Europa League Round of 32

Select match-ups from the Nyon bowls:

• Dnipro-Tottenham
• Swansea-Napoli
• Juventus-Trabzonspor
• Viktoria Plzen-Shakhtar Donetsk
• Esbjerg-Fiorentina
• Ajax-Salzburg
• Porto-Eintracht
• Dinamo Kyiv-Valencia
• Paok-Benfica

No amazing games, as is normal for this stage of the tournament. Perhaps the best are Swansea-Napoli and Viktoria-Shakhtar, which is telling. Still, as usual, will be watching...

UEFA Champions League Round of 16

The UEFA Champions League Round of 16 has been drawn:

MANCHESTER CITY – BARCELONA
A first-ever match-up! Some say that City are favorite. Either way, this is by far the best match-up.

OLYMPIACOS – MANCHESTER UNITED
Despite being mediocre this year, with this easy draw Moyes' men just may advance.

MILAN – ATLETICO MADRID
First-ever match-up, and on any other year it would be good. As it is, Milan are as good as out.

BAYER LEVERKUSEN – PARIS ST. GERMAN
Easy peasy for the French champs. This should be the least interesting of them all.

GALATASARAY – CHELSEA
The most storied match. Mourinho vs. Drogba (so many stories) and Mourinho vs. Mancini (two former Inter coaches). Plus, both stadiums are hell to play in. Great drama coming up. Also a first-ever meeting.

SCHALKE 04 – REAL MADRID
First-ever match-up. Should be easy for Ancelotti.

ZENIT ST. PETERSBURG – BORUSSIA DORTMUND
While a one-sided match on paper, Spalletti's men are dangerous and Klopp shouldn't underestimate them.

BAYERN MUNICH – ARSENAL
What could (would?) have been the final if Arsenal hadn't mucked up their group. Great game! I can't wait.

Champions League R16 lineup before the draw...

Six months and six rounds later, we have our Champions League Round of 16 teams! There were no major surprises in the group stage, though it is always unpleasant to see teams knocked out with 12 points.

Here are the seeded (group winners) and unseeded (group runners-up) teams. The knockout stage draw will be Monday, December 16th in Nyon, at noon CET, so 6:00 a.m. Eastern US. The first legs will be played on February 18, 19, 25, 26 and the second legs on March 11, 12, 18, 19. The quarterfinal draw will be on March 21st.

As UEFA.com reports: "The runners-up are drawn first and play the first-leg matches at home. They cannot be paired with either the winners from their section or clubs from the same association."

Champions League R16 seeded teams: group winners
Manchester United.......... England
Real Madrid..................... Spain
Paris Saint-German........ France
Bayern Munich................. Germany (advance as winners over Man City on goal difference)
Chelsea............................ England
Borussia Dortmund......... Germany (advance as winners over Arsenal on goal difference)
Atletico Madrid................ Spain
Barcelona........................ Spain

Champions League R16 unseeded teams: group runners-up
Bayer Leverkusen............ Germany
Galatasaray...................... Turkey
Olympiakos...................... Greece (advance over Benfica on standings)
Manchester City............... England
Schalke 04....................... Germany
Arsenal............................. England (advance over Napoli on goal difference)
Zenit St. Petersburg........ Russia
Milan................................. Italy

Third-ranked teams that advance to the Europa League R32
Shakhtar Donetsk........... Ukraine
Juventus........................... Italy
Benfica............................. Portugal
Viktoria Plzen.................. Czech Republic (advance over CSKA Moscow on goal difference)
Basel................................ Switzerland
Napoli............................... Italy
Porto................................. Portugal (advance over Austria Vienna on standings)
Ajax................................... Netherlands

Germany advance all four teams again, two as first. England also advance all three, two as first. Spain advance three out of four, all three as first. Italy fall short by only advancing one, as runner-up, as both Juventus and Napoli are knocked out in the last five minutes of the last match day. This means that the current UEFA coefficients for direct group stage qualifiers have been respected and are likely to stay the same in the near future (currently: Germany 4, Spain 4, England 4, Italy 3, France 2).

