The 2006 WC Players' Sources

—

Where are they coming from?

– June 9 to July 9, 2006 –

2006 World Cup Players' Sources

	x per World Cup Group	x per Squad	x Alphabetically

See, below, where the players to be defending the various National Squads in Germany 2006 are based nowadays.

On the left is a list of clubs, starting with Chelsea and Arsenal, the clubs providing the largest number of players taking part in the 2006 tournament, in Germany, well over an entire team, each!

On the right, in turn, the list displays the countries from which the largest contingent of players traveled to 2006-Germany. This list is topped by England, a country that can definitely boast being the football center where the majority of the World's top players reside and display their skills!

2006 World Cup Players' Clubs & Respective Countries

Rank	x Club	Country	# of Players	Rank	Country	# of Players	# of Clubs

1	Chelsea	ENG	15 (16-1)
2	Arsenal	ENG	15
3	Juventus	ITA	14 (13+1)	1	England	102	30
4	AC Milan	ITA	13
5	Manchester United	ENG	11	2	Germany	73	18
6	Barcelona	ESP	10 (11-1)
7	Bayern München	GER	10	3	Italy	61	17
	Olympique Lyon	FRA	10
9	Liverpool	ENG	9 (10-1)	4	France	59	26
10	Ajax	NED	9
	Real Madrid	ESP	9	5	Spain	50	12
	Bayer Leverkusen	GER	9
13	Dynamo Kiev (1)	UKR	9	6	Netherlands	27	8
	Al-Hilal	KSA	9
15	HSV, Hamburg	GER	8	7	Ukraine	25	6
	Internazionale, Milan	ITA	8
	Valencia	ESP	8	8	Saudi Arabia	23	6
	Shakhtar Donetsk	UKR	8
19	Deportivo Saprissa	CRC	8	9	Mexico	23	9
20	PSV Eindhoven	NED	7
	Borussia Dortmund	GER	7	10	Costa Rica	20	5
22	Al-Ittihad	KSA	7
	LDU (Liga de Quito)	ECU	7

— Related Notes —

	= the club's players at the World Cup are all home-based, defending a single National Squad; whereas = the club's players at the World Cup are defending a few, or various, National Squads.
	Dynamo Kiev has provided 8 players to Ukraine, and a single player (1) to Croatia. Remarkably, HSV, Hamburg, has provided 8 players to 7 different Squads other than the German (that is, none of HSV's eight World Cup players are defending the German colors!)

	Pls. see the page Players' base per Squad (or its alphabetical counterpart), in complement of the remarks below, lest the above data may be deceptive, in certain cases. For example, Italy's figure (right table cell, above), includes the 23 home-based players in the Italian Squad, as also does Saudi Arabia's figure–the total of 23 players, above indicated, refers to their own Squad players (their Squad relying heavily on both Al-Hilal and Al-Ittihad, included on the left table cell).

	(# -1), above, indicates the loss (due to injury) of a player originally called for his National Squad, whereas (# +1) indicates a club's player currently on loan, elsewhere, who was called for his National Squad (Juventus, above).

	For country abbreviations used above, and respective World Cup Groups, see here, or below.

	The above-tables are based primarily on the May 15 (2006) lists handed to FIFA, for the 2006 World Cup. Subsequent transactions or player replacement (due to injury), which may not be reflected above, should not mean a significant difference regarding the main trends above revealed, and discussed below.

	Relevant Remark: Please see here errata regarding a clear mix-up on FIFA's site, as far as above-related information! On the same eBook page (Getting it right), following the errata, you are furthermore tipped on how you can easily verify this information on your own, if you wish. You can conveniently do it, if you are using the off-line version of this eBook (free download here), as it carries a powerful search function (superior to the one on-line) which makes it simple to verify any detail regarding the above data, or any data here contained.

— Related Remarks —

At first glance, the above numbers appear to indicate a special trait of the 2006 World Cup, quite in line, in fact, with the increasing tendency towards globalization which has taken our World over. This will be the World Cup in which the largest number of players are not home-based.

From the above it emerges, also a priori, that unarguably Western Europe has become the dominant force in the World of Football (Soccer), clearly led by England, the country where the largest number of World Cup stars ever gathered now play.

