Yankees during the regular season, he hasn't been.  There was a point earlier this week when Wells had 10 total RBIs for the season...a day after Ryan O'Hearn had 10 RBIs in a game for the Orioles.  Yeah, it's been that bad.

AL Cy Young: Cam Schlittler, Yankees-For most of the season, Cam Schlittler has been the best pitcher in the American League.  Even after a little blip for a few starts, there's still an argument that he is.  Schlittler leads the AL in ERA and WHIP, and he's second in strikeouts and batting average against.  He's been the ace that the Yankees have needed with Gerrit Cole and Max Fried (and now Carlos Rodon) missing time due to injury.

AL Cy Old: Jeffrey Springs, Athletics-Oaklamento was a nice little story early in the season.  The A's were even in first place for a little while.  They've come back to Earth since, and Springs is one of the biggest culprits.  He's got the most losses and the highest ERA in the American League.  Springs has also given up 26 home runs, 10 of which came in June alone (when he had a 10.00 ERA for the month).

AL Rookie: Munetaka Murakami, White Sox-This could end up being a great head-to-head battle between two Japanese imports.  Murakami was running away with it for the first few weeks of the season, then he went on the IL and Kazuma Okamoto surged to the front statistically.  Murakami's impact has been far greater than Okamoto's, though.  He's one of the biggest reasons why the White Sox are in first place.

AL Manager: Will Venable, White Sox-The White Sox have been pretty bad for the past few seasons.  To say they've turned it around this year would be an understatement.  At the All*Star Break, they're tied for first place and one of just five teams in the American League with a winning record.  They had 60 wins all season in 2025.  They already have 50 this year.

NL MVP: Shohei Ohtani, Dodgers-At this point, the only thing that can stop Ohtani from winning MVP every year is an injury.  He's continued to do what he usually does offensively.  Ohtani has also been dominant on the mound in his first full year pitching since 2023.  In case there was any remaining doubt that he's a unicorn, this season, he's a Cy Young contender, too.

NL LVP: Ezequiel Tovar, Rockies-Colorado is a bad team, so it seems a little unfair to single out a Rockies player as the worst in the National League during the first half.  And there are plenty of contenders from other teams, too.  But I'm going with Tovar since Colorado has continued to roll him out there (perhaps because of the lack of another option) despite his .200 batting average with no power and no walks.  It's not like he's in there for his great defense, either.  Tovar already has seven errors this season.

NL Cy Young: Jacob Misiorowski, Brewers-Last year, Misiorowski was called up in June and immediately took the Majors by storm.  He's only been in the Majors for a little more than a calendar year and is already the best pitcher in the game.  Misiorowski leads all of Baseball in both ERA and strikeouts by a wide margin, and he's also the Major League leader in WHIP and batting average against.  Plus, all of his starts are events.  Misiorowski is the biggest pitching star in the sport.

NL Cy Old: Zac Gallen, Diamondbacks-It wasn't too long ago that Gallen and Merrill Kelly were the co-aces of a staff that carried the Diamondbacks to a surprise World Series appearance.  This season feels like a far cry from that pennant-winning 2023 campaign.  Gallen is 3-9 with a 6.34 ERA and has just 61 strikeouts in 98 innings.  Arizona 49-47 overall, but just 6-13 in Gallen's starts.

NL Rookie: Sal Stewart, Reds-There are a lot of good rookies in the NL.  Sal Stewart stands out the most in that group.  He's played every game for the Reds and made the All*Star team.  Stewart also leads all rookies in RBIs and has more extra base hits (22 doubles, 19 HR) than any other rookie in either league.

NL Manager: Don Mattingly, Phillies-Remember how bad the Phillies were at the start of the season?  So bad that they fired Rob Thomson.  Enter Don Mattingly.  They're 45-24 since he took over, including a 16-4 stretch in his first 20 games, and have firmly moved into playoff position.  The Phillies are loaded.  They should be this good.  But they wouldn't be without the steady presence of Don Mattingly in the dugout.

