This World Cup redefines binge-watching. More, please

It’s good to be wrong.

There is still plenty of time for FIFA boss Gianni Infantino and US President Donald Trump to disgrace themselves personally, but not even those tinpot twins have enough power or hubris to wreck the World Cup.

So far, the tournament has been a persuasive argument for sport.

Forecasts of disaster were, it appears, exaggerated. Players and fans have been largely able to travel unmolested.

Somali referee Omar Artan was denied entry into the US before the tournament, but that has been an exception, not part of a pattern of persecution of World Cup participants (if a different story for non-participants).

Far from being empty, stadiums have throbbed with enthusiasts from around the globe.

FIFA’s ticket prices only seemed to be prohibitive. With America being the land of flexible pricing, who knows how much fans actually paid for their seats, but whatever the cost, it didn’t keep them out.

From all reports, the American hospitality is a reminder that 150 million US adults did not vote for xenophobia and insularity in 2024. The welcome has been warm.

Whoever thought it could be safer to be in a soccer crowd than among the American golf hooligans who are making a mess of that sport?

The American hospitality has been a reminder of the adage: a regime does not define a country. Mexico and Canada have been, as predicted, unreservedly festive.

FIFA’s 48-team format was, of course, shameless and bloated, swelling this event into the John Belushi of World Cups. But gluttony doesn’t have to be a sin.

After 72 games in two weeks, I’m kind of missing the abundance already.

A diet of four or six games a day has been fun to keep up with, even if you get into conversations that start, “Did you see that goal by … someone against … someone? Damn, it’s all a blur …”

This World Cup redefines binge-watching.

If you are used to watching football from the big club competitions, there is always a doubt about whether national teams can develop the cohesion and collective intuition that make the best club leagues so compelling.

So far, the quality of play has been another pleasant surprise, and it’s been capped off by the big boys coming out to play. Scintillating goals by Lionel Messi (Argentina), Kylian Mpabbe (France), Vinicius Junior (Brazil), Erling Haaland (Norway) and Cristiano Ronaldo (Portugal) have added the cherry to the cake.

Some of the ordinary-looking teams have been pleasant surprises. Cabo Verde’s draw with Spain was ugly, but you didn’t have to be its mother to love it; the celebrations by those Cabo Verdeans was memorable.

(Or was it the South African celebrations after beating South Korea? It’s all a blur …)

Curacao goalkeeper Eloy Room’s sequence of 15 saves to secure a draw against Ecuador was breathtaking, as have been many of the goalkeeping stops throughout the tournament.

And even though, among the minnows, Scotland have been a disappointing smoked herring, their coach Steve Clarke has been a fountain of world-class grumping. Clarke’s press conferences make Wayne Bennett’s look like Emily in Paris.

While Infantino will claim unearned credit for the players and the games and the crowds, by comparison with previous World Cups, FIFA’s organised press for fair play has yielded results.

Referees have been scrupulously ignoring theatrics that might in the past have drawn fouls, and have also been punishing rough play and time-wasting.

Compared with the butchery of past eras (see your social media feed for a steady stream of examples), this World Cup may be a pivotal moment in pushing back the tide of cynicism that has for decades been a blight on the code.

The Video Assistant Referee, since its introduction into football, has been reviled, but its expanded role at this tournament has doused more controversies than it has ignited.

It’s not perfect, but compared with the use of video technology in the rugby codes and cricket, VAR is providing greater accuracy and fewer stinks. The bar is low but VAR has cleared it so far.

Once the group stage is over the supercomputers predicting the next match-ups can take a rest.

I’ve been worried about those supercomputers being built in our neighbourhoods, using all our
electricity and water, calculating which third-placed teams will get through and who, when
and where they will play in the knock-out round.

The supercomputers were made necessary by a system that baffled an Australian commentator previewing the Paraguay match into saying, “For Australia the equation is simple. Win or draw, they progress, but we have no idea who and where they play next. Lose, and they may go home, or they may get through, based on points, goal difference, goals scored, yellow cards and pi divided by the square root of their head-to-head results.”

Like he said: simple.

And Australia? Their game against Paraguay, so keenly anticipated, ended up being what it said on the box: two mid-level teams fundamentally happy that they were not Turkey.

Making the round of 32 is a pass mark, and they played like it. Australia’s trajectory through their three matches has been that of a side that grabs an early advantage and then digs in.

That’s a professional approach from a young developing team, and while Friday’s game ended with a sigh of relief rather than a burst of celebration, it sure beats heading to the airport to deal with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials.

Get across our World Cup coverage