fifa.com have their usual tournament presentation including players interview: https://www.fifa.com/fr/tournaments...24/articles/presentation-jour-1-colombie-2024
(local time) A bumper day of fixtures to kick-start #U20WWC 2024! 🙌— FIFA Women's World Cup (@FIFAWWC) August 31, 2024 live on FIFA+ Europe based viewers (CEST): 22:00, 22:00, 01:00 and 00:40 (with opening ceremony)
I find it a bit strange that European soccer often adjust start times for the added convivence of USA (Western hemisphere) viewers while, it seems, western hemisphere locations almost never adjust times for European viewers. I know it is all about revenue but, it seems, there would also be additional revenue if the times were adjusted earlier to draw more European viewers for events like the, particularly on weekends. But the soccer higher ups do not seem to believe there is enough extra revenue to justify inconveniencing, even slightly, the large audience of the western hemisphere. It is a balancing act but it seems to favor USA in many ways. I recently retired and can watch almost anytime but it seems the start time for matches vastly favor USA based viewers much more of the time than it favors Europe based ones. Even the start times of the recent WWC in Australia were obviously adjusted to favor the USA but no real value was given to European viewers. Also the Olympic tournament was adjusted to favor the USA. I like it that I currently live in a favored country but I dislike the pretty clear bias that almost all soccer broadcasts have toward the USA. I do not like it at all BUT I will still take advantage of all the more advantageous broadcasts I can. On a slight tangent I do not like it that, if i want to watch primarily in English, events like this are carried on a number of different platforms. If my Spanish was better I would watch all the matches via Telemundo but many Spanish announcers get much to fast for me when they get excited. My true second language is German but it is harder, in the USA, to find German language soccer broadcasts than it is to find either English, Spanish or even French than it is to find German. <sigh>
France - Canada 3:3(1:2) Scannapieco(8, 49), Diaz(67) - Rose(4), Markesini(22), Chukwu(84) Cameroon - Mexico 2:2(0:2) Eto(52, 85) - Garcia(3), Saldivar(40)
While i don't disagree I do wonder, Why not. There are teams in Asia and Concacaf and South America and even Europe that are much worse than #2 in OFC. I do wonder how Fiji became second but the U20 and younger age groups are one that one or two players can make a good team great or a poor team good. That often gets exposed in tournaments when a team looses even one of the best players. I chose to watch the Colombia vs Australia match and I have to say it, so far, seems the best match of the day. I also think the ease with which Brazil seems to be winning their first match could make them underestimate the other members of their group and against France (their next match) they could struggle early as France is, at this time, clearly MUCH MUCH better than Fiji. No Brazil team men's or women's has ever shown the ability to easily adapt to very different teams. But U20 is VERY different than full team matches and I have not, before, watched the younger age groups in South America. I expect surprises from many teams in this tournament. BTW: It could be, as i have not watched much yet, that Fiji tried to actually play with Brazil. if they did then their lack of staying in the match is very understandable and then after they gave up three or so they chased the game much like a gambler trying to win back their losses. It does not work for gamblers and it does not work for soccer teams either. Hopefully they will learn or, maybe, Brazil is just one of "those" teams where everything comes together at the start of the tournament I wish the matches were set up so i could watch all matches live but FIFA does not consider U20 important enough to provide good scheduling for viewers.
Referee gifts Brazil a penalty 6:0(49) Edit: It was a video review demanded by Fiji. It doesn't help anything with such referees.
In a match that one sided the referee matters very little, except for mistakes that endanger players. Fiji is so out matched that the score is only limited by the fact that the match is only 89 minutes long. Does anybody else remember when even in the older age groups FIFA determined that playing 90 minutes was too hard on the poor little girls? Something like Wimbledon not allowing 5 set matches for women but allowing them for men. I have not followed tennis in quite a while but I this that discrimination is still in place. I am surprised, in this day, that there has not been corrections to allow, or force, equality for the women. Lastly, in the Colombia match the referee just, unjustified, disallowed an Australian goal on VAR. I detest VAR and I think it has no place in soccer. And that action resulted in a Columbia goal only a few minutes later. The referees at U20 tournaments are no better than those we saw at the Olympics or in most tournaments in the Americas. In other words BAD.
Fijian goalkeeper is only 15 years old. Meanwhile it's 8:0. It's not real VAR as the coaches can request a review twice. 9:0 Brazil (86)
I wonder if Brazil will face the same kind of backlash for running the score that the USA faced in the WWC in France. I think it was unfair then and it would be unfair now but people just don't understand that in group play if you can score in double digits (or near that) you should. Soccer is NOT about being "nice."
I'll tell you why not: when the very notion of "continent" is manipulated to the point that >90% of the area and of the population of Oceania, i.e. Australia, is affiliated to AFC "for some reason", it's difficult to claim with a straight face that your "continental" federation has the right to have two spots. It's as if Canada wanted to join UEFA for some reason (being subject to the England's King?) and anyway CONCACAF wanted to retain the same number of spots in international tournaments (with the difference that Australia's case is even more egregious).
Group A COLOMBIA --------- 1m ----- 3p ----- 2-0 CAMEROON ------- 1m ----- 1p ----- 2-2 MEXICO ------------- 1m ----- 1p ----- 2-2 AUSTRALIA -------- 1m ----- 0p ----- 0-2 CAMEROON 2 - 2 MEXICO (highlights) Eto 52' 85' --- Garcia 3', Saldivar 40' COLOMBIA 2 - 0 AUSTRALIA (highlights) Lopez 56', Caicedo 76' Group B BRAZIL ---------- 1m ----- 3p ----- 9-0 FRANCE -------- 1m ----- 1p ----- 3-3 CANADA -------- 1m ----- 1p ----- 3-3 FIJI ---------------- 1m ----- 0p ----- 0-9 FRANCE 3 - 3 CANADA (highlights) Scannapieco 8' 49', Diaz 67' --- Rose 4', Markesini 22', Chukwu 84' BRAZIL 9 - 0 FIJI (highlights) Lara 4', Amaral 9' 24', Vendito 27' 28', Priscila 49'(p.), MIlena 77', Fernanda 82', Gisele 86' Looks like Fiji is the dealer of pass tickets into 2nd round...