Salary Cap Not "Needed"

According to the MLB owners, the Dodgers are going to win every World Series from now until the end of time.  Never mind the fact that they wouldn't have won last year if Isaiah Kiner-Falefa had bigger feet or that they were down 2-1 against the Padres in 2024 and were thisclose to another Division Series loss that would've likely gotten Dave Roberts fired.  Nope, the Dodgers are the "problem."  That's why the sport "needs" a salary cap.

Also according to the MLB owners, smaller-market teams have no chance of ever being competitive.  Never mind the fact that the Brewers and Rays have the second- and third-best records in baseball or that Cleveland is tied for first in the AL West or that Arizona made the World Series three years ago (after beating the Dodgers in the playoffs).  Nope, only the teams that play in large markets have any shot at making it to the playoffs, let alone the World Series (where they'll apparently just lose to the Dodgers anyway).  That's why the sport "needs" a salary cap.

If you were to believe the owners' stance, it's only a handful of large-market, big-spending teams that are capable of winning.  Meanwhile, the Mets missed the playoffs last season and have been a disaster this year despite having the second-highest payroll.  Fresh off a World Series appearance, the Blue Jays are under .500 with the fourth-highest payroll.  And the Phillies were a mess to start the season until they replaced Rob Thomson with Don Mattingly.  Nope, it's pre-scripted for those teams to be good.  That's why the sport "needs" a salary cap.

Both the owners and the players have presented their initial list of things they'd like to see in the new CBA.  To say they're far apart would be a massive understatement.  They aren't even on the same continent!  Which means there's no way of avoiding what we've all been fearing but also have all accepted we know is coming.  There will be a lockout when the CBA expires in December, and it'll probably be a long one.  All because of the owners' insistence that baseball "needs" a salary cap.  Which it doesn't.

In case you couldn't already tell, I'm completely on the MLBPA's side on this issue.  A salary cap is a non-starter for the players, and they almost certainly won't be budging on that point.  Nor do they have a reason to.  And the owners need to realize that.  Because the harder they push for a salary cap, the harder the players will push back.  So, unless they want the 2027 MLB season to feature as many games as the 2004-05 NHL season did, they need to back off their demand for a salary cap.  Which the players will never agree to.

Nobody is arguing that the economics of baseball aren't broken.  There are far too many teams, primarily in smaller markets, that spend nothing on payroll and make absolutely no effort to be competitive.  Those owners pocketing their luxury tax payouts are a far bigger problem than the big spenders who contribute that luxury tax money.  And the idea that smaller market teams can't compete is a myth.  Just ask Milwaukee, Tampa Bay and Cleveland.  So, no, sorry, a salary cap is not the answer.  Especially since the owners want to use it to solve a problem that they created themselves.

I'll eventually go into the specifics of each side's initial CBA proposal in another post, but the insistence on a salary cap comes down to one thing, and it has nothing to do with competitive balance.  As the players immediately pointed out, they (the owners) don't actually care about that.  They care about money.  Specifically, they care about their franchise values, which lag behind those of the NFL and NBA.  What do the NFL and NBA (and NHL) have in common?  A salary cap!  The owners see it as a way to bring their franchise values up.  That's why they want one so badly.

However, the NFL and NBA would be the first ones to tell you that their systems aren't perfect, either.  The NBA didn't like the "superteam" era and responded by overcorrecting, which created parity, but also made it nearly impossible for teams to retain their own free agents.  And how often do NFL stars have to restructure their contract so that their team can get more cap room?  Worse than that, how many elite players that teams want to keep but can't afford to are "cap casualties" every offseason?

Baseball's structure isn't set up that way.  And, even if the owners were to institute a salary cap, it wouldn't be as easy to implement as they think.  MLB contracts are guaranteed.  NFL contracts aren't.  So, when an NFL team cuts a player, they no longer have to pay that player's salary.  If he was set to make $10 million, that's $10 million in savings for the team.  By signing someone else for $4 million, that's $6 million less in payroll.

