2006 World Cup Awards
Albeit quite a different type of award, in face of the ones reported on this page, FIFA's award to the Champion, in addition of course to the FIFA World Cup, itself, should not be left unmentioned:
• the 2006 World Cup Champion will be given the prize of 24.5 million Swiss Francs ($18.75 million)!
Best Young Player Award - 
Lukas Podolski has been the winner of the Best Young Player Award in the 2006 World Cup!
— Surprised?...see 
1, footnote1, on the current page
• Though for most other 2006 Awards, the runner-up and third place are briefly mentioned on FIFA's award release page, alongside the Award winner–who is obviously given primary focus–this has not been so in the case of the Best Young Player Award. In contrast to all other Award references, Lukas Podolski receives exclusive attention. Additionally, albeit the youngest, Podolski is curiously the sole 2006 Award winner to have been honored with an exclusive quote inserted in FIFA's respective short report—see Quotes page for Podolski's words, as cited on FIFA's award release page.
— The above-linked 1, footnote1 might additionally help shed some light on why.
Man of the Match - the highest honors went to Andrea Pirlo, the only player to be elected 'Man of the Match' three times, along the World Cup.
— See the pages for both 
and Awards for some interesting details, among which a curious discrepancy emergent from the choices of players, as far as the two awards in question are concerned.
The 2006 Golden Shoe has of course gone to Miroslav Klose, who finished two goals clear of Crespo, Ronaldo and Thierry Henry, with a tally of five goals that saw him move into third place in the list of top German goal scorers at FIFA World Cup finals. See, too, All Time Greatest Scorers-2006 for the small elite among whom Miroslav Klose has likewise inserted his name in 2006!
— It should be briefly observed, within this context, that the top scorer in the 2006 World Cup had the lowest number of goals to his name since the 1962 World Cup in Chile. In fact, the low goal scoring in 2006 seems paradoxical in face of the 2006 World Cup Ball and Boots specially made with goal scoring in mind. Though neither ball nor boots were supposedly goalkeeper friendly, oddly enough, the defenses were seen to prevail in 2006.
Lev Yashin Award – 
Gianluigi Buffon, unarguably a superb goalkeeper throughout the tournament. Quite outstandingly, the only balls that Buffon let in were an own goal and a penalty kicked by 
Zidane. — Curiously, Buffon was not elected 'Man of the Match' a single time, along the World Cup, though he was undoubtedly instrumental in Italy's Title win.
Fair Play award - 
Brazil and 
Spain shared, as joint-winners, the highest number of points–a total of 886 points (from the 1,000 available)–for sportsmanship and good conduct during the 2006 World Cup. The points system just referred to was established by the FIFA Committee for Ethics and Fair Play, together with the FIFA Technical Study Group (TSG).
Most Entertaining Team - 
Portugal - visitors to the FIFA site decided on this award winner.
— Given Portugal's low goal⁄match ratio (a single goal per match–the lowest among the final four contenders), it seems clear that these voting visitors found, in the Portuguese side, a trait deemed more entertaining than goals and skillful attack combinations.
Most Exciting Game - Germany 0 – 2 Italy [
extra-time result; 0-0 in the regular 90 minutes], elected by visitors to the FIFA site. This match was one of the two Semi-Finals matches.
Again, not an award, but the result of another poll on FIFA's site, it is just the same interesting to remark that the player whose call-up for Germany-2006 was voted as having by far been the greatest surprise of all was 
England's 17-year old Theo Walcott (who, incidentally, was never given the chance to play and show why he had been called by coach Sven-Göran Eriksson).
For the Miss World Cup honors, see the Noteworthy page.
_footnotes__________________________
• 
Though no more than the above appears to have overtly been suggested, regarding Podolski's choice over Cristiano Ronaldo's, just a bit of thinking suffices to point at possible motivating factors within the FIFA committee in charge of these awards. That FIFA is diplomatically trying to avoid generating controversy can be seen on the fact that focus was exceptionally maintained onto the Award winner, among all FIFA's Award reports on that same page.