From a historical view point, a curious analogy, however symmetrical, might help portray the dynamics emerging from the above data. Approximately half a millennium ago, the European navigators' major discoveries expanded the Old-World, via their conquests, and following colonization activities in the New-World. The movement was outwards, though inwardly came spices, gold, etc., onboard the ships that had helped push our maps forward. Now, within a more restrict domain (soccer), and in a symmetrical direction from that of the discoveries, top players from all over the World have been converging to Western Europe–and to England, in special.

What this may mean, in the global soccer context, is yet to be seen. Perhaps the World Cup will hold a clue, possibly the coming World Cups will. What is fact, now, is that the largest ever number of players who are used to playing together will be seen playing against each other, in Germany-2006.

This new situation of course carries a cultural change over to the World Cup, itself, though it may not be immediately apparent. Anyone interested in sociology, or social anthropology, within the context of sports, could find a very interesting subject of research, amid this scenario!

Will the current trend affect, directly or indirectly, World Cup performance? success? failure? Where else, within the World Cup scenario, can this trend manifest itself? A very large number of players are now known to each other, and are familiar, as well, with each others' playing styles, strengths and weaknesses, not to mention that many now speak and⁄or understand each others' languages. Moreover, previous World Cups carried a mystery factor that will hardly be found in the current one, or the following World Cups, should the current trend continue: when National Squads met to play, in the past, the opposing squad was usually full of unknowns, to be figured out as best one could, as the competition moved on. Nowadays, on the other hand, there are hardly unknowns, whether for players or for coaches, in most cases. The impressive development in the video (especially) and photography domains, in the last years, fully accompanied by software and internet development in the same area, of course also plays a relevant role within the scenario just mentioned.

Let us take a closer look at what the above tables indicate.

The number of World Cup soccer players currently in England's clubs is so high that even from clubs in England's fourth division, there will be players defending their respective nations' colors on German pitches, this Summer. On the other hand, the English Team, itself, counts on the meager exception of two players who are not home-based: Owen Hargreaves (Bayern Munich, Germany) and David Beckham (Real Madrid, Spain). So, the import-export balance, as far as England is concerned, heavily tips toward import. Some other situations, within this context, are mentioned below, as well.

A total of 123 top World footballers, in all (102 , from all corners of the World, plus the 21 home-based English players), out of the 352 to play at the 2006 World Cup, are coming from England to Germany. This is an impressive figure, as it would be equivalent to more than eleven teams! At any rate, this number represents over one third of all World Cup contesting players.

From a linguistic viewpoint, this of course means total dominance of English. But this is of course a single side of the matter.

Germany follows England closely, in that their Squad relies heavily on homeland clubs–only three German players do not play at local clubs, all three currently attached to two English clubs: goalkeeper Jens Lehmann (Arsenal, England), defender Robert Huth and midfielder Michael Ballack (both at Chelsea, England).

France, on the other hand, takes to this World Cup a squad that includes far more players from clubs located abroad (especially English clubs) than from French clubs. The numbers are as follows: France (9 players), England (8), Italy (3), Spain (1), Germany (1), Monaco (1). The African origin, or ancestry, of many of the French squad players may also be observed, in this context.

Spain, in turn, brings all its 2006 World Cup players either from home clubs (17), or from English clubs, as follows: Liverpool (3), Arsenal (2), Chelsea (1). The 2006 Spanish Squad counts additionally on two nationalized players–one originally from Argentina, the other from Brazil.

In sharp contrast, all players in the 2006 Italian Squad play at home clubs. In other words, none of Italy's 2006 Squad players are currently hired by clubs abroad. This is indeed remarkable, in view of the overall 2006 context, as illustrated on the tables above. On the other hand, as the above tables indicate, Italy is a heavy importer (like England).

July Update:		Within the current context, how significant can it be (if at all) that the World Cup Winner is a 100% home-based team? And, on the other hand, a team defending the colors of a country that stands out as one of the largest importers of players and soccer stars from other nations? (See above tables.)

