Manchester United Cannot Turn Back Clock – the Era of One-Club Rule Is Over

Sir Alex Ferguson is flanked by the Champions League trophy (left) and the Premier League trophy after Manchester United’s outstanding 2007-2008 season. Photograph: John Peters/Man Utd via Getty Images
Sir Alex Ferguson is flanked by the Champions League trophy (left) and the Premier League trophy after Manchester United’s outstanding 2007-2008 season. Photograph: John Peters/Man Utd via Getty Images
TT

Manchester United Cannot Turn Back Clock – the Era of One-Club Rule Is Over

Sir Alex Ferguson is flanked by the Champions League trophy (left) and the Premier League trophy after Manchester United’s outstanding 2007-2008 season. Photograph: John Peters/Man Utd via Getty Images
Sir Alex Ferguson is flanked by the Champions League trophy (left) and the Premier League trophy after Manchester United’s outstanding 2007-2008 season. Photograph: John Peters/Man Utd via Getty Images

A football journalist should never welcome the departure of a leading manager, particularly one as notable and quotable as José Mourinho.

The guy has been good copy over the last decade and a bit, and remained so right up to the end. Although Manchester United trail forlornly in Manchester City’s wake in most aspects of football relating to the pitch, if you could pick up points for entertaining press conferences or providing pithy replies to questions rather than attempting to defuse them the situation could well be reversed.

It was the football that caught up with Mourinho. He was found on the pitch, exposed as one-dimensional, stubborn and unimaginative, and though English football has undoubtedly lost one of its outstanding performers and truest claims to fame – many would argue the Premier League got properly going only when Chelsea arrived to get up the noses of Manchester United and Arsenal – the fact is life was getting pretty repetitive around Old Trafford and not in a good way.

United have been a stuck record since Sir Alex Ferguson stepped aside. Although Mourinho at least tried to give the impression he was either bigger than the club or better than it deserved – possibly not the smartest way to court popularity – United still ended up pulling the rug from under him in a manner similar to their brusque treatment of David Moyes and Louis van Gaal, despite backing their latest manager with expensive signings.

The only complaint Mourinho could have on that score was that United were not quite matching City in the expenditure stakes, though presumably he took the job fully cognisant of the fact a combination of Pep Guardiola’s charisma and Abu Dhabi wealth would make the neighbors much more of a threat than the noisy nuisance they proved for Ferguson.

Mourinho and Ed Woodward had been at odds all season over United’s spending and recruitment strategy, and it should not have been too difficult to foresee the upcoming transfer window potentially causing a problem when the club’s record signing had spent his last few games on the bench.

If Paul Pogba was intended as a statement signing, proof United could still attract and afford the best talent around, it ended up making the wrong sort of statement. Should Pogba leave, the statement will still be wrong but stronger. This is because, as Mourinho admitted a month ago, United are experiencing nothing but difficulty in attracting and accommodating the players they want and need.

There are wealthier clubs around, clubs that can promise a less rocky path to Champions League football, clubs with stadiums that are not full of put-upon supporters wincing at the present dross while eulogizing about the good old days, and clubs with infinitely better prospects of winning something major quite soon.

United are no longer a trophy-winning machine, no longer the sort of club that sell themselves to a player before his agent even picks up the phone. As the club have gradually fallen away in the last five years so others have risen or reinvented themselves. In the past a club such as United, or Liverpool before them, could take advantage of complete dominance by judiciously adding a striker from Tottenham here or a center-half from Leeds there, simultaneously strengthening themselves, weakening their rivals and usually making the player’s dreams come true in the process.

The era of one-club domination seems now to be over. Not even City, with all their riches, are likely to find themselves in as powerful a position as Liverpool in the 80s or United for the two decades afterwards. City may give the impression they are on their way to invincibility but they were rumbled by Liverpool and Wigan last season, have just been knocked off the top of the table through defeat at Chelsea and there is reason to suppose, given the surprising result when Guardiola was suspended for a single game against Lyon earlier in the season, that they will have a succession problem of their own to contend with when their manager moves on.

To his credit, Mourinho made this very point just before he was moved out. He said it was a little unfair for his best efforts to be compared with the impossibly illustrious past, because the two situations were quite different. United were once in a position of complete dominance, so that practically every wish could be realized, and now they are not, because no one is.

It is a good thing for English football that Premier League-generated wealth is now shared more evenly and democratically, so no one club can easily get too far ahead, though perhaps someone could pass the message along to all those clamoring for regime change or radical reform at United to bring the product back up to scratch.

The task of the next permanent manager, apparently, will be to restore United to the supremacy they enjoyed under Ferguson. Good luck with that because it may never happen. It is not part of the natural order of things that United should sit a mile or two above everyone else in the league, though goodness knows how many managers the club will get through before the penny drops.

While on the whole it is unlikely United will spend 28 years in the title wilderness, like Liverpool, it is even more improbable to envisage the Premier League elite permitting a return to the situation that pertained 10 or 15 years ago. The clock cannot be turned back, as Mourinho knew. The best United can hope for is someone may come along with an idea for a different story.