Given the draw restrictions, I think that these would be the most interesting match-ups to come out of the Nyon bowls on Monday:

• Chelsea-Milan, because they have literally never met in official international competitions!
• Barcelona-Manchester City, for the same reason!
• Real Madrid-Arsenal, because they have not met since the R16 of 2005-2006.
• Manchester United-Bayer Leverkusen, because Bayer have an actual shot at advancing
• Bayern Munich-Zenit St. Petersburg, because Guardiola used to be Spalletti's player at Roma

I can't wait to find out.

Some early observations about the WC groups

The draw was the usual shitshow. As US coach Klinsmann said: "they could have just e-mailed us our opponents and that would be fine." Ha! I agree. Also, who the hell let Fernanda Lima on the stage?! Now finally we can talk about real football.

----

The hosts have been relatively lucky, though there are no dead weights in this group. Perhaps more importantly, Croatia, Mexico, and Cameroon are all at more or less the same level, and in few groups will the second spot be so hotly contested. Also, Brazil should beware of racking up three lopsided wins and become overconfident going into the R16, when the real World Cup begins. My projection: BRAZIL and CAMEROON.

The first Group of Death, for Australia anyway: they Kangaroos are practically out, while Spain, Netherlands, and Chile will battle it out. This group has both finalists from the latest edition (Spain and Netherlands). This also happened in 2010, when Italy and France were in the same group -- and both went out in the group stage. I don't see that happening to Spain, but given the recent Oranje mishaps I think that Chile have a leg up. This will be a lot of fun to watch. My projection: SPAIN and CHILE.

One of two easiest groups, though this one too will be interesting due to the four teams being roughly even. I give a slight edge to Colombia and Ivory Coast, but Japan's fizz and Greece's bus-parking abilities ought not to be underestimated. My projection: COLOMBIA and IVORY COAST.

The second Group of Death and the only one with three previous World Cup winners! There is much footballing history here, for if England is the "mother" of football, Uruguay is surely the "father," and Uruguayans are basically Italian expatriates. These three have also met recently in major tourneys (Euro 2012 and Confeds 2013): Italy have always prevailed, but always on penalties after very close matches. While I like Costa Rica, this group should prove too much for them. I also trust Italy's ability to perform best against good teams. My projection: ITALY and URUGUAY.

The easiest group by popular consensus, so the French have scored big this time. Of course, France are themselves a very weak team lately, and I think that no amount of last-minute good luck will change that. Still, given the field, they ought to qualify. Also, I think that Switzerland will surprise. While they're no Belgium, they are slowly rising as a new force of European football. Let me put it this way: for the first time, Switzerland at their best are better than France at their best. My projection: SWITZERLAND and FRANCE.

Argentina got lucky again, but they've been lucky the last few times around and haven't been able to deliver when it really mattered. Still, that rarely happened in the group stage, so I think they will cruise. Bosnia and Nigeria will contend the second spot, and frankly I think that much will depend on the Bosnians. They are a young team with extremely promising talents, and if they're in the mood they can do great. As it stands, I trust experienced Nigeria more. Iran are glad to be here. My projection: ARGENTINA and NIGERIA.

The third Group of Death, and in my view this is the real killer. Unlike in B and D, here there are no "cushion" teams and all four have a genuine shot. Surely the USA look weakest on paper, but I would not discount Klinsmann and an overall experienced team. Conversely, Ghana do not look as good as in the past, and for that matter neither does Portugal Ronaldo, I mean (they have no team). With the exception perhaps of Germany, who as usual have the skill to go all the way, this one is up for grabs. My projection: GERMANY and PORTUGAL.

Belgium got lucky, and I am glad, because they deserve to be in the knockout rounds (and we deserve to see them play at high level). I think they are not a fluke and will deliver when it matters. Russia are the obvious candidate for the second spot, but watch out for the ever-resourceful Koreans, who while not as brilliant as one might have predicted 12 years ago, they are still dangerous. My projection: BELGIUM and RUSSIA.


-------
Possible brackets coming up next...
-------

ROUND OF 16

BRAZIL – Chile
Colombia – URUGUAY
Switzerland – NIGERIA
GERMANY – Russia
SPAIN – Cameroon
ITALY – Ivory Coast
ARGENTINA – France
BELGIUM – Portugal

QUARTERFINALS

BRAZIL – Uruguay

Nigeria – GERMANY

SPAIN – Italy

ARGENTINA – Belgium

SEMIFINALS

BRAZIL – Germany
Spain – ARGENTINA

FINAL

BRAZIL – Argentina

---
---

Three unbelievably funny sports GIFs

Out of the shotgun... play action... pass downfield... TOUCHDOWN! (but he threw way past the line of scrimmage!)