July Update:		Regarding this issue, in the aftermath of Brazil's disappointing lackluster performances and early exit from this World Cup (2006), news from Brazil account that a Congressman intends to propose a law which, if approved, would make it illegal for the Brazilian Squad to call a player who is based abroad. Should this Congressman's intent manage to succeed its way into law, and should it then happen that the Brazilian Squad still insisted on making use of one or more foreign-based players, then the Brazilian Soccer Federation would be faced with a high fine penalty for every foreign-based player that were nominated for the team. The fine money, in turn, would be donated to amateur and youth soccer (or perhaps amateur and youth sports, in general).

		Reportedly, the motivation for proposing such a law was derived from a general feeling that the Brazilian constellation representing the country's football at the World Cup in Germany (comprising 20 players based abroad) failed to connect with the people back home, having rather been a neutral representative of their own international stardom status, than a committed representative of the Brazilian soul and flame. It was also mentioned, in this connection, that another mistake had been the Squad's having first met already in Switzerland (then thought as a convenient location to start World Cup preparation, given that most players were living in Europe), and not in Brazil, where the players would have enjoyed some healthy contact with the people on the streets, as well as the World Cup atmosphere building up in the country.

		In sum, it appears that Brazilians back home have been having a hard time coming to terms with the apathetic way in which their star-packed team was felt to have played in Germany. Whether or not the law project at stake can actually survive all standard procedures, especially in a year dominated by approaching presidential elections, it remains to be seen. But the fact that such a proposal was actually put forth by a local congressman emerges as an interesting–if not relevant–additional point, amid the overall context emerging on this and the next pages.

		Related to the same context, though on a different note, were comments made by Oleg Blokhin, shortly before the World Cup kick-off. Blokhin reportedly expressed frustration, then, at the ever increasing number of foreign players in Ukrainian clubs. His words, as cited, simply aimed at remarking that this fact had made his job all the more difficult, on two accounts: [1] it obviously decreased the potential number of local players that he could see in action, at Ukrainian clubs playing their local championships, with a view to nominating players for the squad to be taken to Germany; [2] at the same time, the presence of so many non-Ukrainian players in Ukrainian clubs had additionally started representing an unexpected hindrance to the development of young Ukrainian players.

		The argument reported, in this connection (i.e., [2], above), was that it was apparently being felt a better an easier investment for the clubs to spend money on already renowned players coming from outside Ukraine, who could provide immediate investment return, than to spend in the lengthy and always uncertain development process of local youngsters, only a few of whom would eventually grow into international class players, such as Shevchenko.

		While it could always be possible to suspect a certain degree of prejudice in Oleg Blokhin's reported remarks, they may merely be expressive of the status quo he has observed in the Ukraine scenario, and be thus entirely deprived of whatever destructive or prejudiced criticism that one could otherwise choose to read in Blokhin's expression of frustration as Ukraine's national squad's coach. A look at the tables in the current eBook section may suggest that a similar phenomenon could be taking place in a number of other places. However, the recency of this situation alluded to in Blokhin's reported comments, possibly best embodied in the modern marketing-minded club-enterprise paradigm–Real Madrid, Manchester United, Liverpool, among other clubs, for example–does not yet allow a real understanding of its consequences in the World of Football.

		Among these, one seems easily clear: it is not the number of renowned stars that makes a team a winner. Or else Real Madrid would not have found themselves starved of titles as it has been of late. In this context, see Carlos Alberto Parreira's quote–in fact quite ironic, in view of what he managed to get the Brazilian team to deliver in Germany-2006!...

		There always being a silver lining, no matter the size of the cloud, the bright side of the issues at stake–undoubtedly all resurfaced amid the context of the 2006 World Cup (in special by such facts as Italy's victory vs. Brazil's lackluster performances, among others)–could perhaps be illustrated in the Australian team: The experience that their players were able to acquire, by taking part in the English championships, in special, may have been an invaluable asset for Guus Hidding's valiant squad. Like Ghana, another impressive debutant (such as also Ukraine, though their side carrying an inherited lineage of experience for having always played a major dorsal spine role in the former Soviet Squads–see related notes), the Australian side made it past the Round of Sixteen, whereas theoretically stronger teams, such as the Czech Republic, went home in disappointment, despite ranking second at FIFA. The Australian boys, it should be added, came very close to eliminating an exhausted 10-maned