Justin Lovich Pittsburgh FIFA President Sepp Blatter is considering a change in the World Cup format which would make the World Cup a biennial event. I understand that UEFA is not happy with the proposal, so much so that they are considering seceding from FIFA. Is UEFA’s stance a true possibility, or just a threat? What are SA’s thoughts on a biennial World Cup? Paul Kennedy: Will UEFA secede from FIFA? Unlikely. Just as unlikely as Blatter getting his proposal off the ground. The proposal to hold the World Cup every two years would devalue the European Championship (and other continental national team championships) and run into conflict with the expanding European club competitions. Starting in 1999, the European Cups will run almost 11 months — late June to late May, including all the early qualifying (Intertoto Cup, etc.). My thoughts on the World Cup are that a biennial tournament would have half the fun, not double the fun. Think of all the anticipation and buildup associated with the tournament now. To always be in a draw/qualifying/final, draw/buildup/finals mode would get old quickly. With 32 teams, the World Cup is increasingly hard to organize. How many countries can at the moment competently organize the event? Perhaps a half a dozen. I think Blatter’s move is a power play intended not to get a second World Cup but to control the international schedule with FIFA’s own interests in mind — stop the expansion of the Champions League and get a place on the calendar for the Confederations Cup (witness the problems this year) and the eight-team world club championship it wants to launch in 2000 (Jan. or July). Robert Moles Taunton, Mass. Can you please explain to me the concept behind transfer fees? I’m not sure, but to me it seems like a player signs a deal for, say five years. Now whatever team he signs with can sell him as long as he is under that five-year contract. But this wouldn’t address the player’s salary or explain how a team could fork over a huge transfer fee for a player. (Perhaps I’m confused and a transfer fee includes the salary?) Duncan Irving: A transfer fee is the fee paid from one club to another when a player is sold while still under contract. Often, the player will get a cut of the transfer fee (around 10 percent), which is sometimes known as a sign-on fee. Watch for Liverpool to try and move Steve McManaman and Robbie Fowler, whose contracts expire soon. If the Reds aren’t able to re-sign them and don’t sell them while they’re under contract, then they won’t get anything in return. The idea is to sell the players before they are free agents. (That is, in the nations where free agency exists. Thanks to the Bosman Rule, European players now are free agents when their contracts expire, whereas previously clubs could demand compensation even for out-of-contract players.) A transfer fee does not reveal a player’s salary, but chances are that a player commanding a multi-million dollar transfer fee will also be paid handsomely. There is not, however, a direct correlation. Teams can afford to pay big transfer fees by selling other players; because they profit well from TV, ticket sales and merchandise sales; they have rich owners; or they’re foolishly going into debt in hopes of recouping their investment through the success of their big signing. (Some countries, like Germany, do not permit clubs to run a deficit, whereas Real Madrid is $100 millions in debt.) Nick Fim Easton, Pa. I was wondering when the next international U.S. Cup was planned and if it was planned for the east coast, specifically the New York or Washington, D.C. area. I went to the one in ’95 or ’96, the one with Colombia and Nigeria, and thought it was put together very well and just want to know if any other cup is planned for the east coast. Also I was wondering if there are any international club events planned that are similar to the Parmalat Cup that was held at East Rutherford in ’96? Pete Bailey: Sorry, Nick, U.S. Cup ’99 will be held in March in Los Angeles and San Diego as a pair of doubleheaders. March 11, the L.A. Coliseum will play host to USA-Guatemala and Mexico-Bolivia, while on March 13 USA-Mexico and Bolivia-Guatemala will be held at Qualcomm Stadium. The two doubleheaders setup is a change from the round-robin format used in the previous U.S. Cups. A winner will be determined by total points, head-to-head result or goal difference. The good news for you is that Metros GM Charlie Stillitano says in the Feb. 1 issue of SA that they are planning to hold a tournament similar to the ’96 Parmalat Cup this summer, although details have not been released yet. Gordon Tannura San Francisco There is some debate in our youth league about the point system to determine team standings. I’ve noticed that professional leagues provide three points for a win (in regulation), one for a tie (or a win by shootout), and none for a loss. Some in our league are advocating two points for a win and one point for a tie. I can find no Rules of the Game which identify or speak to a point system. Is this solely