ANALYSIS-Soccer-European World Cup qualifying group-by-group

DURBAN, Nov 25 (Reuters) - A group-by-group analysis of the European qualifying competition for the 2010 World Cup finals in South Africa following the draw made on Sunday.

The nine group winners will qualify for the finals with the eight runners-up with the best records meeting in four play-offs to produce a total of 13 European finalists.

GROUP ONE (Portugal, Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, Albania, Malta) Top seeds Portugal and Sweden should both advance from a group in which they have been drawn to play each other competitively for the first time since the qualifying competition for Euro 88. Scandinavian rivals Sweden and Denmark were also drawn in the same qualifying group for Euro 2008. Their match in Copenhagen in June was abandoned when a Danish fan came on the field and attacked the referee.

Just four days after Croatia beat England 3-2 at Wembley to eliminate England from Euro 2008 and cost coach Steve McClaren his job, they were paired together again. Andorra were also in the same group as Croatia and England and lost every match.

It is a group that could not have existed 20 years ago: Croatia, Ukraine and Belarus became FIFA members in 1992, Kazakhstan in 1994 and Andorra in 1996.

I think England has a chance of making it.

But they are definitely going to need Klinsmann as coach (see below) or the slim margin of viable talent they are actually able to get onto the field can be too easily mismanaged.

Top priority right now must be an immediate improvement in their daily diet (fresh fruits and veggies for essential vitamins, real milk for strong bones, no more binge drinking) so they don’t injure themselves in training so much.

GROUP FOUR

(Germany, Russia, Finland, Wales, Azerbaijan, Liechtenstein)

Germany, who have lost only two of the 64 World Cup qualifiers they have played, should top the group with Russia finishing ahead of Finland and Wales.

It's an interesting concept, if you ponder it for a while. One of the reasons MLB can't get its plans for a "real" World Series (the "World Baseball Classic") off the ground is because the U.S. team owners (who have the power to prevent it) are unwilling to risk their multi-million dollar players in what are essentially exhibition matches. Also why the USA was demolished in the 2006 tournament, but I digress.

On the other hand, FIFA (a governing body that actually governs) requires each nation's football associations to release players to play on their respective national teams when asked, a requirement with roots in the idea that "exhibition" games between national teams serve to promote the sport.*

As a matter of contract law, both approaches are equally valid: the first, because the MLB player is essentially an independent contractor (and can thus be contractually-bound not to ride motorcycles, for example); and the second, because the FIFA player is a "temp," (and can thus be contractually-bound to appear elswhere because the team and the player entered negotiations with their "eyes wide open" regarding the requirement).

_____
*For an excellent discussion of the differences between Major League Baseball and Association Football, I recommend the book, National Pastime: how Americans play baseball and the rest of the world plays soccer, by Stefan Szymanski and Andrew Zimbalist (two economists writing for the squishy-Left Brookings Institution). It's a fascinating discussion of how the two sports evolved (simultaneously!), shared ideas in some cases, and went in different directions in others.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.