• For example, it does not take much to imagine that FIFA's delegates would have been rather uneasy at endorsing the image of a youngster whose widely broadcasted triumphant wink and grin, darted at his bench, could mislead young fans into idolizing the crafty for the craftsman, the artful for the artisan. In fact, Cristiano Ronaldo's overall performance hints at he may not yet have disambiguated the quasi-homophones, himself...
• Moreover, Cristiano Ronaldo's wink and grin had found inspiration at an opponent's facilitated misery–admittedly, not much of an example of fair play... Meanwhile, FIFA's word of order–throughout the World Cup–having been fair play, an unambiguous icon that can be harmlessly emulated, would understandably be thought a healthier World Cup legacy to soccer's young fans, than that which could be currently offered by the talented Cristiano Ronaldo.
• Podolski's image, on the other hand, admittedly lends itself quite effortlessly to the task. Like Cristiano Ronaldo, Lukas Podolski is young, valiant, and scores goals with ease. But unlike Cristiano Ronaldo's, Lukas Podolski's image seems safe from coming to evoke an undesirable fair play-related ambiguity–even though one would of course not call Podolski an 'angel'...but could any player be so?...
• Possibly in terms of sheer talent, it could be granted that the Portuguese youngster should have the edge. On the other hand, it will go down in the history of World Cups that the German striker, rather than the Portuguese, was the more successful goal scorer of the two, in the year when the choice for the best young player was made.
• So the choice for Lukas Podolski will actually look quite adequate, in the future. For facts remain registered, and can later be retrieved and recalled; whereas ideas, opinions, potentials, etc.–abstract as these are–do not. These, moreover, may and usually do change, as time goes by. But the factual number of goals that Podolski scored in the 2006 World Cup will not be altered in time.
• If failure for having achieved a nomination that may have looked like a sure choice will constitute food for reflection, rather than resentment, and therefore also for learning from the experience, it will then have been an asset for Cristiano Ronaldo not to have been chosen, as expected. He is young and talented, so this will not have been his sole opportunity to shine at a World Cup. Let us look forward to applauding his football in South Africa!
• At any rate, nothing better than time will be able tell how appropriate and how constructive FIFA's conduct regarding the Young Player Award–as we have attempted to interpret it, above–may have indeed been.
• — see [1] footnote2, right below, [2] 
Jul-20-2006 Update, below, and in special [3] the entry regarding Cristiano Ronaldo, also below.
2 Golden ... Ball Award winner...
• Zinédine Zidane was the Golden Ball Award winner, a prize which, a priori, appears to exhibit very little coherence, in light of both [1] what was argued regarding Cristiano Ronaldo's not being chosen as the top young player (see footnote1, above), and [2] Zidane's red card for head-butting Materazzi on the chest, when the ball was not even being played between the two–that is, a clear instance of aggression (in response to verbal insults, according to Zidane), which anyway was correctly responded to with a red card.
• 
See clips of the Zidane-Materazzi incident, filmed from different angles: clip 1 clip 2
• Versions of the same incident, put together with a pinch of humor: clip 1 clip 2
• So, considering FIFA's stress on fair play, in name of which Cristiano Ronaldo was apparently not allowed to be chosen as the recipient of an award, one wonders if there were not two different measures at play, considering both cases– Cristiano Ronaldo's and Zinédine Zidane's.
• What has transpired, since the Golden, 
Silver and 
Bronze Ball Award winners were announced, is that these players were elected by the journalists covering the World Cup–around 700 of them–who cast their votes into ballot boxes in the Media Center, in Berlin, on the day of the final match. As voting was possible from early on, up until midnight, on that day, the number of journalists who had already cast their votes before the match, as well as the number casting their votes during the match, these numbers will never be known. And since Zidane's stunning head-butt took place late in the match (minute 110), it is obvious that many votes must have already been cast, by then.
• Surprise came along FIFA's announcement, phrased as Zidane undoubtedly provided some of Germany 2006’s most memorable moments, and the accredited media at the FIFA World Cup Final recognized this in their voting, on their site, whereas no disciplinary reference whatsoever accompanied that undoubtedly deserved eulogy. In view of FIFA's posture in the case of Cristiano Ronaldo, one would have expected at least some explanation, were Zinédine Zidane to have been dealt with in a kinder way, considering his clear act of aggression before the World Cup's largest audience World-wide.