Linda Caicedo is sure a luxury for this tournament: other teams didn't roster eligible players who are already fixtures of the Senior Team.
Actually Australia made a pretty eloquent appeal to FIFA and Oceania and AFC showing how not only was their "quality" hampered by being in Oceania but every fed involved would make more money by the switch to AFC. I even agree that the switch improved everybody. However I also understand that it really made little sense geographically. The USA "could" make the same argument for switching to UEFA but it would not be as well received and the switch would never be approved. Canada would be even less likely as European teams would not want to travel to Canada, no secondary incentives, several times a year. This shows that most teams do not treat the Ux tournaments, including the Olympics for the men, as having real value and as deserving of going all in to win. Even FIFA does not consider those tournaments important. They do not send their best of the age group to any Ux tournament. Ux tournaments are truly unimportant but they are, often, fun to watch.
Than, if the only considerations are money and alleged "improvement", what's the point in having continental federations in the first place? Any team could choose its own federation on the basis of their best commodity. Why Morocco or other North-African team couldn't ask to enter UEFA? Or Arabian teams to enter CAF? Or Brazil to enter CONCACAF? Please, tell me, what's the point at all of having federations who refer to geographical continents if geography is an after-thought? it's an honest question, not just a rhetorical one. You could answer that federations only exist to simplify the qualification process by reducing travels, but can you really claim that's the only point? Many would answer you that there is also a cultural and sport history giving each continent some sort of identity. Others would invoke representation, and that's sure a legitimate worry: but does it really make sense to say that Asia is "represented" by Australia? And how can Oceania defend their share of spots in international competitions, if the continent is deprived of Australia (so basically it's almost entirely removed)? At this points, given the level of the rest of Oceania, it would be fair that they get just half a spot, play-offing with the weakest teams in AFC for a place. Or, even better, it would be worth to merge AFC and OFC for good, since anyway most of Oceania (in land and population) already migrated there. But then, suddenly, geographic-based nationalism would raise its head again: "Cancelling a federation? Never!". But they basically already did, since by now most of Oceania claims to be part of Asia and battles under Asian flags. In my eyes, anything would be better that this travesty. The only reason why I can accept that teams enter a different federation from their geographical one is for safety reasons in the case of conflicts in that area, as in Israel's case, who joined UEFA. Anything else is trickery to me.
The "conferences" under FIFA are little more than money making entities and FIFA shows almost no interest in either reasonability or fairness. I do not understand at all the actual rational between FIFA rules, regulations or even ideas. I believe that FIFA does not even act in enlightened self interest but rather the top officials are corrupt to the point that only personal gain drives their actions. I also think that any "conference switching" has been and will be driven solely by the perceived gain of the top officials. It has nothing to do with anything recognizable as fairness or reasonability. We do not have to like it or even understand it but we do have to accept it. Like VAR what FIFA does is unrecognizable in any other context. I also think that Ux tournaments are meaningless for most nations and just an excuse to try and milk more money from soccer fans worldwide. But I do like watching the kids of both sexes play in them. And, yes, I consider anyone under 21 as a kid. The problem seems that there are too many kids trying to act as adults and that leads to problems. But, even if we moved the age at which players can become pros to 21 there would still be problems. Money is ruining soccer but there seems no way to get the obscene salaries and transfer fees out of soccer so we just have to hope that some semblance of soccer continues to be played in most conferences. BTW: somehow the idea of "teams" or "countries" "owning" players seems to call up visions of well treated slaves of the USA between 1600 and 1900. I do not like slavery in any form and the soccer slaves and the citizens that pay to watch them are equally guilty. Moving back further in time it is much like a Roman emperor having slaves tied to chairs and watching as they beat each other to death. It was better that the regular gladiators simply fighting in the arena. Prior to a WC soccer match I keep expecting the players to turn to the stands and chant "Hail FIFA. We who are about to die salute you.".
Group C PARAGUAY ---------- 1m ----- 3p ----- 2-0 SPAIN ----------------- 1m ----- 3p ----- 1-0 USA -------------------- 1m ----- 0p ----- 0-1 MOROCCO ---------- 1m ----- 0p ----- 0-2 SPAIN 1 - 0 USA (highlights) Enrique 8' PARAGUAY 2 - 0 MOROCCO (highlights) Acosta 37' 56'(p.) Group D GERMANY --------------- 1m ----- 3p ----- 5-2 NIGERIA ------------------ 1m ----- 3p ----- 1-0 KOREA REPUBLIC ---- 1m ----- 0p ----- 0-1 VENEZUELA ------------- 1m ----- 0p ----- 2-5 GERMANY 5 - 2 VENEZUELA (highlights) Steiner 15', Bender 38'(p.) 45'+6, Nachtigall 44', Zicai 56' --- Adamczyk 43'(og.), Apostol 90'+5 NIGERIA 1 - 0 KOREA REPUBLIC (highlights) Sabastine 86'
poor officiating in GHA vs. AUT with some double standards on display Austrian defender should've been carded early in the match (even possible red - for dogso) but ref was either affraid of VAR overturnig her call, or simply incompetent.... and did nothing ~10 mins later on the other side of the pitch in simmilar situation (though not as heavy as to show RC) ref didn't hesitate to show YC to player from Ghana...