With guaranteed contracts in MLB, though, the team would still be on the hook for that salary regardless.  And not to mention the deferred money that will still be owed to some of these players (the deferred contracts are an entirely separate issue).  So, releasing a player who has two years and $15 million left on his contract isn't saving you $7.5 million in each of those years.  You're paying that in addition to the salary of his replacement (assuming he isn't picked up by another team).  Which would only increase the amount the high-payroll teams are spending on salaries (with half of those players not even playing for their team).

On the other end of the spectrum, implementing a salary cap would also mean implementing a salary floor (which I actually am in favor of).  That would mean the lower-spending owners would need to dramatically increase their payrolls basically overnight.  Granted, if you own a Major League Baseball team, you should have the money to be able to do that.  But, shelling out more money for player salaries doesn't necessarily immediately equate to the increased revenue needed to cover them.  So, would they really be able to afford the increased spending?

For any type of salary cap system to work in MLB, it would have to be phased in gradually.  To do it any other way would create chaos.  There would be massive roster turnover across the Major Leagues.  That much is obvious.  But you'd still have long-term commitments to players with guaranteed contracts.  You can't just stop paying those.  The only option teams would have with certain players would be to trade them to a smaller-market club (who'd then be using half of their salary cap on one player).  Which may not even be possible since players with 10 & 5 rights (a 10-year veteran who's been on the same team for five or more years) can veto any trade.

As the players have correctly pointed out, nobody is forcing Steve Cohen to pay Juan Soto $51 million a year for 15 years.  Yes, some teams have more resources than others.  There's no denying that.  But, if a salary cap were put in place, the players are the only ones who'd suffer.  The owners proposed maximum contract lengths in their initial CBA offer, which would obviously reduce the players' earning potential.  A salary cap is just a different way to do the exact same thing.  So, why would the MLBPA have any interest in even entertaining the idea?

The only people who would benefit from a salary cap are the owners.  The players sure wouldn't.  In fact, the players would get screwed.  Which might be part of what the owners want.  With the existing luxury tax system, teams can spend whatever they want, knowing that they'll have to pay a penalty if they go over certain thresholds.  A salary cap would create a fixed maximum amount of money that teams can spend on payroll. 

This year's average payroll is a little over $176 million.  For the sake of this exercise, let's say the salary cap was set at $180 million.  That would be a maximum of $5.4 billion total that can be spent on player salaries across all 30 teams.  This season, the teams with the top 10 payrolls are spending a combined $4.9 billion in player salaries just amongst themselves.  Likewise, say the salary floor was $150 million.  You know how many teams don't even reach that currently?  Thirteen!  Including six that don't even spend $100 million!

What Major League Baseball and the owners are trying to convince everyone is that the only way the game can survive and the only way to prevent the Dodgers from running away with every World Series title is to implement a salary cap.  It's the same argument they made 30 years ago that led to the strike.  It wasn't true in 1994, and it isn't true now.  Can the current economic system be improved?  Yes.  But a salary cap isn't the way to do that.

No More Nordic Combined

In 2005, the IOC removed baseball and softball from the Summer Olympics, effective with the 2012 Games in London.  In 2013, they attempted to remove wrestling from the Olympic program, a move that was met with such negative backlash it never actually took effect.  Wrestling was voted back in at the next IOC meeting a few months later, retaining its place in the Olympics.  Because of the smaller scale, Winter Olympic sports by and large haven't had to worry about suffering the same fate.  Until now.  The program for the 2030 Games has been released and, for the first time, it doesn't include Nordic combined.

The writing had been on the wall for Nordic combined for a while.  It was a topic of conversation throughout the competition during this year's Olympics, which turned out to be the sport's last (at least for now).  As it turns out, the fears about Nordic combined's Olympic future were justified.  After 102 years as an Olympic event, Nordic combined has been dropped from the program, with the chance to return in 2034.  Which, right now, doesn't seem likely.

You can't help but feel for those Nordic combined athletes, too.  While there was a cloud hanging over the sport's head, they competed in Cortina without knowing that this was it.  At least for now.  They had no idea that there would be no 2030 for them.  They won't get another chance in four years.  They may not get another chance at an Olympic medal period.  At least not in Nordic combined.