• Perhaps FIFA would have added to the above laudatory words that, in view of Zidane's exceptionally brilliant career, and in view of the fact that the World Cup Final Match had been the player's last international appearance, his aggression would have been overlooked as far as the Golden Ball Award, since the player's (mis)behavior had already placed a sorry enough stain on what could otherwise have been a glorious goodbye. A statement of this sort would have signalled that, however open to controversy, FIFA would be bending their own disciplinary and fair play objectives, in favor of paying a last homage to one of football's living legends.
• But none of the above was heard or seen. Only on June 11, a fairly laconic press release was then issued by FIFA, clarifying that they had had no involvement in the above-mentioned voting, while also stating that they would be investigating the 'incidents towards the end of the (final) match.' What this investigation could lead to, once concluded, was not made known.
• The same press release was careful to state that, though the referee, himself, had not seen Zidane's aggression, the fourth referee, at the pitchside, had witnessed the head-butt, and so reported it to the referee, via the electronic communication gadget that all referees made use of, in this World Cup. This last statement was evidently motivated by rumors that the aggression had only been noticed by the refereeing trio, after it had repeatedly been shown on the big screens available at the stadium (there is strong interest, on FIFA's side, to deny any possibility of ever relying on the replay available at the stadiums, as an aid to refereeing decisions).
• A couple of days later, Zinédine Zidane appears on French TV ( See Zidane's Interview–in French–or another, shorter interview–with English subtitles) and, while he apologizes to the children all over the world who had watched him sorrily losing his head at the final match, Zidane did not say that he was sorry–he actually said that his reaction could be no different, at another time, were he to hear the same sort of insults again. To this, the French star added that his mother and sister had been insulted by Materazzi who, in turn, denied, in Italy, that he had insulted Zidane's mother and sister. (In the FIFA investigation that followed, Materazzi is said to have admitted an insult to Zidane's sister, but denied the insult to Zidane's mother, which the French star, in turn, insists on.)
• The lip-reader (see above clip) could not tell what Zidane may have said (the reason given being that Zidane's head is turned away), but a close inspection of all the clips above clearly reveals that a dialogue of some sort, whatever its unpleasantries, was indeed taking place between the two players. In the name of fairness, FIFA ought to be interested in investigating also the French star's words.
• Amid the above linked to interview, Zidane surprisingly insists that "the ones to blame are always the ones who provoke." See the entry below on (mis)communication and our individual choices in human interaction, and make your own opinion.
• What is there to lament, for sure, in Zidane's words, is that it was totally unnecessary to try to place a post-match charge onto Materazzi, before the FIFA's Disciplinary Committee's meeting takes place.
• Zidane's statement suggests [1] a likely beyond-match resentment toward Materazzi, for the sad episodes in that Final Match (possibly holding the Italian guilty of his–Zidane's–own reproachable reaction, even if no one but Zidane is of course responsible for what he does or refrains from doing), and [2] a likely failure to assume his–Zidane's–own share of responsibility in the entire issue. Whereas the type of psychological rationalizing emergent in Zidane's apparent reaction, as just discussed, is indeed very common among human beings–we all tend to do that, more often than we may be ready to admit–a healthy concern toward avoiding that our inner shortcomings be detrimental also to those we deal with could only be appreciated, and would of course be desirable of a sporting idol, whose example may influence so many young fans, in special. (The verbal apology unfortunately does not efface the effects of the live example passed on.)
• Materazzi's discretion, as well as his not attempting at exploiting (to his own benefit) the physical aggression that, whatever his vulgar words, he was penalized with before a World audience, must be mentioned in this context, in name of fairness, and accordingly appreciated.
• In fact, who insulted who, or what kind of insults these were, should not emerge as the main issue, here. Anyway, these are old tactics to destabilize an opponent. However objectionable, these tactics cannot be controlled, as the refereeing trio has no chance whatsoever of hearing all that is said on the pitch by 22 players, along 90 minutes! (And, in international matches, the referees will not be able to understand every language, anyway.) So, it is at best quixotic to wish to insist on a no-insult policy—quite in contrast with a no-violence policy, as both violent play and aggression can be spotted and controlled by the referees (even if some will always be missed), and this policy can moreover help preserve the players' careers, especially regarding the most skilled ones.
