THOSE SCEPTICS who thought the world cup would sit uncomfortably in the USA have for the moment to hold their tongues.
Good football has been played in impressive albeit expensive stadia in front of huge crowds. Attendances are up an average of 20,000 per game from the last finals in Italy.
The same plaudits however can not go to the media coverage of the tournament. The safety of players has been sacrificed to the demands of the European TV networks, meaning that some games have kicked off at midday in temperatures reaching 115 degrees.
Age-old racial stereotypes have been repeated ad nauseam. The first game of the competition gave us "efficient" Germans competing against "temperamental" Bolivians.
Reality of course does not come in to it. The Germans have their most disorganised and least "efficient" defence in living memory.
Even more insidious has been the euphemism "defensively naive" which is applied liberally to any team with a majority of black players, namely Cameroon, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia.
Further plumbing the depths was ITV commentator Alan Parry, who during the Spain v South Korea game ridiculed the names of the South Korean team, explaining that as a race of people Koreans were naturally small and that identifying individual players was a problem because they all looked the same.
The low point however has been coverage of the Diego Maradona affair. The Daily Starreferred to him as a "self-indulgent, whining, little thug..' Clearly Maradona broke the rules. In a sacrand desperate attempt to reach match fitness Maradona took a number of banned substances. was found out and duly removed from the finals by the Argentinian football federation.
End of story one would assume. Not a bit of it; the unsurpassed glee exhibited by the tabloid press has been sick'ening.
A series of factors help to explain the vitriol of the English press towards MaraStrength and skill from South Korea's Noh Jung-Yoon (above): tragedy for Maradona (below)
dona and Argentina. First, recent meetings between Argentina and England have been marked by controversy. In the 1966 finals the Argentinian captain Ratin was sent off against England for no reason other than he appeared to be having a good game.
In 1986 Diego Maradona scored a goal against England with his hand. Argentina went on to win the final against the then West Germany, playing some superb football. The bitterness felt by sections of the media about Maradona's goal and his subsequent denial that he had handied the ball runs very deep.
Secondly and perhaps more from Wanstonia as 800 cops importantly is the disgusting legacy of the Malvinas war. The press misses tew opportunities to repeat their racist garbage every time that Argentina play. Top of the league in hypocrisy is the BBC pundit Alan Hansen. A few hours after news of Maradona's drug taking was made public, Hansen stated that Maradona was a disgrace and deserved everything that he got. Surely this is not the same Alan Hansen who was prosecuted for exposing his backside to a young woman atter he'd consumed a few too many drinks? Maradona is not the first player to be banned from a World Cup final for drug taking. In 1978 the Scottish and West Bromwich Albion winger Willie Johnston tested positive and was sent home in disgrace.
Johnston explained that "a lot of players in England at that time were taking the same tablets" and that his Scottish teammate Don Masson on hearing of Johnston's situation ".. started emptying his private medicine supply down the toilet".
Naturally this does not sit easily with assertions that British football is drug-free and that this country can teach the rest of the world about fair play and decency on the football field.
But then why should the press allow the facts get in the way of a good story - particularly when the target is an Argentinian?