Multiple reasons were cited for the IOC's decision.  One is that Nordic combined was judged to be the least popular Winter Olympic sport in 11 of 14 metrics across the last several Games.  Another is concerns about universality.  The same five nations (Norway, Finland, Austria, Germany and Japan) have won every Nordic combined medal at the past four Winter Olympics.  The last country outside of those five to win a medal was the United States in 2010, including a gold by Bill DeMong (the only medals in the sport ever won by the U.S.). 

Most significantly, and the thing that held Nordic combined back the most, is the fact that it's the only sport in either the Summer or Winter Olympics that's exclusive to men.  A women's Nordic combined event was proposed for both the 2022 and 2026 Winter Games, but was rejected each time.  World Championships in women's Nordic combined have only been held since 2021, which was the same year the World Cup series debuted.  With the same nations winning medals as on the men's side.  So, it did nothing to solve the universality problem.

Critics of the decision were quick to point out that irony.  Nordic combined was eliminated, in part, because it's a "male-only" sport.  Yet there is a women's event, which has sought Olympic inclusion in the past and was denied.  Instead of adding that women's event, however, they decided to drop the sport altogether in the name of "gender equity."

With wrestling, the IOC realized its mistake right away and took the steps to correct it.  Wresting ended up not missing a single Olympics.  Even baseball and softball have returned, albeit not as regular fixtures.  For Nordic combined, though, the road back to the Olympics might not be so easy.  Because the reasons why it was dropped are beyond just gender equity concerns.  And it will be very hard for Nordic combined to address those issues without official Olympic status (and the funding that goes with it).  So, while not impossible, it doesn't seem likely that we'll see Nordic combined returning to the Olympics anytime soon.

Especially when you look at the other sports and events that were added to the Alps 2030 program.  Ski mountaineering, which debuted in Milan Cortina, will not only return, it will be expanded from three events to five with a men's and women's individual race joining the two sprints and mixed team relay.  Also added was freeride, which sees competitors going down a course that has a start gate, a finish line, and that's it.  How they get down is up to them, with judges determining the winner based on elements such as line choice, technique, control and style.  There will be men's and women's events in both skiing and snowboarding.

Freeride has two distinct attributes that Nordic combined lacks.  Universality and popularity.  Multiple different countries (and beyond just the traditional winter sports powers) win medals.  It also draws crowds and TV ratings.  It's a far more spectator- and TV-friendly discipline.  Just as importantly, it's more appealing to youth (a key IOC demographic) than the combination of ski jumping and cross country skiing.

That universality issue I think could be the biggest thing standing in Nordic combined's way when it comes to any possible Olympic readmission in the future.  The sport will remain popular in the areas where it traditionally has been.  But the likelihood of it extending beyond that European base seems slim.  Especially now that the carat of winning an Olympic medal is now off the table.  If anything, Nordic combined could end up becoming more regionalized, dominated even more by the same handful of nations.  What seems more likely, though, is that the best Nordic combined athletes will pick one or the other.  They'll specialize in either skiing or ski jumping, knowing that's their only path to the Olympics.  Which will thin out the herd even more.

This should also serve as a warning sign for a Summer sport whose Olympic status is just as perilous.  I'm, of course, talking about modern pentathlon, a sport that hasn't been very "modern" in quite some time.  Modern pentathlon has been able to maintain its place on the Olympic program despite consistently ranking at or towards the bottom in many of those same metrics that doomed Nordic combined.  And that doesn't even include the other issues plaguing the sport, which ultimately led to horse riding being replaced by an obstacle race.

Modern pentathlon will be contested at LA28.  The program for Brisbane 2032 still hasn't been finalized, however.  And IOC President Kirsty Coventry has already indicated that there will be fewer events in Brisbane than the record 353 being planned for 2028.  She also made it clear that the entire program will be reviewed and no sport, event or discipline is safe.  That, and what just happened with Nordic combined are clear warning signs that should make all those involved with modern pentathlon very worried about its Olympic future.

Dropping Nordic combined makes it all very real.  It's not just an idle threat.  Sports need to meet certain metrics and have enough appeal to warrant a place in the Olympics.  And being considered an "Olympic sport" is something that shouldn't be taken for granted.  That message has been made very clear.