• Additionally, insults to mothers and sisters are rather commonplace in Latin cultures, comprising a good deal of the vulgar swear repertoire in the Romance languages (Italian and French among these). So, given [1] FIFA's insistence that there was no racist connotation in Materazzi's swearing, and [2] Zidane's age (a full adult, past his 30's), it is difficult to imagine the French star's having heard anything so astonishingly different from the vulgar Latin repertoire of swears that would make his blood boil in defense of a 'family honor,' as alleged.
• The swearing, itself, would not be the main issue even in the case of racial-related insults, which FIFA's current no-racism campaign would find intolerable. Suffice it to ask one of Brazil's players about the countless times they have been called macaquitos ('little monkeys'), and other similarly insulting references to their often dark complexion, by their ethnically unmixed (white-skinned) Southern-neighbor players from 
Argentina, during their football, volleyball, and other matches. The Argentinians usually do not mean any discrimination for real; what they mean is to destabilize their neighboring rivals (as Materazzi succeeded in Zidane's case), and therefore gain an advantage from that, in the match (as Italy most likely did, especially considering that Zidane was then unavailable to take one of the deciding penalties, at the end of the match). For once the South American matches just mentioned are over, the players from both these countries (Argentina & Brazil) usually return to their customary mutual respect–the vulgarity and bad social manners usually left behind on the pitch.
• So, most likely, whatever Materazzi's insult may have been, it had an analogous aim. After all, he and Zidane have been team-mates, Materazzi having actually alluded (amid the current controversy) at having friendly feelings toward Zidane. So, more than the insults that may have been used, however objectionable–since this sort of thing may go on far more often than we realize, from outside the pitch–the reaction these insults may be met with seems to be the greater issue.
• Two related aspects, concerning the issue, have not yet been considered. The first is that, physical aggression can put an early end to a soccer player's career, as it has unfortunately happened now and then. 
Dutch World Cup coach, Van Basten, constitutes a living reminder of a highly skilled player whose career was abbreviated ultimately due to hard fouls he suffered as a young player (see Van Basten clip); Brazil's Ronaldo, the current World Cup greatest scorer, nearly had the same fate (see Ronaldo clip). Swearing, or whatever other vulgarity uttered on the pitch, on the other hand, can never have the same effect. Before the World Cup kick-off, Mr. Joseph S. Blatter was repeatedly seen on television stating that one of FIFA's main concerns for the 2006 World Cup was to preserve the players' physical integrity. That is to say, FIFA set in advance the parameters to be deemed crucial, in the 2006 World Cup.
• The second related aspect is that how one takes offense, is a rather complex psychological affair. From a pure linguistic viewpoint, it is common knowledge that misunderstandings can occur very easily. All that is needed is that the two people communicating fail to share a common context–then, what is said by one of them may be understood in a totally different manner by the other.
- (An extreme example can quickly illustrate the point: take the utterance Humm...I've never seen such a bad liver! If you are a butcher, selling that meat, you might take insult in hearing the words; however, if you are a doctor, you will get concerned, and perhaps hospitalize the liver's owner. Now, if you just happen to hear that utterance, but ignore whether it may have been produced at a butcher's or at a doctor's office, the choice of contexts will be entirely yours, as you go about attributing a meaning to that utterance. It thus follows that taking an insult, or attributing whatever other interpretation, is ultimately one's own choice.)
• Would a misunderstanding be anyone's fault? Should the person listening have made a greater effort to be more attuned to the speaker? Should the speaker have been more careful in setting the context his words originated in? This is rather part of human nature–we are not perfect; we would be a boring lot, if we were!... Now, once the psychological complexities are added to the linguistic, the possibilities of misunderstandings become exponentially higher, though taking or not something as a personal insult is usually a personal choice, no matter how resistant to admitting that we might be.
