The Manchester City midfielder is in sparkling club form but that doesn’t mean he is the right fit for Tuchel’s England

By the time the World Cup comes around, nine years will have passed since Phil Foden won the Golden Ball as England lifted the Under-17 World Cup. That tournament can be seen in hindsight as a watershed for the English game, the first indication that the elite player performance plan (EPPP) and the England DNA project – taking youth football seriously – might be beginning to pay off.

Youth football is notoriously unpredictable and England’s record in the Under-17 World Cup since shows a failure to qualify and a pair of last-16 exits, but following that 2017 success, England’s senior side have reached two European Championship finals and a World Cup semi-final, while the under-21s have won two European titles. Two previous Golden Ball winners from Under-17 World Cups – Cesc Fàbregas and Toni Kroos – have gone on to win the senior World Cup. Some, such as Landon Donovan, Anderson and Kelechi Iheanacho have had perfectly decent careers. And others have vanished almost entirely: Sani Emmanuel of Nigeria, for instance, won in 2009 then made just 16 senior appearances, 10 of them in the Swiss second tier with Biel-Bienne; while another Nigerian, Kelechi Nwakali, winner in 2015, joined Arsenal but, after a series of loan moves and stints in the lower reaches of the Spanish and Portuguese systems, was kicked out of Barnsley this past summer after returning late for pre-season.

What had seemed like a routine win for Chelsea became something a lot more mysterious thanks to a cryptic comment from Enzo Maresca in the post-match press conference. “The last 48 hours,” he said, “have been the hardest since I joined the club because so many people didn’t support me and the team.”

But which people? It was far from obvious. There was a clear sense Maresca was directing a message to somebody: he made the statement in response to a question about Malo Gusto’s form and repeated it before clarifying: “I love the fans and we are very happy with the fans.” Nor did it seem that he meant the media; he has never previously given any indication he cares what journalists and pundits say, there was no sense of hostility and he had appeared in perfectly good spirits at his pre-match press conference.

Glitzy draws, OJ-era chaos, grass laid over AstroTurf and a host nation that barely cared – the 1994 World Cup arrived amid suspicion and slapstick. Yet it became a watershed that would alter US sport and global football politics alike

“The United States was chosen,” the columnist George Vecsey wrote in the New York Times in 1994, “because of all the money to be made here, not because of any soccer prowess. Our country has been rented as a giant stadium and hotel and television studio.” Nobody could seriously doubt that. The USA had played in only two World Cups since the second world war and hadn’t had a national professional league for a decade. And that meant there was a great deal of skepticism from outsiders, even after Fifa made it clear there would be no wacky law changes to try to appeal to the domestic audience: Would anybody actually turn up to watch?

But there was also hostility in the United States. A piece in USA Today on the day of the draw told Americans they were right not to care about the World Cup, what it sneeringly described as the biggest sport in “Cameroon, Uruguay and Madagascar”. “Hating soccer,” wrote the columnist Tom Weir, “is more American than mom’s apple pie, driving a pickup or spending Saturday afternoon channel surfing with the remote control.”

Excerpted from The Power And The Glory by Jonathan Wilson, copyright © 2025 by Jonathan Wilson. Used with permission of Bold Type Books, an imprint of Basic Books Group, a division of Hachette Book Group, Inc.