Yet, at the same time, Nordic combined was doomed by the thing that made it unique.  In a world where gender equity is so important, Nordic combined remained the sole providence of men.  Women's events were added way too late in the game, and never to the point where the level of women's competition was Olympic-caliber.  And, the fact that it was one of the 16 events contested at the first Winter Olympics did nothing to help its cause.  If anything, it may have hurt.  Nordic combined may have been relying too much on that tradition and history.

Or maybe this will serve as an impetus for change.  Modern pentathlon, knowing its Olympic future is at stake, replaced riding with the obstacle course.  Wrestling made a slew of reforms during the few months between being dropped, then not dropped.  Even baseball and softball combined into a single international federation that administers both sports. 

So, this may not be the end for Nordic combined.  As of now, the decision only applies to the 2030 Winter Games in the French Alps.  When it comes time to finalize the program for Utah 2034, the IOC might be impressed enough with the progress Nordic combined has made and reinstate it.  Or, since Olympic organizers are allowed to propose sports for their specific Games, we could very well see a one-off return should the Winter Olympics be held in Norway or Austria or even Germany.  What we do know, however, is that there will be no Nordic combined in France.

Stop Being Intimidated By the Top

By all accounts, it was a successful World Cup for the U.S. Men's National Team.  In the end, though, it finished the same way as each of the Americans' last three World Cup appearances.  With a loss in the Round of 16 where they were outplayed by a superior opponent.  For the second time in 12 years, that opponent was Belgium.  Four years ago, it was their neighbor the Netherlands.  Both Top 10 European sides.  The type of teams the Americans will eventually need to learn how to beat--consistently--if they want to be considered one of the top teams themselves.

Timid.  Flat.  Overwhelmed.  Choose your adjective.  Point is it wasn't just a disappointing result.  It was their worst game of the tournament.  It was the type of performance that they too often have against strong European opposition.  Instead of rising to the occasion, the USMNT got sucked up by it.  It was clear which team has the experience at that level.  The U.S., on the other hand, looked like a deer in the headlights.

Throughout the World Cup, we've seen the best players in the world step up and perform at the highest level.  Kylian Mbappe, Lionel Messi, Harry Kane, Erling Haaland.  They've all starred.  Spectacularly so.  This was Christian Pulisic's chance to show he belonged among those elite names.  Against Belgium, however, he was a complete non-factor before being subbed off after 60 minutes.  It isn't the first time that's happened against a top-level opponent.

Unfortunately, that's a common theme for the USMNT.  For, as successful they are at the continental level, they still have a ways to go.  As their effort against Belgium made abundantly clear.  Because to be considered one of the best, you need to prove you belong among the best.  Which the U.S. Men's National Team is not.  Are they a very good team?  Yes.  Are they anywhere near the elite level?  Absolutely not.

With that in mind, perhaps the expectations on the team this summer should've been tempered.  As great as they looked in the first two games, they were against Paraguay and Australia.  Even the Round of 32 win was against Bosnia, a team they should beat.  To advance any further would've required beating multiple top European and/or South American teams.  Even if they'd topped Belgium, next up would've been Spain.  So, the quarterfinals was maybe the next that could've been expected.  Winning the World Cup was never gonna happen.

It isn't just European teams that give the U.S. trouble, either.  We've seen it plenty of times at Copa America.  They easily take care of the other CONCACAF teams and countries like Bolivia or Venezuela.  But, when it comes to crunch time and they have to face Argentina or Brazil, or even Colombia or Uruguay, the same thing as what we always see in the World Cup happens.  They're good enough to get to that point of the tournament, but not good enough to get any further.

At the World Cup, it's the same story every time.  The United States is good enough to get out of the group.  Which they do consistently.  That's the bare minimum expectation.  Now that there's a Round of 32, it's not unreasonable to think they should get a win there, depending on the matchup.  Thinking they'll go beyond the Round of 16, though, is incredibly optimistic.

Should reaching the quarterfinals (at least) at the World Cup be the goal?  Absolutely.  But there's a lot of work that needs to be done for that goal to be realistic.  And that needs to start with showing they can consistently compete with top-level European opponents.  Not just on the biggest stage, either.  All the time.