• - In the Zidane-Materazzi issue, the fact that Zidane has claimed that both his mother and his sister were insulted, whereas Materazzi has stated that, whatever the vulgarity he used, it had been aimed solely at Zidane's sister, this discrepancy strongly suggests that a degree of misunderstanding has underlined the entire issue. Whatever the vulgarity, it may well have sounded far more serious, in Zidane's ear, than intended by Materazzi. Although we cannot know whether or not this was the case, a serious investigation aiming at as much fairness as possible would not overlook this aspect, before any punishment is considered.
• Well, the FIFA investigation is now underway, involving both Zidane and Materazzi, and the FIFA Disciplinary Committee's final decision is to be made public on June 20.
• In the international media, there have been reports that, depending on what this Disciplinary Committee comes to conclude, it could even happen that the Golden Ball Award be taken away from Zidane. On the FIFA sites, however, there seems to be no clear statement of this order.
• Materazzi, it should be righteously observed, is no saint ( see this Materazzi clip). Non-sporting scenes that can be seen on this clip, however, could unfortunately be seen in a number of other World Cup matches, including France's. Many French players, no differently from many of the Italian, the Portuguese, the 
Australian, the Argentinian, the 
Mexican, to cite a few, and in fact a large number of other players nowadays, seem inclined to seeking the adversary's body, when they believe themselves unwatched. Thierry Henry, for one, might owe a good deal of his undeniable efficiency in goal-scoring, to the 'clever' way in which he can be seen making use of his hands and arms, especially, 'discretely' pushing, unbalancing or falling his nearest opponents, or making just as 'clever' use of his body, in leaning against the nearest defendant, and again unbalancing or falling that defender, if not managing to 'find' a free kick or even a penalty for his team. Certainly, Thierry Henry is by no means alone here. By the same token, a large number of players, as seen throughout the World Cup, seem to have developed the odd reflex of keeping one leg menacingly raised, when falling to the ground (the above-linked humor-colored clip of Zidane's head-butt clearly reveals this reflex, as Materazzi is repeatedly shown falling to the ground). The old cliché attack is the best defense thus seems to be followed to the letter...just the meaning of the term 'attack,' here is no longer soccer-centered...it is physical attack, putting it bluntly.
• Luckily for the more skilled players, FIFA's emphasis on preserving the players physical integrity–the referees thus instructed to be strict regarding tackling and elbowing, for example–seems to have kept the number of injuries to a minimum possible. Yet, cases like Cristiano Ronaldo's did happen: the Portuguese forward had to be substituted after the sole of Dutch defender Boulahrouz's dangerously raised boot (see clip) struck the Portuguese forward hard, on the thy, still at the start of the match. So, Materazzi's clip (above linked to) unfortunately portrays a dangerous tendency that appears to be shared by many modern players–perhaps the majority. FIFA has started to address the issue, and will hopefully take heart on it, beyond the 2006 World Cup, as these dangerous 'tactics' seem to be getting quite ingrained, in general.
• But this, however highly relevant, is not the issue here. These footnoted reflections are motivated by Zidane's having been honored with the Golden Ball Award immediately after the World had watched him lose his head and be red-carded off the match, despite what appears to have been FIFA's stance in Cristiano Ronaldo's case, as reflected on in footnote1, above, i.e. despite FIFA's alleged interest in discouraging any overstepping the limits of fair play.
• While waiting for FIFA's final say on the matter, French newspaper Le Figaro ran the following poll, on-line, for a number of days following the World Cup: "Does Zidane deserve the title of World Cup's best player?" (Zinédine Zidane mérite-t-il son titre de meilleur joueur du Mondial?) Surprisingly, the French appear divided, having replied oui (45.20%) and non (54.80%)–last check on poll results: Sun Jul-16-2006.
• So, whether or not FIFA will remain coherent with their stated and re-stated emphasis on fair play and on disciplinary issues in 2006, even more especially in view of the precedence regarding Cristiano Ronaldo, the Disciplinary Committee's decision, on June 20, should be able to elucidate.
• Obviously a player of Zidane's caret should be entitled to a compatibly honorable exit from the international scene. What is there greatly to lament is Zidane's having spoiled his own party.
• Zidane's red card in the 2006 World Cup Final Match does not constitute an isolated instance, however, in the French star's World Cup history. He had previously been sent off (1998, match against Saudi Arabia) and penalized with a two-match suspension. Moreover, a few of his previous club team-mates (both in Italy and in Spain) have commented in the media that they were not that surprised by the incident in the 2006 World Cup Final Match, as they were familiar with Zidane's short temper.
