The United States face Cuba in Havana on Saturday; the first time in over 60 years that they have played on the Caribbean island and given the political tensions between the two countries it is a fixture that has caught the imagination of the media — unusually for two countries where soccer is far from the national obsession.

The problem, for reporters, with stories like this is that the politics is the only really interesting aspect to the game but no-one involved will ever say anything remotely spicy on the topic.

It is one of those situations where reporters try in vain to get some words on the off-the-field context while the players, quite understandably, insist it is only about the three points, just another game etc, etc.

I was out at the U.S training session at Barry University yesterday and had a chat with captain Carlos Bocanegra and forward Clint Dempsey and while both were looking forward to their trip to Cuba — a place most Americans can’t travel to due to the embargo — neither wanted to talk politics and frankly, why should they? They are paid to win football matches and occasionally to talk to the media about football. U.S foreign policy isn’t part of the deal.

It was the same back in 1998 when I covered the US v Iran game at the World Cup in France. That match was intensely charged politically but no-one wanted to admit as such despite the constant, at times desperate, attempts of the media to stir things up.

When the Iran match, in Lyon, finally came around it was an extremely cordial affair with polite handshakes all-round. I suspect Saturday night at the Pedro Marrero stadium will be similar in that respect.

The fans might get some sort of kick out of the addition of an off-the-field rivalry but players usually don’t and in the case of Cuba I doubt the U.S team will find any sort of hostility awaiting them, especially given the embargo means there won’t be any U.S fans there.

Cuba v U.S may be a great storyline (especially if the Cubans pull off a surprise) but there isn’t much nasty about it.

What brings out the nastiness in football is when fans combine extreme nationalism with violence. You can find that in many parts of Europe and South America — but  I doubt we will see any of it in Havana on Saturday.

PHOTO: Members of U.S national soccer team arrive at Jose Marti airport in Havana September 4, 2008. REUTERS/Enrique de la Osa

Kevin Keegan resigned as manager of Newcastle United on Thursday, less than eight months after taking charge of the Premier League club for the second time.

Keegan said in a statement that he had been left with “no choice” because of the way the club was being run.

Is he right?

Should managers (or coaches) be the people who decide who the club should buy and sell? That’s not always how it works at big clubs in Europe (Real Madrid and Barcelona, for example) where you’ll find a sporting director installed above the coach. Of course, you would hope that they would work together but it doesn’t always happen that way and it’s clear enough who holds the power.

On the other hand, as Mike Collett wrote here yesterday, all these clubs who fancy joining Manchester United at the top of the tree may be better advised to go for the Old Trafford model, where the manager is very much the man in charge.

A look at The Newcastle United Blog suggests there is a lot of sympathy for Keegan and a lot anger with the club.

Keegan’s second spell in charge of Newcastle was less spectacular than the first but it was successful enough in its way.

There was no title challenge this time and nor was there expected to be — and doesn’t that tell you something about how football has changed over the past decade – but after his arrival in January this year he did steer the club clear of any relegation worries. After an opening-day draw with Manchester United there was reason for cautious optimism among fans.

Keegan evidently did not share that after losing, in his view, “the right to manage”.

Was he right to quit this time? And what happens next?

Fabio Capello’s less than spectacular start to life as England coach has been forgotten of late, as the back pages have been dominated by the petrodollars at Manchester City, the mysterious goings on at Newcastle, where Kevin Keegan has not been seen for three days, and Alan Curbishley’s sudden resignation as West Ham manager.

With World Cup qualifiers coming up against Andorra and Croatia Capello will soon have everyone’s attention again … and he is about to discover the size of the task that awaits him.

The Italian was given a tough time by England’s ruthless football writers after an unimpressive 2-2 draw against the Czech Republic last month, when most of the country’s eyes were focused on the battle for gold medals in Beijing.

Only a 10-0 victory against Andorra in Barcelona is likely to gain him plaudits in Sunday’s papers and should England suffer a third consecutive defeat by Croatia, the team that haunted their doomed attempt to qualify for Euro 2008, all hell will break loose.

The Italian has put his head squarely on the chopping block by choosing a squad without the country’s best striker, Michael Owen.

The four strikers he has selected, Wayne Rooney, Emile Heskey, Theo Walcott and Jermain Defoe, have managed just 24 goals between them for England. Owen has 40 on his own.

While Capello could select a bunch of park strikers to beat Andorra, not even considering Owen for the Croatia match, one that could determine the outcome of a tough but not daunting group, could come back to haunt the coach.

