Confederations Cup 2017: Russia learns the hard way that success in international soccer can’t be bought

The Confederations Cup is invariably treated as little more than a glorified kick about; almost no one will be overly concerned about their performances over the next few weeks. Even fringe players looking to force their way into preliminary World Cup plans know a year is a very long time in football. But the big exception is always the host nation, who’ll be desperate to deliver both on and off the field. The weight of expectation this time falls upon Russia, who look set to face closer scrutiny than most.

The decision to award next year’s World Cup to Russia was — admittedly, like the majority of FIFA’s decisions — a controversial one. One need only look to the English tabloid press for an example of the backlash the voting results faced. Per the BBC:

“The Daily Mirror’s front page headline is ‘SOLD’ as they ask how oil-rich Russia and Qatar could possibly have persuaded Fifa to give them the World Cup. The Sun go with ‘FIXED’ while the Daily Star shouts ‘WHAT A FIX’; the Daily Mail claims ‘THEY LIED’ and the Daily Express simply says ‘HUMILIATED’.”

It should be noted that the English press may well have been so vociferous in their reaction precisely because England’s own World Cup hosting bid was seen as a serious competitor. But the concerns about Russia’s hosting were grounded in more than mere jingoism: Russia’s poor record on defending LGBT rights and tackling racism, the conflict with Ukraine, allegations of corruption, and notorious hooliganism are just four of the mammoth issues that have faced organizers. A smooth Confederations Cup would at least go some way to allaying ongoing fears about Russia’s suitability as hosts.

But organization is only half of Russia’s battle. They’ll also be hoping to turn in positive performances on the field, and demonstrate progress to the nation after a few years of consistent underperformance. A catastrophic Confederations Cup would only heap the pressure on the team a year before their very own World Cup, the hosting of which is, after all, justified in sporting as well as political and economic terms. The Huffington Post has downplayed the importance of actual football for Russia’s World Cup bid, with Lisa Sawyer Samp claiming: “[Vladimir] Putin’s successful bid to host the 2018 World Cup could plausibly be seen the crown jewel of an active and systemic propaganda campaign meant to undermine Western unity, further consolidate power, and potentially create a diversion for something more sinister.”

But power is often performative, and sporting success plays a part of that projection. Newsweek’s Septimus Knox observed ahead of the Rio Olympics — from which 112 Russian athletes were banned amid doping allegations: “Through sport, the USSR — and now Russia — has long promoted herself as a world heavyweight,” adding that Putin sees sport “as an emblem of Russia’s dominance and strength, proof that it has emerged from the ashes of the USSR as a global player.” But if true, Putin certainly won’t have made much of Russia’s recent on-field performances, in which they’ve consistently underperformed. Ironically, the USSR’s footballing legacy remains much more impressive than Russia’s.

The hiring of veteran Italian Fabio Capello in the aftermath of Russia’s group-stage exit at Euro 2012 was supposed to alter the national team’s course. Capello may have failed to impress in charge of the English national team, but remained one of the most successful coaches of all time, having won countless league titles in Italy, two more in Spain, and a Champions League to boot. His authoritarian persona seemed to have the potential to galvanize an underperforming team, and he duly led them to comfortable qualification for the last World Cup in Brazil, topping a group containing a very able Portugal. Capello was duly rewarded with a mammoth contract taking him through to the end of Russia’s own World Cup four years later.

However, problems hit when Russia landed in Brazil, and they were eliminated without winning a single game. They opened with a draw against South Korea, and followed it up with a defeat to Belgium. Their fate was sealed with a surprise draw against Algeria, who went on to cause Germany problems in the first knockout round. Foreign media gleefully emphasized the disparity between Russia’s performances and Capello’s remuneration: His salary of $11 million a year was reportedly twice as much as the second-highest, England’s Roy Hodgson, and more than 16 of the other World Cup coaches combined.

Capello initially kept his job, but the omens were bleak. By November 2014, an executive in the Russian football association admitted that they could not afford to pay Capello’s salary. The Italian nevertheless clung to his job until the following June, by which time Russia had amassed just eight points from six Euro 2016 qualifying matches. His payoff was so sizable that the football association required assistance from billionaire Alisher Usmanov to cover it. Capello’s replacement, CSKA Moscow coach Leonid Slutsky, took the job on as a sideline without being paid a salary.

Slutsky managed to lead the team to the Euros, but another major-tournament collapse ensued. An aging team and catastrophically negative tactics saw them eliminated without winning a match; they finished beneath England, Slovenia, and Wales at the bottom of their group. Slutsky effectively resigned on the spot of a shock 3-0 defeat to the latter, declaring in a post-match press conference: “I take responsibility. I had enough time to find players. If we did not succeed it is truly my mistake. Someone else should take over with a big championship to come.”

In August, Russia announced that Stanislav Cherchesov was Slutsky’s replacement. It was something of a surprise choice, with Cherchesov certainly not particularly well-known outside of Russia itself. Neither had he achieved a great deal in his coaching career; in the words of Futbolgrad’s Saul Pope: “Cherchesov has only ever been a short-term solution: a great year at Spartak Moscow and last season with Legia Warsaw; a good year at Terek Grozny, and half a season at Dinamo Moscow and Amkar Perm.” Not a particularly dazzling record.

But Cherchesov did show a willingness to play more attacking football, as well as take up the much-needed task of refreshing an elderly squad. 37-year-old defender Sergey Ignashevich, the most-capped player in Russia’s history, hasn’t appeared in a Russia squad since Euro 2016; his international career is now surely over. Results have certainly been patchy. Wins over Ghana, Romania, and Hungary have offered promise; draws against Belgium and Chile were more than respectable. But defeats to Costa Rica and Qatar certainly raised eyebrows.

The fact remains that Russia’s squad remains lacking in the quality to achieve their ultimate aim of reaching the semifinals of their World Cup next year. Cherchesov was doubtless right to recognize the need of bringing new players into the international fold, but their current crop lacks both the requisite experience and ability. It’s easy to imagine the Russian association watching the forthcoming Confederations Cup between their fingers, as things are unlikely to improve drastically in the following year.

If Russia still do consider sport an “emblem of dominance and strength,” a kind of simulacrum of the geopolitical landscape, they’re liable to feel rather more vulnerable in the next couple of years. As smooth as their organization may well prove, they’ve learned the hard way that success cannot be bought — especially in international football.