• There might have been an extra stress component on Final Match day, adding to what appears to be Zidane's already volatile temper: there have been reports that Zidane's mother was unfortunately at the hospital on that day. This being accurate news, it is understandable that the French star's nerves could have been more sensitive, then. But of course, should Zidane's mother have indeed been ill, this would not give him, an experienced professional, the right to escalate the response to a swear with violence.
• Mexico's Oswaldo Sánchez, for example, played his World Cup matches following his father's funeral–his father, who was believed in good health and was expected to be in Germany to watch Sánchez play, suddenly had a fatal cardiac arrest, just days before World Cup kick-off. Sánchez rushed home to his father's funeral services and back just in time for Mexico's first match. Despite the magnitude of Sánchez's sorrow, shock, and stress, none of it was taken to the pitch, in Mexico's World Cup matches.
• Should the FIFA help make up for Zidane's blatant disciplinary slip, in name of the French star's brilliant career and the exuberant football that he has delighted the World with, along these years?
• Could the FIFA maintain their morale, in special regarding disciplinary issues and fairplay, if they turn a blind eye to a stunning scene of aggression that was watched all over the World, by children and adult alike?
• What will the FIFA's own sense of fair play be thought of, if little coherence is found in the way that they acted toward Cristiano Ronaldo and Zinédine Zidane's disciplinary issues?
• Tough questions, they are faced with, at FIFA. For independently of the outcome on June 20, it is unfortunately likely that there will be more losers than winners.
• Action ought to have been taken before the Golden Ball Award voting results were made public. But as this seems not to have been possible as far as the Golden Ball Award, as it apparently was, in the case of the Young Player Award (regarding Cristiano Ronaldo, above), not much beyond mending and administering damages can now be done. The outcome of cure can of course not match that of prevention...
Jul-20-2006 Update: At last, FIFA's Disciplinary Committee's decision has been made known: Zinédine Zidane has been handed a three-match ban and a $6000 (&€4800 or CHF 7500) fine for having head-butted Marco Materazzi in the World Cup Final Match, in Berlin. Materazzi, in turn, has been given a two-match ban and a fine of $4000 (&€3200 or CHF 5000) for having insulted Zidane, that is, the provocation that resulted in the latter player's blunt aggression.
• Have the FIFA disciplinary committee, one may wonder, sought inspiration with Emily Bronté?...who once wrote the following (paraphrased fairly acurately): Even if the vilest of creatures punched me on the face, I'd not return the offense, but would ask him to forgive me for having provoked him. (See MieNet's Quotes Page.)
• FIFA's disciplinary committee's decision seems to indicate that they deem the violent reaction a bit more serious a transgression than the provocation that motivated that reaction–that is, given the 3:2 ratio between the two, following the penalties dealt to both players involved. The laws of what we call the 'civilized world,' in contrast, seem a lot harsher toward a citizen who will react violently to an insult...if insults or provocations are punishable at all, in modern legal systems.
• On the other hand, Zidane's punishment ends up being rather figurative (face-saving?), since he is known not to be playing any other international matches–whereas the fine-money should hardly constitute a nuisance, given the high salaries that his exceptional talent has earned him.
• Materazzi, however, who is not retiring, is left with a two-match ban to pay–the fine-money probably just as irrelevant to him.
• That is to say, at the end of the day, Materazzi endured an aggression, being punished for it, whereas Zidane endured an insult, being 'symbolically punished'–the punishment existing just on paper, as the money is probably irrelevant to him. But since one is not logically punished for what one has endured, let's then put it another way:
• Materazzi acted insultingly and was punished for that, whereas Zidane acted aggressively and was not really punished–rather on paper, as above-mentioned.
• An additional detail ought not be eclipsed amid the punishment talk: on that same day as Zidane's act of aggression was broadcast all over the World, the French star was actually honored with an Award, in fact, the highest World Cup individual honors: the Golden Ball Award. Admittedly, from what might be called an unfortunate timing of events, a paradox ensues.
&nbs
Goal of the Tournament - 