Does this count as excessive celebration? Did they ALL get yellows? Doesn't matter: I want that photo.

Mourinho's attack plan for Chelsea strikers.

The best night of college football

"Who is writing this stuff?!"
--Ian Darke, May 13th 2012, as Manchester City won the EPL title at the last second

Tonight ranks among the best sport nights of my entire life. I do not say this lightly. The last time I have felt this way was when Chelsea won the Champions League in May 2012. This is different, and yet the strength of the emotion is very similar.

Rather than my team winning a major trophy, tonight was a convergence of some amazing games, topped off by what is certainly the single best game finish in college football history. I am still far too swept by emotion to recount it in as much detail as it deserved. Suffice it to say that within the span of a few hours, Ohio State and Michigan battled it out in one of their best rivalry games to date; Virginia Tech beat Virginia for the tenth straight year; and Auburn defeated top-ranked Alabama in a glorious apotheosis thanks to an unbelievable sequence of plays in the last few seconds.

When Chris Davis returned the missed field goal, I could not believe my eyes. I kept thinking, "surely he can't expect to go far... I mean... wait... there must be a flag... oh god... oh please... NO FUCKING WAY!"

And then, just as when Chelsea won the UCL, I screamed and ran across the room like a man possessed. In the last few years of slowly becoming educated in the ways of American college football, I've hated no team more than Alabama, for the sole reason that they have been winning easy, far, and wide for as long as I have been into this sport -- and winners suck. And as I also often root for the underdog, supporting Auburn in this Iron Bowl was a no-brainer. I had been bragging all day that the Tigers would win, but I didn't really believe it. Not until that very last second. And even now it feels weird. I can only imagine what's going on right now, both in Auburn and in Tuscaloosa.

I don't have it in me yet to describe the game exactly, so I will just post a video of the final play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t9nNiH8g4A

But there is much more to say, of course. Another time.

Five controversies on Sochi 2014 and major sporting events in general

Brazilian unionists protest the privatization of public transport for the World Cup.

Much controversy has surrounded the preparations for the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. By itself that is remarkably unremarkable, as controversy always surrounds major global sporting events. Here I want to attempt to break down five sources of debate, some of which also apply to sports in general rather than to specific one-off events.

• THE HOSTS SUCK. To some extent, this objection is leveled to every venue for every event: Moscow in 1980 was communist, Atlanta 1996 was bought by Coca-Cola, South Africa in 2010 was dangerous, Brazil 2014 exploits poor workers, and so forth, all the way back to the most infamous, Berlin 1936. Now the latest is that Russia hates gays. No one place is immune from such social criticism... nor should it be, because the critics are usually right: most places do in fact suck, some worse than others. Hitler sucked worse than Putin; Putin worse than Roussef; etc. If we wait for morally irreprehensible venues, the next Olympics would be on the moon. Some might say that this just one more reason to give up on sports, but see my next point. (More subjectively, I am also deaf from that ear: whenever extremists like Italian journalist Bruno Vespa claim that we should shut down all the pro leagues, I just tune them out). If anything, major sporting events are occasions to highlight political issues and make them visible to the world at large. This can be done by participation, or by boycott, or by media attention, or in many other ways. Jesse Owens did it by winning. The USA in 1980 did it by boycotting. As no one is expected to boycott Sochi 2014, and given that human rights are a hot topic in the West right now, I expect there to be major media coverage of Russia's disgusting discrimination. This, too, is one of the functions of sport (think about the World Cup in Brazil 1950, or what the Seoul Olympics did for the North-South divide).

• Edit. Let me be very clear here. I am not trying to silence critics. Quite the opposite, in fact. I am saying that if you don't like the host country, your only options are not to either submit or to call for the cancellation of the event. You don't like that Russia is criminalizing homosexuality? Neither do I. Let's write about it, scream about it, make a lot of noise, take to the streets, and put the money where the mouth is. All of those forms of protest are completely compatible with watching the actual the Games and enjoying them as sports. If you think that people shouldn't even watch them because it would constitute hypocrisy, or a betrayal of your commitments, I disagree with you. At most that's a boycott of your living room, not of the Games. (I am looking at you, George Takei). You, as a viewer, are not in a position to boycott anything, save for the advertisers who sponsor the Olympics. Athletes and federations are, instead, so what you can do is make a lot of noise about it to them. Or you can criticize the IOC for choosing to award the Olympics to such a rogue country, but again, no countries are saints, and not having sports is just not an option.

