So, the Confederations Cup is over and much of the pessimistic handringing beforehand proved unfounded.

Despite some real logistical problems, the general verdict seems to be that the tournament was a success with enthusiastic and colourful crowds and some classy and unpredictable football, not least the United States’ shock semi-final defeat of Spain and a thrilling final where Brazil went 2-0 down to the Americans before storming back to win 3-2 and ensure the football world was not thrown off its axis.

Crucially, South Africa’s own team, Bafana Bafana, did a lot better than many of their own fans had expected. The side suffered a lot of bad press from their terrible pre-competition form — they did not even qualify for next year’s African Nations Cup finals — and Brazilian coach Joel Santana had been treated with scepticism by football writers and fans alike. Even Danny Jordaan, chief executive of the organising committee for next year’s World Cup, expressed concern over their form.

After a slow start, however, South Africa turned in a creditable, if not outstanding performance. They reached the semi-final and held eventual champions Brazil until the 88th minute when they went down to a scorching free kick by Daniel Alves. And in the third place final they pushed European champions Spain into extra time before finally losing 3-2, again to a freekick.

They badly need more strike power and it looks like Santana must make peace with English-based striker Benni McCarthy who was dropped from the team for his apparent lack of commitment. But their performance gave grounds for some optimism.

Bafana Bafana’s Confederations Cup performance was key to the 2010 World Cup because it will encourage local fan participation — a constant worry for the organisers, who expressed concern before this tournament about lack of home enthusiasm.

Nevertheless, there are continuing worries that even the cheapest World Cup tickets are still too expensive for working class South Africans and that they will be unwilling to pay in advance for entrance in a year’s time, something which goes directly against the entrenched local custom of buying tickets on match days.

World Cup matches attended predominantly by foreign fans and restrained, middle class South Africans would be a huge disappointment for the first World Cup held in Africa, where the unique local atmosphere was a major selling point.

That isn’t the only worry in considering what the Confederations Cup tells us about the likely success of next year’s much bigger global competition.

FIFA boss Sepp Blatter gave organisers 7.5 points out of 10 for the Confederations Cup but World Cup veterans said this was nothing to be complacent about, given his likely tendency to talk up the tournament. Even Blatter said South Africa had to do “a little bit more” and FIFA Secretary General Jerome Valcke was more direct, acknowledging problems with transport, security and accommodation capacity, which is still significantly below what will be required next year.

Security is a particularly sensitive issue, given South Africa’s frightening reputation for violent crime, so it was unfortunate that the Confederations Cup saw alleged thefts from both Egyptian and Brazilian teams, although some of the circumstances remain mirky.

More serious were security lapses in access to stadiums and other areas. Such failures must be cleared up in the time that remains if fans are to follow their teams without constantly looking over their shoulders.

So the Confederations Cup provided both encouragement and warnings. Okay so far, but much more to be done. The next 12 months may be both nerve racking and frenetic for the organisers but we are all still hoping for a reasonably trouble-free football extravaganza with the special atmosphere that only Africa can give it–including those pesky vuvuzela trumpets…

PHOTO: A South African fan at the June 28 Confederations Cup final REUTERS/Dylan Martinez

FIFA president Sepp Blatter has caused controversy with his remarks about modern day players being treated like slaves.

 ”I think in football there is too much modern slavery, transferring players or buying players here and there, and putting them somewhere,” Blatter said. “And we are trying now to intervene in such cases.”

Critics say his comments are ridiculous given players are paid millions more than the average fan, who would give anything to turn out for his favourite club for free.

Asked specifically about Manchester United’s efforts to prevent their Portuguese forward Cristiano Ronaldo leaving to join Real Madrid, Blatter told Sky News the English side should let him go.

“If the player wants to play somewhere else, then a solution should be found,” he said. “Because if he stays in a club where he does not feel comfortable to play then it’s no good for the player and for the club.”

Blatter’s point is that in normal life a worker can resign from his contract and move to another employer whenever he wants.

It all boils down to whether player deals are viewed as financial contracts or personal ones. Manchester United will at least be well compensated if Ronaldo moves, which would not happen if Joe Bloggs moved from normal job A to normal job B.

But being a soccer player is not a normal job, is it?

PHOTO: Portugal’s Ronaldo leaves after a treatment session on his injured right ankle at a physiotherapy centre in Lisbon. July 11 REUTERS/Hugo Correia

FIFA president Sepp Blatter’s plans to limit the number of foreign players in a team, otherwise known as the “6+5″ rule, received overwhelming backing at FIFA’s congress in Sydney on Friday.

His plans, which would see clubs allowed to field a maximum of five foreign players, are contradictory to European Union laws and Brussels has already warned of legal action against any country which allows this rule to be implemented. Many national associations, leagues and clubs also say the plan is unfair and unworkable.

Blatter is forging ahead with the idea “for the good of the game” and says he has the backing of the fans.
    
But does he? Would such a rule make it fairer for smaller clubs? Or would it lead to, say, Manchester United and Chelsea buying all the best English players, or Real Madrid cherry-picking Spanish players for reasons of nationality rather than ability?

UEFA says its ”home-grown player” rule — which has the backing of Brussels — is a “more balanced” approach.

Under this rule, clubs would have to have in their squads at least eight locally trained players, defined as players who have spent three years with that club or a club in the same association between the age of 15 and 21, without any nationality conditions. 

UEFA says this will make clubs invest more in local talent and give any youngsters coming from Africa or Latin America better training and education.

Mike Collett writes in his analysis at our soccer website that Blatter’s plan is laudable but unworkable, while there’s another thoughtful piece over at Soccerlens. 

Elsewhere, Chris at Gooner Talk calls the idea ludicrous, Soccer Guru carries the headline “Sepp Blatter destroys Premiership” and there are far less polite comments around the Web.

What do you think? Is this merely a romantic idea that hasn’t a snowball’s chance in a world of soccer dominated by money? If it does go through, would it really benefit the game? Give us your thoughts in the comments.

PHOTO: FIFA President Sepp Blatter listens to a delegate on day two of the 58th FIFA congress in Sydney May 30, 2008. REUTERS/Will Burgess