Euphoria and dread go hand in hand

Such joyous expression is what the World Cup should be all about. Yet, amid the similar outpouringsof relief and delight at Old Trafford, the fact that the Football Association should take that very evening to outline the extent of their huge security preparations for England's sixweek trip to the Far East indicated just why, as executive director David Davies said: "All the evidence is that this is going to be a World Cup like no other." Like no other because it could become a World Cup played in the shadow of fear? Already, there have been ominous signs of the problems that could lie ahead. This weekend, Austria's scheduled visit to Israel was cancelled. Next month, the Republic of Ireland, having sealed their play-off place, could end up facing Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar or Uzbekistan. Under present circumstances, it is inconceivable that they will be asked to play in Uzbekistan, bordering Afghanistan, or in the Middle East. And, last night in Foxboro, Massachusetts, how eerie must it have felt for the United States team as they became the 21st team to earn their spot in the World Cup with victory over Jamaica, while all the time knowing that the bombing of Afghanistan had begun? They had heard news of the attacks only 90 minutes before the kickoff.

"We knew that the bombing had started and that we were at war," match-winner Joe-Max Moore said. "So it was pretty emotional during the anthem, but after that we just concentrated on the game."

Even accepting that the game means nothing to America, Moore's innocent comment offers up that dreadfully uncomfortable image of sport going on its blindly focussed way against the backdrop of war. Could you imagine having greeted Saturday's win at Old Trafford with the same ecstasy if it had occurred 24 hours later while our forces were in action?

We have no idea of the extent to which this conflict will escalate or of how long it will last. Yet should it be the war of attrition which President Bush has predicted, it would be depressing to think of World Cup matches involving the US next June being played against such an inappropriate background.

Even if the hostilities have ceased by then, the threat of terrorism from an invisible enemy will not have receded and the presence of the American and England squads will unquestionably pose a security threat of a magnitude never faced by this event before; the sort that each Olympic Games city has had to protect against since the Munich massacre in 1972.

Amid a £4 million logistical nightmare, security was always going to be "top priority" for the FA because of the huge global profile of players like Beckham and Michael Owen. "But there is a new dimension now to the security arrangements we will have to make after the terrorist attacks," Davies said. "We will talk to the Government, the security services and the authorities in Japan and South Korea."

So what sort of World Cup has Beckham's boot kicked us towards? One, as of old, where a spontaneous carnival spirit can still flourish? Or one surrounded by suffocating security where even the old menace of hooliganism seems insignificant compared to new, more insidious threats?

Because of terrible events elsewhere, God forbid it should become the World Cup nobody really cared about.