Why the United States and Germany colluding to go through is harder than you think

Immediately after the final whistle in the 2-2 draw between the United States and Portugal, references were made to the Shame of Gijon, the 1-0 West German win over Austria in the 1982 World Cup that pretty much everyone accepts was a bit of collusion to see both sides through their group at the expense of Algeria.

In 1982 however, there weren’t many examples of “biscotti” matches at the international level. The game, however, shocked enough people and forced FIFA to ensure final group stage matches would be played in tandem. It was a big deal.

It didn’t prevent the situation tomorrow, in which a draw would see both Germany the United States through. It’s one thing though to make blithe accusations of a mutually convenient result (which both sides have strenuously denied, because of course they would); it’s another to actually engineer such a thing.

Let’s stop and think about a few ways this would "work".

A Friendly Phone Call

Presumably it goes like this. Jurgen Klinsmann calls his old friend Jogi Loew and asks kindly if he has a moment to chat. About what? “Hey, let’s draw maybe?” “Well, we’re a technically superior team but LOL, let’s do it.”

So at this stage, what happens?

Both managers will have to sit down with their national teams and explain that they’ve colluded with the other to secure a draw so they both go through. This is clearly unethical though, so if someone’s not on board with this, they’ll now have a story they can tell later on to ruin their manager’s reputation years later.

Perhaps to get around this, the manager’s use some sort of convoluted code language to get the point across, like a man trying to bribe a police officer. “Guys, this game means a lot to me. I’ve just been speaking with Jogi Loew and he’s nervous. He doesn’t want any trouble. They may not be at their best. All I’m saying is don’t over do it. DO YOU SEE WHAT I’M SAYING HERE?”

Sounds plausible, but what if someone’s not on board? This is unethical stuff, after all. There are rules about integrity. Are there unofficial punishments afterward? Army-style hazings? That can’t be good for team unity in the knockout stages.

Game Theory

The other possibility is neither side contacts the other ahead of the match, and they have to guess the intention of the other right after kick off. The whole scenario becomes a taut, psychological thriller, with the first ten minutes of the match an intense cacophony of body language and subtle cues.

“Okay. He could have trapped that but he played it out to touch. Is he on board? Does he know? Should I pass to the flank or back to Jones? Jones isn’t running as much as he was against Portugal. Is he cool with this too? Ozil’s a lot more withdrawn than he was in the video review we did last night. Also why is Manuel Neuer blinking a lot?"

This tension can’t last for ninety minutes though. At some point someone will have to go forward. Someone will find space. Someone will have to play football lest they live with accusations of being a dirty colluder for the rest of their life.

No Collusion

Neither team will collude for a draw. Not because they necessarily don’t want to, but because the whole enterprise is too risky, too fraught with problems, too exposed. It’s one of those things that makes sense to Tweet or include in a column, but in practice is pretty damn difficult to do. It’s not beyond the realm of possibility however. Watch Neuer’s eyes.