http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1791870,00.htmlThe United States always feels challenged by the World Cup. Unlike the Olympics, where Americans tend to dominate, the US has rarely shone in the tournament, although it famously defeated England in 1950. It is an 80-1 long shot this time and may struggle to overcome group stage opponents Ghana and the Czech Republic, let alone Italy. For Americans used to winning, there is something vaguely shocking about this.
But US soccer-related insecurity is political and cultural, too. For four weeks, the world shows its back to the number one nation. The usual hierarchies of power are turned upside-down; the agenda is no longer Washington's to command. It is not often that old enemies, such as Mexico, or relatively new ones, such as Iran, get the chance to "beat" the US. But either may do so in Germany if their teams progress.
US exceptionalism applies to the politics of football. No US president ever lost his job, or won an election, on the back of a World Cup result. Its political impact is far greater elsewhere. By boosting the national feel-good factor, a winning performance can advance a government's fortunes. Harold Wilson was quick to ride the wave of England's 1966 victory. The exact opposite happened in Italy after it lost to North Korea the same year. It was called "a defeat without honour", an Italian Waterloo, and a shame-faced nation descended into recrimination.
If anything, the World Cup effect has become more intense. Diplomats admit that Dominique de Villepin, France's embattled prime minister, could use a repeat of his national team's 1998 victory - a triumph hailed, prematurely given last autumn's riots, as a product of French racial integration. In Germany, by contrast, officials said yesterday that public expectations were so low that even a moderately good run could bolster Angela Merkel's government. A win, and she could be chancellor for life.