• TOO MUCH MONEY. The event vacuums in funds that could be used elsewhere, such as for social programs. I find this one ludicrous. It is the same argument that some raise against space exploration, high-tech research, etc. Sporting events are public goods that are enjoyed by and valuable to large slices of the population, and which, when adequately planned, greatly stimulate an economy. Very few people's interests are served by gutting them. If anything, the following two criticisms make sense. For one, major sporting events must not be occasions to exploit workers. When exploitation happens, the media coverage is once again useful to highlight and evidence it, because that sort of injustice probably exists in the host country quite apart from the sporting event: if the powers that be are quick to exploit workers to meet IOC deadlines, chances are that they are quick to exploit them every other day too. Second, there needs to be less money in sports, but it has to come out of the salaries of star athletes and a reduction in the bullying preponderance of ad revenues. The problem is not the $51 billion spent on Sochi, but the $51 billion that the world's top ten soccer stars make in a lifetime. The world needs sports, but no player needs the world.

• TOO MUCH ATTENTION. "While a major sporting event is going on, there is little room in the news for anything else." For one, it is not true. Sports coverage is relegated to either special newscasts (sports broadcasters in the US) or to the middle or bottom of a news run schedule. Exceptions are very rare, and they are usually made for one-day events (the Super Bowl in the US or the Champions League final in the EU) or to cover a unique event (Michael Phelps or Wilma Rudolph). Even during the Olympics, which are arguably the most followed two-week sporting event in the world, the coverage of non-sports newscasts and newspaper is negligible. Finally, even assuming that this were true -- is it really such a bad thing? Must we talk about injustice, war, and famine all day every day? I am fully aware that the current world demands that we not be distracted from the fundamental injustice that afflicts us. But those who claim that sports "takes attention away" from "serious things" seem to me to need a major dose of lightening up. You can be 90% obsessed with your cause, as opposed to 100%, and that will be plenty enough! ;-)

• INEQUALITY. There is no denying that sports are male-dominated affairs. Even in the US, which is one of the world's most progressive countries in this sense, Title IX has done little more than institutionalize a female presence in sports, without a corresponding shift in the prevailing social attitudes -- when is the last time you saw women's sports in prime time? And some of the world's most followed sporting events, such as the World Cup and the Champions League final, are male exclusives. I agree with this criticism completely, though of course it is less applicable to the Olympics, which are more equal sex-wise. Until 40-50 years ago, women's Olympic sports were still poorly attended and poorly funded, but that has not been the case for a long time now. Also, and related to the previous points, major sporting events are excellent occasions to promote equality at all levels. The very "men and women" categorical divide in sports has been repeatedly challenged in the last few years (Caster Semenya), as has been the ableism that sport is sometimes seen to promote (Oscar Pistorius). And of course racism is no longer a significant issue in world sports, not as much as it is in local leagues such as the Premier League and the NFL. Recall the joke: "if sport isn't racist, then why does the black guy always win?"

• COMPETITION IS BAD. Every time that there is a major sporting event, someone inevitably pulls the "we should encourage collaboration, not competition" card. I am tired of hearing about it and of rebutting it. Instead, I will link to an old piece that I wrote about the ethics of lopsided victories, which contains observations about the very nature of competition. In short: (1) competition and antagonism aren't the same thing; (2) competition in sport engenders collaboration outside of sports; (3) most people who say that they hate competition in sports hypocritically cherish it elsewhere in life; and (4) those who are truly afraid of all competition anywhere could use with a little perspective. At most, the following argument can be made, by rejecting #2: that sport encourages tribalism and factions and divides more than it unites. I partially agree with this problem, which I address in a forthcoming piece. The short of it is: sport does increase tribalism, but it also lessens it, depending on application and preexisting social circumstances. Sometimes sport acts as a mirror, while others it is a catalyst. I think that it is the former far more often than the latter, but it is definitely the latter as well, and that needs to be addressed (but of course you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, etc etc etc -- again, I am deaf to those who argue for the dissolution of all pro sports).