at the discretion of the league? Is the professional league scoring system the predominant method? Duncan Irving: Actually, most leagues used to have a 2-1-0 system, and then it was changed (I think the English were the first to do it) to 3-1-0 and then eventually the other European leagues followed suit. Naysayers said there was less reward for a team that ties away from home in the 3-1-0 setup, but the alternative is that there’s more reward for a team that wins at home, which encourages attacking play. it’s part of a grander streamlining scheme by UEFA to impose some kind of uniformity — like having no more than 18 teams in a country’s top league. However, to my knowledge, there’s no hard and fast rule as to how to award points for wins, ties and losses. Look at the A-League, which is using a 4-2-1+1 system, with four points for a regulation or OT win, two for a shootout win, one for a shootout loss and a bonus point for teams that score three goals (regardless of the outcome of the match). Joel Austin, Texas How can your 1998 MLS Ratings Leaders be given any credibility when the difference between some of the best players in the league and the worst players is only a point or so? If players who are bad are not given a sufficiently poor rating then the players who achieve a “6” rating are not receiving the credit they deserve. Ted Eck is a perfect example. In your rating system he received an average of “5.10” for the season. Mark Dodd received a “6.” Does this give any kind of fair estimate of either players effectiveness during the game? Mark Dodd consistently kept Dallas in games throughout the year while Ted Eck runs, runs and runs around the field seemingly without a thought in his head. The other teams never have to pay attention to him or mark him. In fact at times it appeared that they left him open hoping that Dallas would have to pass him the ball. Of course once Eck got the ball he promptly turned it over to the other team so it was not such a bad strategy. But now in the end of the season rankings he is not even a point behind Dodd. The argument that these rankings are not comparable across positions does not pan out. Obviously these ranking are supposed to show the game impact of a player, otherwise they would not be used to back up the MVP award or the regular season awards. Even if the player has a limited role to fulfill and that player fulfills that role, he does not automatically deserve a “5” or above. The role must be significant to impact the overall game and contribute more to the overall success of the team. So back to the example, a player such as Ted Eck deserves a “5” on his best days whereas Mark Dodd could potentially achieve an “8” maybe even a “9.” Dallas does not ask much of Ted Eck: “you run around the midfield, mark and hack the other team’s midfielders and try not to touch the ball once we ‘ve gained possession.” There are players on the bench who have more soccer knowledge and skill than Ted Eck could ever hope for as he runs and runs and runs and gives the ball away. As a result Eck’s perfect game deserves at most a “5” and if there is one bad pass, interference with possession when Dallas has the ball or missed mark, then Eck deserves a “3”. There are many “Ted Ecks” in the MLS. Maybe someone should ask,” Is this player easily replaced?” before they rate the players game perform. Ted Eck is easily replaced. Mark Dodd is not. The ratings should reflect this fact, don’t you think? Ridge Mahoney: You cite one case out of hundreds, and remember that ratings can be very subjective as well as based on results in addition to perceived performance. But over a 32-game season, players have good games and bad games, and I regard a difference of nearly a full point as significant. The difference between first place and last place in an Olympic 100-meter final, for example, can be a few tenths of a second. And frankly, while I completely agree in your assessment of Eck’s worth as compared to Dodd’s, Mark had a few patchy streaks during the season. But believe me, I regard Eck as one of the league’s most limited players, as such, he has to do far less to attain an average rating of 5 or 6, whereas Dodd, often playing behind a shaky defense, has to do much more since he’s often pounded by the opposition. If he makes 12 saves and lets in three, and earns a 6, he’s certainly done more than Eck despite receiving the same rating. In any case, I compare players at similar positions to get a true feel, and it’s also specious to compare different levels of competition. If Ted Chronopoulos gets a 6 playing for the Revolution and Harkes gets a 5 playing for the U.S, does this mean Chrono is a better player? Finally, I’ll watch a game on TV or in person, and then look at the ratings, and be in utter disagreement often enough to know that while we strive for consistency, the ratings are filtered by personal factors that can’t always be standardized. They’re a rough guideline as to who’s playing competently and who’s not, and they often spark discussion among fans such as yourself.