(The Guardian)



Algeria and Austria Clash Revives Memories of the ‘Disgrace of Gijon’

Algeria face Austria on Saturday, 44 years on from the "Disgrace of Gijon". (Getty Images/AFP)
Algeria face Austria on Saturday, 44 years on from the "Disgrace of Gijon". (Getty Images/AFP)
TT

Algeria and Austria Clash Revives Memories of the ‘Disgrace of Gijon’

Algeria face Austria on Saturday, 44 years on from the "Disgrace of Gijon". (Getty Images/AFP)
Algeria face Austria on Saturday, 44 years on from the "Disgrace of Gijon". (Getty Images/AFP)

When Algeria and Austria meet in their last group game in Kansas City on Saturday, it will not only be key to both countries’ hopes of progressing at the World Cup but will also revive memories of one of the tournament’s darkest moments.

The only previous time the sides shared a group, Austria were accused of conniving with West Germany to ensure both teams advanced in the tournament and Algeria were eliminated.

The game was later dubbed the "Disgrace of Gijon" after the Spanish city where the 1982 World Cup proved an eventful debut for the North Africans, who upset West Germany in their first match with a shock 2-1 victory.

There were 24 teams in the tournament for the first time in ‌1982, divided into ‌six groups of four with the top two advancing to a second ‌round ⁠of group matches.

Algeria ⁠lost their second group game to Austria and beat Chile 3-2, leaving them with four points from their three games at a time when two points were awarded for a win.

NEIGHBORS CONTRIVED RESULT TO BOTH GO THROUGH

The group concluded 24 hours later in Gijon with Austria playing neighbors West Germany and a 1-0 win for the Germans would send both sides through.

West Germany went ahead after 10 minutes through Horst Hrubesch, after which both teams passed the ball around with no intention of adding to the score and contrived a ⁠result that squeezed Algeria out on goal difference.

“Even though we had somewhat ‌expected it, we were all angry, outraged and stunned,” said ‌Rabah Madjer, Algeria’s former African Footballer of the Year.

“That two major football nations could agree to eliminate a small ‌country like Algeria, playing in its first World Cup and just emerging on the international stage, ‌was shocking.”

German sports magazine Kicker described the proceedings as “after about 20 minutes, the attacking intensity faded”.

“The Austrians, for their part, made no effort to exploit the additional space going forward. Suddenly, nobody seemed interested in playing serious football anymore. What followed was an endless exchange of passes, with few challenges and almost no urgency. Possession was ‌lost mainly through misplaced passes.”

French daily L’Equipe said there should have been 22 red cards shown to the players of both sides.

SPECTATORS WAVED WHITE ⁠SCARVES TO PROTEST

Spanish spectators ⁠waved white scarves in a traditional sign of disapproval while on Austrian television, commentator Robert Seeger told his viewers: "Turn it off!"

German defender Paul Breitner, a World Cup winner in 1974, saw little wrong.

"The public is stupid if it doesn't understand that qualification was all that mattered here,” he said, and FIFA ruled the teams were within their rights to play as passively as they did, in response to an Algerian protest.

The Germans won their three-team second-round group, ahead of England and hosts Spain, and advanced to the semi-finals, where they beat France on penalties before losing to Italy in the final. Austria finished behind France in their second group.

A direct result of the "Disgrace of Gijon" was FIFA changing the rule to ensure the final matches in World Cup group stages are played simultaneously to prevent teams having advance knowledge of what they require to advance and the possibility of manufacturing the outcome of games.

“Many people apologized afterwards. It's good to acknowledge the harm you've caused, but it didn’t change anything for us,” Madjer said.


Ghana Draw Cools England Hype and Revives Familiar Questions

 England head coach Thomas Tuchel listens to the national anthem ahead the World Cup Group L soccer match between England and Ghana in Foxborough, Mass., near Boston, Tuesday, June 23, 2026. (AP)
England head coach Thomas Tuchel listens to the national anthem ahead the World Cup Group L soccer match between England and Ghana in Foxborough, Mass., near Boston, Tuesday, June 23, 2026. (AP)
TT

Ghana Draw Cools England Hype and Revives Familiar Questions

 England head coach Thomas Tuchel listens to the national anthem ahead the World Cup Group L soccer match between England and Ghana in Foxborough, Mass., near Boston, Tuesday, June 23, 2026. (AP)
England head coach Thomas Tuchel listens to the national anthem ahead the World Cup Group L soccer match between England and Ghana in Foxborough, Mass., near Boston, Tuesday, June 23, 2026. (AP)

Thomas Tuchel's England were riding a wave of optimism at the World Cup after their opening 4-2 demolition of Croatia, but Tuesday's 0-0 draw against Ghana served as a reminder that progress at major tournaments is not always straightforward.

The victory over Croatia had showcased England at their best, with fluid attacking football, goals and a sense that Tuchel's methods were taking hold.

Against Ghana, however, they encountered an entirely different challenge. Carlos Queiroz's side defended deep, remained organized and physical, and frustrated England for much of the ‌night as they ‌emerged with a valuable point.

