The World Cup and its “dizzying array of feel-good social media fodder” gave the U.S.’s image a “much-needed boost globally, though concerns over high-level interference and visa difficulties for some fans overshadowed the action on the field at times,” according to Amy Tennery of REUTERS. A “series of viral social media moments may have softened the world’s perspective on Americans -- at least temporarily.” Scotland’s Tartan Army’s “love affair with Boston provided one of the tournament’s feel-good storylines,” as did Algeria’s “unlikely friendship with Lawrence, Kansas,” where they held their training base camp. And Americans themselves “had their eyes opened to soccer’s global roar, delivering blockbuster television ratings while packing fan festivals.” However, some incidents “did not help America’s reputation.” President Trump’s involvement in one of the “biggest controversies” -- the red card saga involving USMNT F Folarin Balogun -- caused outrage. In addition, the country that “had promised to swing open its doors to the world, kept them stubbornly shut for some,” denying visas to fans from several nations (REUTERS, 7/20).
HOW THIS HELPS: In N.Y., Ethan Sears writes the “grandiose marketing phrases” that came with the World Cup -- “change soccer forever in the United States,” and “rocket fuel,” and so on -- do “us a disservice by setting the sport up for failure.” Growing a sport is “not like winning an election.” Everything does not “suddenly change within months.” Look back at the 1994 World Cup and there was not “much impact on how soccer in America looked in 1995.” Sears: “Trace the slow, halting and ultimately steady growth of MLS that stemmed from it, and it’s easy to draw a line from there to here.” Just like in 1994, “more of the impact will be long term than short.” What will “matter more are the kids who now want to play, watch and be involved in soccer,” the corporate and private investments in the game that “are now so much more attractive and a new level of pressure and interest in U.S. Soccer’s ability to deliver a winning men’s team.” The true effects of all of that “won’t become clear for a long time.” Sears: “That said, it would take a true cynic to feel they won’t be immensely positive” (N.Y. POST, 7/21).
WHAT IT DID DO: In N.Y., Filip Bondy wrote what people saw at 11 U.S. venues and all across America this summer “was nothing short of supernatural.” Bondy: “This World Cup did the impossible. It even crossed the great divide between Democrats and Republicans, no small feat.” Yes, the fans booed Trump at the trophy ceremony in N.J., but even that action “might cross party lines, by now.” The World Cup was “far from perfect.” Bondy mentioned the ticket “gouging was unforgivable,” the USMNT “flamed out at least one round too early,” the weather “was too hot at times” and the final “was disappointing.” Bondy: “But if you attended the watch parties, sang with the Scottish fans in Boston, rowed with the Norwegian supporters in Miami, or howled with the all-suffering English fans everywhere, then you learned more stuff about this sport than any coach could ever convey.” The tournament is over now and the “hangover hits hardest in the immediate aftermath.” The new U.S. fans and viewers will “not necessarily flock to MLS or NWSL.” But that “doesn’t mean these last few weeks disappear.” They “made new memories, planted seeds” leaving more “Americans appreciate the sport” (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 7/20).
SUCH AMERICAN BEHAVIOR: In London, Richard Jolly writes the U.S. should not host another major soccer tournament “without significant changes in the country.” They broadly “fall under three categories: the moral, the financial and the logistical.” As Russia and Qatar recognized, hosting World Cups “gives legitimacy to dubious regimes.” Yet neither of them “did so in a year when they were at war with another country in the tournament.” Even when sticking to soccer, the Iranian team was “treated unfairly when it came to issues as basic as entering and leaving” the U.S. Then there is the “sporting element to the immorality” with the Balogun situation. In addition, the Trump administration’s values are the “polar opposite of those the World Cup ought to offer, of diversity and inclusiveness.” And while many of the U.S. stadiums “impressed; the locations did not.” The aversion to public transport in the U.S. “rendered some still more unsuitable.” Jolly added priority “should have been given to accessible stadia.” There were “arguably only three near enough to city centres” in the U.S. in this World Cup: Seattle, Atlanta and Philadelphia -- Toronto was a “Canadian example that worked well.” Chicago opted out in part due to FIFA’s demands; yet FIFA “should be looking for the right places, not just the most profitable.” Jolly: “Does FIFA care? Almost certainly not” (London INDEPENDENT, 7/21).
