Mkhitaryan and Sánchez Prove No Transfer Is Ever a Sure Thing

Antonio Conte welcomes Alexis Sánchez to Internazionale. Photograph: Claudio Villa - Inter/Inter via Getty Images
Antonio Conte welcomes Alexis Sánchez to Internazionale. Photograph: Claudio Villa - Inter/Inter via Getty Images
TT

Mkhitaryan and Sánchez Prove No Transfer Is Ever a Sure Thing

Antonio Conte welcomes Alexis Sánchez to Internazionale. Photograph: Claudio Villa - Inter/Inter via Getty Images
Antonio Conte welcomes Alexis Sánchez to Internazionale. Photograph: Claudio Villa - Inter/Inter via Getty Images

The Liverpool teenager Bobby Duncan appears to have bucked a growing trend by leaving to join Fiorentina in Italy. Whatever the rights and wrongs of a dispute with the European champions that led to the player’s exit, Fiorentina are at least getting a promising young talent at the right age.

Most of the recent Italian imports from the Premier League have been just the opposite, with Henrikh Mkhitaryan joining Alexis Sánchez in Serie A after failing to convince he was worth a regular place at Arsenal.

Fair enough, Romelu Lukaku is only 26 and Chris Smalling could easily enjoy a career rejuvenation at Roma but there seems something almost poetic about Mkhitaryan and Sánchez, both 30, ending up in Italy when they so conspicuously failed to live up to expectations after the swap deal between Arsenal and Manchester United in January 2018.

Had any money changed hands that particular bit of transfer business might now be regarded as one of the most ill-judged in Premier League history, though Sánchez’s stratospheric wages at Old Trafford helped ensure a massive financial hit to the club did not go unnoticed.

As recently as six months ago Ed Woodward was still trying to sweep the mistake under the carpet, arguing United could easily afford to keep paying Sánchez’s reputed weekly wage of £400,000 until his contract expired, though the executive vice-chairman appeared to overlook the difficulty Ole Gunnar Solskjær would face in pretending it was normal to have the club’s highest-paid player a non-functioning and visibly struggling presence on the first-team periphery.

Sánchez has just said that with more game time at United he might have made an impact, though most supporters who have witnessed his misery over the past 18 months would surely agree with Solskjær and the club hierarchy that after a certain number of chances it is best to accept something is not working and try to move on.

The only mystery now that Sánchez has left England is what Internazionale could possibly have seen in the player’s contribution at United to convince them he may be worth taking on. His telepathic partnership with Lukaku, possibly? His knack of scoring important goals just when needed? If only.

Obviously the Chilean has been a top performer – watch some of his highlights from Barcelona and even Arsenal and plenty of potential takers might be excited – but looking backwards failed to work out for United despite José Mourinho’s confidence at the time.

It was no surprise when Mourinho went for Sánchez; the manager has long held a preference for signing established, no-risk individuals who can slot into a team straight away and Sánchez had spent the last few months of his time at Arsenal looking like a man counting the days until he could reach a more suitable destination.

Perhaps we should have guessed then that the eventual move would not work out happily for anyone involved. Mourinho might have had a clue that off-the-peg players do not always thrive in different environments through Mkhitaryan’s generally disappointing performances for United. The Armenian had good days and bad days but soon found himself out of the side.

He was not a Sánchez-size problem because he was not on the same wage scale, though it was evident fairly early that the manager had reservations about his new player. That is how he ended up being traded for Sánchez, and Arsenal fans could not have been all that surprised to find he found it just as difficult to hold down a regular place when he turned up in London.

There is a theory the Premier League is just too quick and physical for some players. Mourinho initially said Mkhitaryan would need time to adapt, which was fair enough, though he never quite did adapt, at United or Arsenal. Perhaps this is surprising for a player who shone in the Bundesliga (not exactly a village green competition), yet in his best seasons with Borussia Dortmund Mkhitaryan was surrounded by attacking pace, and he was often the player who would take a split‑second longer to pick out a run or see a pass.

United in particular have spent the past few years trying to inject more pace into their game, to increase their overall tempo, largely without success. Mkhitaryan might have been the answer, once, though under Mourinho it was felt he slowed the game down, and at Arsenal he seemed to suffer from a loss of confidence as much as anything else. Perhaps that would not have happened had he joined Arsenal earlier, instead of arriving midway through Arsène Wenger’s last season. Instead he left Dortmund to join United, one of several players represented by Mino Raiola to link up with Mourinho at the club.

It is possible that sometimes agents know even less about how transfer deals will work on the pitch than managers, their main interest being movement and money rather than the delicate art of team building.

Certainly there are Liverpool supporters who suspect the 18-year-old Duncan’s move to Florence was a plan hatched by his agent rather than the player, and if for no other reason one can only hope such a bold move by one so young works out. Also, paying £1.8m for an untried teenager is a risk a club should be taking – at that price it may turn out well for all parties.

Whether the same can be said of the last-minute loan deals that have taken Premier League players to Italy is more debatable but at least Arsenal have got Roma to take over Mkhitaryan’s considerable wages for a year. United, inevitably, will still be paying much of the Sánchez salary. All of which goes to show that no matter what age, no matter what track record, there is no such thing as a risk-free signing. Not that United do not know that already.

(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.