MOSCOW: The World Cup has only ever been a World Cup for the first few days — sooner or later it morphs into an intercontinental championship between Europe and South America. What more proof does one need than the fact that only two teams from outside these continents have ever made the semifinals in the Cup’s 88-year history? South Korea in 2002 and the United States in the inaugural edition back in 1930.
However, in Russia, the intercontinental battle that many came to expect never came to pass. When a crestfallen Tite walked out of the post-match press conference in Kazan, just hours after his Uruguay counterpart Oscar Tabarez had done so in Nizhny Novgorod, that was South America’s curtain call. For only the fifth time out of 21 tournaments, the semifinals of the World Cup are going to be contested by four European teams.
Maybe this is not an indicator of a larger malaise plaguing South American football — teams from the continent failing in a World Cup held in Europe is nothing new. Brazil remains the only South American team to win a World Cup in the old continent, that feat coming six decades ago in 1958 in Sweden.
Since then, only Europe has hosted seven World Cups and only three South American teams have managed to get to the final four in those — Brazil, who made the semifinals in Germany 1974, went on to lose to hosts France in the 1998 final while the same fate befell hosts Argentina against West Germany in the 1990 World Cup in Italy.
But other numbers suggest that Europe’s newfound dominance is not a blip in the radar. Of the first fifteen editions of the World Cup, between 1930 and 1994, South America won eight and Europe seven. Since then, Europe first closed the gap, then surged far ahead — whoever wins the final on May 15 will be their 12th champion. South America only managed to add one more title in the last 24 years — Brazil’s win in 2002.
Of the five South American teams that made it to Russia, only Brazil and Uruguay inspired any sort of confidence, with only the former ever looking like a potential champion. Arguments can always be made that only an isolated bad night caused Brazil to crash out and that they are miles better than at least a couple of the semifinalist — none of that will change the fact that they went out in the quarterfinal.
The dominant theme of Argentina’s campaign, from start to finish, was how they looked a sad shadow of their illustrious predecessors, even with arguably the world’s best player among their ranks. Peru were nothing more than plucky underdogs.
The analyses of the South American washout has had varied themes. Some like former Argentina player Jorge Valdano, writing in The Guardian, have bemoaned their failure to identify what made the streets produce such good players and replicate that model in academies, like how Germany and Spain had done. Others spoke of this as a consequence of the television boom that the European leagues experienced in the 90s, which has led to a concentration of football capital in one continent.
But perhaps the most pertinent point is made by Tim Vickery in an article about Brazilian football for BBC published before the World Cup.
“Brazilian football was not born great,” he writes. “When they won those three World Cups in four tournaments (between 1958 and 1970) they were ahead of the field in term of preparation and tactics.
“Brazil were caught completely off balance by the Pep Guardiola revolution. Many in Brazilian football were convinced that physical evolution had made a possession-based game impossible and that the way forward was to bulk up and use quick counter-attacks down the flanks.” This is probably applicable for all South American teams, for their tactics in Russia have often looked primitive compared to their European counterparts — Croatia’s demolition of a chaotic Argentina in the group stages is case in point.
In four years, the World Cup moves to a continent that has been more favourable to South American teams — the only other World Cup in Asia was won by Brazil. They will have to catch up a lot before that though.