The World Cup of Prejudice

Before this 48-team World Cup began, the prophets of football apocalypse had already painted the picture. The tournament was going to be buried under an avalanche of exotic, unknown teams and, in their opinion, completely unsuitable for the biggest stage of football. Haiti, Curacao, Panama, Uzbekistan - these were the names uttered with a mixture of contempt and panic. They were supposed to be proof that FIFA, in its pursuit of money and new markets, was turning the World Cup into a kind of planetary festival with balls and colorful shirts.

But football has a bad habit of not respecting pre-written scripts.

Halfway through the demonstration, reality looks a little different. Haiti lost to Brazil and Morocco, which is no shame for anyone. Curacao conceded seven goals to Germany, but then drew with Ecuador. Panama narrowly lost to Ghana and Croatia. Uzbekistan didn't do much, and Tunisia seemed outclassed. Nothing spectacular, nothing historic, nothing that would change world football. But nothing that would ruin the tournament either.

Instead, the real disappointments come from elsewhere. From places no one expected. Turkey arrived at the World Cup with ambitions and a generation that was much talked about. The result? Two defeats and elimination before the last match. The Czech Republic managed to leave the competition after a run that combined a lack of inspiration with a lack of efficiency. And Scotland, it must be said without reserve, offered one of the most difficult footballs to watch at this tournament. A tortured victory against Haiti, then two matches in which attacking seemed an optional activity.

It's an interesting lesson. When FIFA increased the number of participants, critics started from the premise that small teams would lower the level of competition. But football doesn't work on the basis of a birth certificate or a federation's budget. There are modest teams that know their limits and play organized. And there are teams with tradition that enter the field as if they received an invitation to the World Cup in the mail and are still not convinced that they should participate.

Here comes the great irony. UEFA has always viewed the expansion of the World Cup with suspicion. European officials have talked about quality, about tradition, about protecting the value of the competition. FIFA has talked about globalization, representation and the development of football outside its established borders.

So far, the table seems to prove those at the world forum right. Not because all the small teams impressed. They didn't. But because the argument of catastrophe has not materialized. It wasn't Haiti that ruined the World Cup. Not Curacao. Not Panama. Not even Tunisia or Uzbekistan.

If anyone spoiled the show, it was a few European teams that came with a full reputation and an empty tank. Maybe the real problem isn't that there are too many teams playing in the World Cup. Maybe the problem is that some of the so-called "big" ones have come to believe that their mere presence is already a spectacle. And that's something that neither UEFA nor FIFA can fix by changing the format.

For now, in the political match between FIFA and UEFA, the score is surprising. Not because FIFA has definitively won the dispute. We're halfway there. But because the Europeans' main argument - that small teams will turn the World Cup into a farce - has hit a snag. At this tournament, some of the smallest teams played exactly as they could. Some of the big ones played far below what they should have. And the difference between the two categories is bigger than it seems. In the first case, you have a limit. In the second, you have a failure.