In the leadup to the World Cup, the United States played friendlies against Belgium, Portugal and Germany.  They lost them all, although, the Germany game was a very close 2-1 result (it should be noted here that the U.S. advanced further in the World Cup than Germany did and the U.S dominated the same Paraguay team that knocked the Germans out).  Prior to the Bosnia game, their last win against a European opponent was on Dec. 18, 2021, also against Bosnia.  

After two draws against Wales and England in the group stage at the 2022 World Cup, the U.S. fell to the Netherlands in the Round of 16.  That started a streak of 10 consecutive losses against European opposition.  That includes losses to Serbia and Slovenia, as well as top opponents like Germany, Portugal and Belgium.  In fact, they haven't beaten a European team other than Bosnia since a 2-1 win at Northern Ireland on March 28, 2021. 

Granted, the U.S. has limited opportunities to face European teams.  Outside of the World Cup, the only real chance is in friendlies.  And the windows to play friendlies against European opponents, especially top ones, aren't always there.  Which is why they need to take advantage of them when they do happen.  You can't just play Belgium.  You need to actually compete against Belgium.  And the only way to do that is to face that type of competition as often as you can.

Being in CONCACAF obviously complicates matters a little.  The United States and Mexico are far superior to the rest of CONCACAF, yet still have to play opponents like Trinidad & Tobago and Jamaica regularly.  There's nothing they can do about that.  Which is why it's even more important to schedule as many games as possible against top-level European and South American countries...the type of team you'll face in the later stages in a World Cup.

There's only so much the U.S. and Mexico can get out of their frequent matchups against each other.  That was evident in their respective World Cup Round of 16 games.  They were the hugest games for the two home teams in years.  For their higher-ranked European opponents, England and Belgium, it was no big deal.  They see teams better than the U.S. and Mexico all the time.  They're both better teams, and they both proved it.  Simply put, the United States and Mexico aren't on the same level.  (Mexico, to its credit, at least showed up against England and could've won.)

For as great and thrilling as the USMNT's World Cup run was, it also showed that the U.S. still has a long way to go.  The loss to Turkiye can be explained away.  The loss to Belgium can't.  Would they have lost that game anyway?  Maybe.  I'd even venture to say probably.  They needed to play a perfect game and have Belgium make mistakes.  Neither of those things happened.

If they don't want to be embarrassed by a European team in the knockout stage of the 2030 World Cup (the U.S. has never won a World Cup game on European soil, BTW), they need to actually rise to the occasion.  Which requires being properly prepared for the occasion.  It's not a question of talent, either.  Most of the American starting lineup plays professionally in Europe.  They see these guys every week in league competition.  So that's not the issue.  It has to be something else.  It's something they need to figure out.

The United States is one of the 20 best men's soccer teams in the world.  They should, and do, regularly beat the teams below them.  But, as the loss to Belgium proved, the gap between the United States and those teams above them is huge.  And that gap can only be closed if they aren't intimidated by the name of their opponent.  Because when that happens, you've already lost before the game even starts.

A Banner Year for the USA (Already)

I don't know if it's because of the 250th anniversary or not, but it's been an incredible year for American teams in international sports.  And we're only halfway through the year!  Yet we've already seen Olympic gold medals in both men's and women's hockey, as well as team figure skating, a run to the final of the World Baseball Classic, and an ongoing home World Cup where the U.S. Men's National Team is playing so well that the expectations increase with each successive game.  Who knows what else is in store for the rest of 2026!?

Let's start in Milan with a moment that was 46 years in the making.  With the NHL returning to the Olympics for the first time in 12 years, the U.S. could bring all of its best players to the Olympics.  It was arguably the most talented team the U.S. was fielding in the Olympic men's hockey tournament.  They were favored for a medal, but there was only one they wanted.  Especially after winning the World Championship and taking silver at the Four Nations Faceoff last year (and a majority of that team returning for the Olympics), it was gold medal or bust.