England remain top of Group L ‌and ⁠are still firmly ⁠on course for the knockout stages, but the stalemate raised fresh questions about whether Tuchel's side possess the creativity and variety required to break down stubborn opponents.

Ghana appeared content to sit back and absorb pressure, surrendering possession but denying England space in dangerous areas.

"It is difficult to find a way through when someone plays a 4-5-1 and completely deep and is committed to it," Tuchel said afterwards. "They celebrated a 0-0 like a win. You cannot ⁠lose your head about it."

For all of England's dominance on the ‌ball, the Three Lions struggled to create clear ‌chances. Harry Kane, who scored twice in the opening victory over Croatia, was largely isolated and ‌tightly marked.

His frustration was summed up in stoppage time when he blazed his shot ‌over the bar from six yards after Nico O'Reilly's header had struck the crossbar.

The performance also reignited debate about England's attacking options. Anthony Gordon again struggled before being replaced by Bukayo Saka, whose introduction injected some urgency and unpredictability into England's play, forcing a save from Ghana goalkeeper ‌Benjamin Asare late on.

Marcus Rashford may also be pushing for greater involvement after England's lack of penetration against a compact defense.

Declan ⁠Rice and Elliot Anderson ⁠provided control but little creativity in midfield, allowing Ghana to remain comfortable for long stretches.

Rice insisted there was no cause for concern.

"We have one more group game to top the group, so we have to be positive," he said.

England's emphatic win over Croatia had sparked talk of momentum, belief and the possibility that Tuchel's new-look side might be finding its stride early.

Ninety minutes against Ghana quickly cooled that enthusiasm.

For the fourth major tournament in succession, England failed to win their second group game, exchanging the exhilaration of a four-goal display for a frustrating stalemate.

The surge of optimism generated by the Croatia victory has been checked, at least temporarily.

And while England remain well-placed to reach the knockout stages, the sense of optimism that followed their opening performance has been replaced by familiar questions about flare, consistency and whether they can break down organized opposition when space is at a premium.


Infantino: World Cup Hydration Breaks Purely Sporting, Not Commercial

Soccer Football - FIFA World Cup 2026 - Group K - Colombia v DR Congo - Estadio Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico - June 23, 2026 Colombia coach Nestor Lorenzo gives instructions to his players during a hydration break REUTERS/Raquel Cunha
Soccer Football - FIFA World Cup 2026 - Group K - Colombia v DR Congo - Estadio Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico - June 23, 2026 Colombia coach Nestor Lorenzo gives instructions to his players during a hydration break REUTERS/Raquel Cunha
TT

Infantino: World Cup Hydration Breaks Purely Sporting, Not Commercial

Soccer Football - FIFA World Cup 2026 - Group K - Colombia v DR Congo - Estadio Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico - June 23, 2026 Colombia coach Nestor Lorenzo gives instructions to his players during a hydration break REUTERS/Raquel Cunha
Soccer Football - FIFA World Cup 2026 - Group K - Colombia v DR Congo - Estadio Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico - June 23, 2026 Colombia coach Nestor Lorenzo gives instructions to his players during a hydration break REUTERS/Raquel Cunha

FIFA president Gianni Infantino has defended the introduction of hydration breaks at the World Cup, insisting that for football's governing body they are driven purely by sporting considerations and not commercial interests.

Mandatory three-minute breaks, introduced in the 22nd and 67th minutes of every match at the tournament, have drawn criticism from players, coaches and fans since the opening round of fixtures.

The breaks, introduced to help players cope with high temperatures across North America, have opened up additional advertising windows for broadcasters, Reuters reported.

This has fueled debate over their impact on the game, with some viewers complaining about being exposed to commercials during the three-minute stoppages.

"There is no ⁠additional revenue for ⁠FIFA, as all commercial agreements were signed well in advance. So, this is not a financial issue for us. For us, it is purely a sporting matter," Infantino said in a statement on Wednesday.

The breaks allow coaching staff to give in-game tactical instructions, a shift critics say disrupts match momentum and fundamentally alters the nature ⁠of the game.

England manager Thomas Tuchel said the additional break "interrupts and changes the identity of the football match,” while Uruguay coach Marcelo Bielsa said dividing matches into shorter segments takes away the fundamental characteristic of the game.

Spain coach Luis de la Fuente and Netherlands captain Virgil van Dijk have supported the intent behind the rule in extreme heat, but questioned the need for it in cooler conditions and at covered venues.

"The main reason is the heat, but we also have to understand that in a competition like the (FIFA) ⁠World Cup, played ⁠over 39 days, with teams potentially playing eight matches in those 39 days, having a moment to rest is extremely important,” Infantino said.

"What matters even more to us is ensuring that all teams, in every match, are playing under the same conditions.

"It's very difficult to accept that a coach might have the opportunity to influence a match by making adjustments simply because it's hotter, while in another match, where the temperature is slightly lower, the same coach doesn’t have the same opportunity."

Infantino added that the breaks had not reduced the intensity of matches, suggesting players were able to maintain a high level of performance throughout games.