Sadly for England, just as the domestic game gets richer and richer, the cupboard looks increasingly bare at international level.

With Steven Gerrard injured there is a real possibility that Fulham’s Jimmy Bullard, an honest player but hardly one to set the pulse racing, could be called in to play a midfield role in Zagreb after his shock call-up.

In some ways that is a refreshing prospect.

With all the money sloshing around the Premier League, the idea that a bloke who learned the game playing non-league football in the Thames estuary can be England’s knight in shining armour restores a little faith in the beautiful game.

PHOTO: Fabio Capello attends an England training session in London Colney, August 18, 2008. REUTERS/ Eddie Keogh

With the top four never changing, it is almost more entertaining following the Premier League when there are no matches taking place. So it proved this week, from the takeover and mega-spending at Manchester City to the Kevin Keegan saga at Newcastle and Alan Curbishley’s exit from West Ham.

Curbishley claimed that his position had been undermined by the men in suits selling players without his approval and that is the underlying sub-plot that links all three acts in this week’s Premier League soap opera.

Many of the rich men who now own England’s top clubs want a more influential role in their clubs. They want to bring in the players they would like to see wearing their club shirts, perhaps to help their global brands or to boost sales or awareness in their other enterprises.

It’s a policy that can leave a manager with a team he might not feel entirely comfortable with and it is one that is not necessarily going to bring success.

Putting together title-winning teams is a far more complex science than opening
up a cheque book. Alex Ferguson’s Manchester United are testimony to that.

Everyone wants to be as big as United, but they are a big club because, at the heart of everything at Old Trafford, Ferguson, a football man, controls a football team.

That’s not a coincidence.

PHOTO: Alex Ferguson takes his seat before United’s pre-season friendly against Peterborough United, August 4, 2008. REUTERS/Darren Staples

The soap opera that is the English Premier League continued on Wednesday with its first managerial departure — Alan Curbishley resigning as manager of West Ham three games into the new season.

Whilst Manchester City fans were still pinching themselves at becoming one of the world’s richest clubs, Curbishley has quit his post despite two wins from his opening three league games.

Curbishley was reportedly disappointed with the decision to sell Anton Ferdinand to Sunderland and said last week: “As far as I am concerned there won’t be any more players leaving before the window closes,” only for George McCartney to depart on transfer deadline day, again to Sunderland.

West Ham posted a statement, before Curbishley’s announcement, defending their transfer activity: “The transfers of Anton Ferdinand and George McCartney along with the release of Freddie Ljungberg were right for the club and decisions had to be taken based on our best long-term interests,” the statement read.

Anyone thinking the closing of the transfer window and the break for international matches would make the Premier League dull for the next 10 days have been proved wrong. All eyes will now revert back to Newcastle and the future of their manager Kevin Keegan who could soon follow Curbishley.

West Ham’s next manager will be their fifth in the last seven years since Harry Redknapp left in 2001, a stark contrast to the six managers they had in an 88-year period from 1902 to 1990.

Should Curbishley have quit? And who should replace him? Vote on that at our poll here.

FILE PHOTO: Alan Curbishley gestures before a West Ham game. REUTERS/Alessia Pierdomenico

Have the nine-times European champions Real Madrid lost their pulling power, or did they just play the market badly this time?

They put all their eggs (well, most of them) in one basket to land Cristiano Ronaldo but only succeeded in upsetting Robinho when he found out they might sell him to help finance the deal.

They then failed to convince Robinho to sign an improved contract and with time running out they couldn’t persuade David Villa to move from Valencia or Santi Cazorla to leave Villarreal.

Now they start the new Primera Liga season low on resources, at least in attack. Midfielder Rafael van der Vaart is their one major signing and if he stays fit for any length of time he could be a very useful one. But will it be enough win the trophy all Real fans want and expect – their tenth European Cup?

Raul, 31, and Ruud van Nistelrooy, 32, are getting long in the tooth and as back-up they only have Gonzalo Higuain, who shows potential but not a killer instinct, and Javier Saviola, who hardly played at all last year.

They have one proven winger Arjen Robben, who is injury prone, while Royston Drenthe has yet to set the flanks alight.

Bernd Schuster, who doesn’t look very happy at the best of times, said grumpily after Sunday’s opening day defeat to Deportivo Coruna, ”l looked to the left of me on the bench and didn’t see any strikers.”

The player who could have made a difference coming off the bench was Robinho, and he had been left out of the squad in a sign of things to come.

