I believe I have to thank Du Nord for pointing out that Paul Gardner had written a column for soccernet.com. This particular column from the most-opinionated-one is worth reading for its style (or lack thereof) alone. But beyond form, this column marks perhaps the only time that I have ever agreed with Gardner on a football related matter. Mr. Gardner has turned his broadside towards US Soccer's Bradenton Academy. What can he find to criticize about an institution that trains our promising youngsters to grow up to be the next generation of American football heroes? The fact that it is not repaying the substantial investment made in it, for one. Yes, the U-17s have reached every FIFA world championship at that level and they have even made it as far as the semi-finals. This year they made it as far as the quarters before bowing out to the Netherlands (who were then spanked 4-0 by Mexico). But is this really the best we should expect? Why are our teams standing still at this point?

Mr. Gardner makes some headway towards an answer by pointing out the relatively low number of Bradenton graduates who go directly into the professional ranks. Most go on to college. Now, there may be many reasons for this, a lot of them cultural or personal and, while the college game is not exactly at a high standard Mr. Gardner is certainly wrong to be so dismissive of those who may see football primarily as a ticket to a college education rather than a potential career. Nevertheless, playing college ball is not the best training for professional success and training players for professional success must certainly be the primary purpose of Bradenton. The fact that the academy does not send most of its players directly into professional ranks must be a failure of its own setup. Either the academy is too limited to identify those players with true professional potential or it needs to rethink its training methods.

No matter what the reason for its failure, I also agree with Gardner's proposal for a solution. It needs to be left to the clubs to identify and train young footballing talent. The greater number of individuals involved in such a scheme would increase the probability of discovering players with real potential. Moreover, being involved in a professional training environment could only be a benefit. Best of all for US Soccer, it wouldn't have to pay a cent. The major drawback that I can see in this proposal at the moment is the likely inability of the MLS clubs to finance such projects. We have a reserve division now, so with a few more years of stability, maybe we will see youth development programs spring up. Until then, Bradenton is the best that football in this country can offer its young players, but a professional youth setup has to be the goal.

---

To get back to business as usual, Paul Gardner wrote a column in the October issue of World Soccer that shows him to be a backward thinking technophobe. Here he voices his objections to the Smartball sensor system that was tested at the U-17 world championships in Peru. As far as I can tell these objections amounted to the statement that Mr. Gardner doesn't trust any piece of technology more complicated than a hand crank. Now I think that the reliance on human judgment is one of the things that makes football wonderful, if sometimes maddening. And I believe that, though the game needs to evolve, it should be very careful about introducing the influence of technology. However, if one is going to introduce technology, where better to introduce it than in the determination of whether or not the ball has crossed the line? Gardner offers three reasons: the system may not work, the referee is still permitted to overrule the signal he receives from the system and the system is prohibitively expensive.

The first criticism seems laughable. At least, Mr. Gardner's supporting arguments are laughable. Essentially, we are supposed to doubt the efficacy of the sensor system because it is complicated. In fact, Mr. Gardner was not even able to identify the locations of the sensors in the stadium. If this is a reason to shun technology, then most of us should be very wary every time we get into our cars.

It does seem curious that, assuming the sensor system is effective, the referee should still be allowed to overrule it. I think what is meant by the statement that "obviously, the referee will continue to have the final say in each situtation", though is that simply because the sensors have detected that the ball has crossed the line, it does not mean that a goal has been scored according to the rules of the game. The sensors do not know that the "goal" was scored by an offside player, or that an infringement has already been called. In these situations, the judgment of the referee is necessary. Of course, if the referee decides to overrule a goal that is scored without a prior infringement, the system could provide a valuable record for reviewing the performance of the official and suggesting further investigation.

The cost of the system, reportedly over $450,000, could certainly be a concern. This sensor system could become the plaything of the rich clubs. But, really, how bad can it be if everyone will finally know for certain every time an underdog scores against one of the big clubs? In any case, the system can at least be put to work in the most important matches where certainty matters the most, such as World Cup matches or European Cup finals. If the system became required at World Cups, FIFA might provide some funds for its purchase and instalation and perhaps a grant for its maintenance, bringing the system to stadia that otherwise not afford it. Even with limited use, the sensor system could prove valuable.

---

I was reading Frank Dell'Apa's preview of the US-Costa Rica qualifier and I and found myself most interested in his discussion of the politics of World Cup placement. Most particularly, I was drawn to the South Americans' defense of their "five" qualification slots that they had won nine World Cups and since no one could top that everyone should shut up. I found this interesting because I have heard this same type of statement many times in arguments over regional football superiority. What I find most maddening about it is that it is misleading and masks most of the relevant facts. So I am going to take my turn here to weigh in on this issue and explain why South America does not deserve five spots in the World Cup and why they have no argument to regional superiority over Europe.

South American countries have won a total of nine World Cup titles and European countries share eight. This is true and I do not deny it. However, this is sort of like saying that Spanish clubs have won ten European Cups. That is true too, but nine of them were won by one club, Real Madrid. So this says little about the overall historical strength of Spanish football. It turns out that Spanish football is actually historically quite strong. But there are other facts that confirm this. The same cannot be said for South American football.

Brazil alone account for five World Cup title while Argentina and Uruguay have two apiece. Impressive, one might say. But one should note that these are the only South American countries to even have reached the final and Uruguay have not played for the title since 1950. In fact, if one throws in Chile in 1962, one has all of the South American countries that have ever placed in the World Cup competition. On the European side, there may be only eight titles, but they are shared among four countries: Italy, Germany, England and France. In addition to these champions, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Sweden and the Netherlands have all at least contested the final. If that isn't enough, Austria, Poland, Portugal and Croatia have all finished third. So has Turkey, which is part of Europe at very least for footballing purposes. That makes thirteen different countries that have placed in the World Cup, eleven of which have placed from 1962 on. No one is denying the quality of Argentina or the preeminence of Brazil in international football. But anyone who claims that their accomplishments alone earn their continent five places at the World Cup table isn't living in reality.