The Miracle On Ice will always be the seminal moment in U.S. men's hockey history.  But even the members of that team were ready for another gold medal.  Which is what Jack Hughes delivered.  In overtime.  Against archrival Canada.  It wasn't a miracle.  These guys were supposed to win.  And they did.  For the first time in almost half a century, the United States was the Olympic men's hockey champions again.  And, for the first time ever, they won Olympic gold at a Games held in another country.

That victory came three days after the women's gold medal game in Milan.  That matchup was also between the United States and Canada, the two superpowers in the sport.  The only two countries ever to win the Olympic gold medal.  Who've played each other in the final seven times in eight Olympic tournaments.  Just like the men's final, the women's game went to overtime.  Just like the men, the women came home with gold, while forcing their archrivals to settle for silver.

It was the Americans' third Olympic title in women's hockey, but this one was a little different.  Women's hockey has only been a part of the Olympics since 1998, 18 years after the Miracle On Ice.  The men and women had never won Olympic gold in the same year before.  They have now.

Another American team expected to win Olympic gold in Milan was the figure skating team.  They won gold in 2022, but that wasn't official until two years after the fact, and only after the Russians were disqualified.  This time, there was no controversy.  The U.S. went in as the favorites and held off Japan to win gold.  Only this time, they got their medals right then and there.

A few weeks after the Olympics ended, it was time for the World Baseball Classic.  The U.S. team was loaded.  Aaron Judge.  Bryce Harper.  Bobby Witt Jr.  Kyle Schwarber.  Both of last season's Cy Young winners, Tarik Skubal and Paul Skenes, anchoring the pitching staff.  They had one goal in mind after losing the 2023 final to Japan.

There were some nervous moments after they lost their final game of group play to Italy.  There was a chance that they might not advance to the quarterfinals, which would've been a disaster and had this team branded a failure.  Well, they did advance to the quarterfinals, where they beat Canada.  Then Skenes shut down the vaunted Dominican Republic lineup in a brilliant semifinal performance to get the U.S. back to the final.  It wasn't the same triumphant finish as the Olympic hockey teams.  They lost that championship game to Venezuela.  But they got the country's attention all the same.

Speaking of capturing the country's attention, the World Cup has shattered attendance records.  More than five million people from all over the world have filled NFL stadiums for the games.  They broke the previous attendance record before the end of the group stage. (Granted, with the larger tournament, there are more games, but, despite the high ticket prices, virtually every game has been a sellout.)  Which World Cup set that previous attendance record?  The 1994 tournament in the United States.

When the U.S. hosted that 1994 World Cup, soccer was more of a curiosity.  No one had any illusions of the home team winning the tournament.  The hope was that they just wouldn't embarrass themselves.  Getting out of the group would be considered a great result.  They not only did that, they held their own against eventual champion Brazil in the Round of 16, only losing 1-0.

Fast forward 32 years and things are incredibly different.  The U.S. Men's National Team is playing a home World Cup knowing this is their opportunity to leave their mark.  "How far can they go?" means "How deep a run can they make?"  Unlike in 1994, this year's team has expectations, and the possibility of not meeting them existed.  Getting out of the group was the bare minimum, but even just doing that would've been a disappointment.

From the opening game, that 4-1 thrashing of Paraguay, they've had the nation's attention.  And interest in the team has only grown.  They didn't just get out of the group.  They won it with a game to spare.  They've won three games at a World Cup for the first time ever.  They've made git to the Round of 16, and thinking this team is capable of going further suddenly doesn't sound so crazy.  They haven't just met the moment.  They've thrived.  And taken the country along for the ride.

We're not done yet, either.  While it doesn't have the same fanfare as those other events or its men's counterpart, the FIBA Women's Basketball World Cup will take place in Germany this September.  The WNBA will halt its season so that players can represent their nation at the World Cup.  The United States is the four-time defending champions and will be favored to make it five.

Is it partially a combination of luck and coincidence that American teams are all performing so well on the international stage this year?  Perhaps.  I'd even say that it's likely.  The fact that it's all happening in the country's landmark 250th year can't be escaped, though.  Coincidence or not, it's pretty cool.