PHOTO: Real coach Bernd Schuster with new signing Rafael van der Vaart during their friendly away to Eintracht Frankfurt, August 12, 2008. REUTERS/Alex Grimm

Owen Wyatt is joined by a sober-shirted Jon Bramley to discuss the deadline day transfer deals.

Will Manchester United be unstoppable now they have added Dimitar Berbatov to their line-up? Can Robinho cope with the whole rough and tumble of life in the Premier League? And speaking of which, are Manchester City the new Chelsea?

Feel free to leave your comments below, or send us a video of your own looking at this or any other issue in football. Let us know the url and if we like it we’ll host it right here.

Manchester City fans aren’t used to breaking the British transfer record, but that was the headline that turned up after pub closing time once the Robinho deal had been completed. Despite what we might have feared, it wasn’t just the effect of the beer either.

The new owners, Abu Dhabi United Group for Development and Investment, immediately impressed supporters by trying to snub United, which showed intent even if the last-minute bid Dimitar Berbatov did not succeed. Beating Roman Abramovich and Chelsea to Robinho, though, really showed financial muscle.

Great news? Well it would be for most clubs. But those who have suffered through City’s if-you-don’t-laugh-you’d-cry history will not be counting chickens yet.

The last few days have typified the often farcical nature of the club — from seemingly flat broke and relying on short-term loans from directors, with an owner accused of human rights abuses in Thailand, to the richest club in England in just a few hours. 

This is a club that spent most of last season in the top four, only to lose the last match 8-1 to mediocre Middlesbrough; that spent the last few minutes of the 1995-1996 season wasting time to play out a draw when actually they needed a win to avoid relegation; and that, on its return to European competition in 2003, managed to go out to Groclin Dyskobolia despite playing Nicolas Anelka and Robbie Fowler up front.

Supporters haven’t yet forgotten those, or last year’s Thaksin- and Sven-inspired false dawn. A rosy glow from City’s nouveau riche status, the marquee signings and third place in the nascent Premier League table hangs over Eastlands.

But will this one last?

Manchester United has proved the natural home for maverick showmen in the past and Dimitar Berbatov can become a worthy successor to those who have graced Old Trafford before him.

The 27-year-old Bulgaria captain, who joined United after two memorable years at Tottenham Hotspur, should instantly win over United fans who have previously worshipped strikers like Denis Law, George Best and Eric Cantona.

Berbatov has outstanding balance and control, is capable of devastating finishes and boasts the deftest of touches. He displayed all those qualities in Tottenham’s thrilling 6-4 Premier League win over Reading last December when he scored four times.

Among his goals was a superb shot on the turn, executed in a way that made it look simple when it was anything but, and he blasted home another shot that nearly took the net off its supports.

Read Mike Collett’s full appreciation of Berbatov’s talents on our main website here.

PHOTO: Dimitar Berbatov looks back during Bulgaria’s friendly against Bosnia in Zenica August 20, 2008. REUTERS/Damir Sagolj

Real Madrid and Barcelona lose their opening matches in Spain, Bayern Munich have to wait until their third game to taste victory under Juergen Klinsmann, AC Milan lose while Juve and Inter can only draw in Italy and three games in, not one of the big four in England’s Premier League can muster a 100 percent record…

It would be nice, wouldn’t it, to read something in to all this.

Smaller clubs that are nimbler in the transfer market have made a series of astute buys while we were watching the Olympics and the soccer superpowers were trying to prise away each other’s big stars, you might say. Once great names like Atletico Madrid, Schalke 04, Lazio and Manchester City are at or near the top of their leagues and are ready to rise again!

We’re all too wise to fall for any of that, though, aren’t we? After all, the big leagues are just three games in at the most and none of us really doubts that normal service will be resumed once the international week is out of the way.

But at the risk of sounding hopelessly naive, perhaps this year will see a bit of a shake up.

Don’t Liverpool and Arsenal look a bit more vulnerable to challenges for top-four places in the Premier League? Might Juergen Klinsmann and Pep Guardiola find it tough in their first seasons in charge of big clubs?

Doesn’t Real Madrid’s failure to get Cristiano Ronaldo mean they’ll be short of a touch of inspiration? And, given all that’s happened, is there much chance of the Portuguese forward producing another season of such sustained brilliance for United?

I’m as resigned as anyone to the idea of the big league titles going to the usual suspects, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they face a few more bumps in the road this time.

PHOTO: Real Madrid’s Ruud Van Nistelrooy reacts after their Spanish first division soccer match against Deportivo Coruna in Coruna August 31, 2008. REUTERS/Miguel Vidal