Published: June 04, 2006 12:14 am         

From the Press Box: I’ll take World Cup over Olympics every time

TERRE HAUTE — I often get made fun of in and out of the office for what (I think) is a relatively common Wabash Valley conundrum — I have no access to an ABC television station.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not as if I have a set of 30-year-old rabbit ears held together by 25-year-old aluminum foil on a 20-year-old black-and-white set — I have satellite TV. I can watch obscure documentaries, old episodes of “The Prisoner” on BBC America, the NHL playoffs (probably rarer than “The Prisoner” these days), but I can’t watch “Lost.”

I’ve had other priorities in my life that took precedence over access to “Monday Night Football,” et al, but priorities can stick it beginning Friday.

That’s when World Cup 2006 kicks off in Germany and is being partially broadcast on ABC. A monthlong smorgasbord of soccer that, to me, is much more anticipated than the similarly quadrennial Olympic Games.

It helps that I like soccer, but there’s more to my preference for World Cup than the more traditionally anticipated Olympics.

For starters, the focus is more refined. The Olympics are a case-study in fragmentation – there are certain sports our nation does well or woefully. It’s true for every nation on Earth, so it’s hard to appreciate the enormity of it all when you’re apathetic at best about many of the sports. It doesn’t help that television squeezes the Olympics for every sob story and flavor of the month at the expense of the events.

Obviously, one need only worry about soccer at World Cup. The focus is less on the individual and more on the team — Olympics are almost always about the individual. Yes, there will be stars — such as France’s Thierry Henry, Ukraine’s Andriy Shevchenko and England’s David Beckham — that will be trumpeted, but it’s nowhere near Bode Miller-like hype.

Then there’s the glorious democracy of the World Cup. In what other sporting event, heck, in what endeavor, period, do the United States and Ghana meet on even terms?

It sounds hokey, but the world really does stop for the Cup.

It has stopped wars (a cease fire was declared in a Nigerian civil war to watch the 1994 Cup) and started them (Honduras and El Salvador briefly fought a war in 1969 ignited by a Cup qualifier).

The overseas television ratings would make a station programmer die happy, the audience share (percentage of homes watching) in Brazil for Brazil’s match with China in 2002 was an astounding 92.7. To give that number context, the U.S. domestic all-time audience share record is 64, for the finale of M*A*S*H.

For better or worse, the Cup and international soccer in general is often a reflection of its country, and often, its stereotypes. The technocratic Germans, the dogged English, the terse Argentines, the operatic Italians. Some writers have opined that the heavily-structured 4-2-4 formation Soviet bloc nations commonly used during the Cold War was a reflection of Communism itself.

Brazil, the acknowledged world power, is the best example. Brazil is renowned for its samba-influenced, joyful, attacking style of play that celebrates flair instead of inhibiting it — and it’s a well deserved reputation cemented thanks to five World Cup titles. However, there’s an underbelly to Brazilian soccer — the despised dives and feigned injuries that many soccer-haters cringe when they see — has a home in Brazil. So does occasionally brutal defending.

The German stadia will be cauldrons of passion. It is the last World Cup scheduled for Europe for at least 20 years (FIFA, the governing body, has decided to alternate between continents), and the chanting that is so common in European stadia makes the atmosphere extra special.

To this day, the greatest televised sporting event I’ve watched was the 1998 England-Argentina Cup match. The game itself was fantastic (sadly, decided on penalty kicks), but the atmosphere on the grounds is what made the match, with English and Argentine fans singing throughout the match, it was extraordinary.

The dark side of the passion, of course, is hooliganism — a phenomenon that peaked in the 1970s and 80s, but dogs soccer to this day. Most hooliganism occurs outside of venues, not that it justifies a darn thing, and the hooligans themselves have little connection to soccer itself other than using loyalty to a club or nation as a means of banding together like-minded miscreants.

As for the tournament itself? It’s not unlike the NCAA Tournament. Two teams from each of eight four-team groups advance to the knockout stage. Like the NCAA Tournament, there are perennial favorites (Brazil, host Germany, England), long shots (Trinidad & Tobago, Togo) and middle-of-the-road teams. Only one non-European team — Brazil — has ever won a Cup on European soil.

It doesn’t hurt to compare soccer to basketball. A great midfielder can control the field like a great point guard controls the court in basketball. Brazil’s Ronaldinho and Phoenix’s Steve Nash share more than just oddball hair styles.

So who is this year’s George Mason? Look no further than our own shores. The U.S. continues to gain respect, but the world still doesn’t treat it as contender, despite making the quarterfinals in 2002. The U.S. group (Czech Republic, Italy, Ghana) is difficult, but not insurmountable. If Bruce Arena’s team survives the group, it’s organized enough to do some damage in the knockouts.

My pick? England is due, and they have a lot of talent just entering their prime. Forget Beckham — Steven Gerrard, Michael Owen and Frank Lampard are the mainstays of a national team that is striving for its first title since 1966.

I can’t wait to see if I’m proven wrong or right. And I can’t say that I’ve ever said the same about the Olympics.