I'm not a scandal guy, generally. For some reason, one I'm not too intent on examining, the sordid personal lives of others has never intrigued me, no matter if the people in question are celebrities or not.


It's been almost impossible to avoid the Tiger Woods saga over the last few months, and though I listen to radio and watch TV that is covering the story (or simply reveling in Woods' precipitous fall because it drives ratings), I find myself tuning out quickly. I'm truly of the opinion that the personal lives of athletes have nothing to do with their play on the field; player after player has passed into sports immortality while failing to amount to even mediocre human beings.


I abhor the moralizing that takes place when a scandal like the one involving Woods, or the newly revealed mess John Terry finds himself in, presents itself. I understand that the nature of celebrity means that you're fair game for criticism and opinion, but I don't like that a person's private life, something that has almost zero bearing on their on-field performance, is grist for the mill.


Yet here we are, with not one but two "tasty" soccer scandals enrapturing American soccer fans. On the right side of the Atlantic, John Terry's captaincy is up in the air because he allegedly had an affair with significant other of former teammate Wayne Bridge. The media is abuzz with discussions of what England manager Fabio Capello should do about Terry's violation of trust, and a nation waits breathlessly for some resolution. On the left side of the pond, directly related to the Terry scandal because Eric Wynalda chose to unburden himself on Fox Football Fone-in, we now have a clearer picture of 1998, when USA head coach Steve Sampson left captain John Harkes off of the World Cup squad.


And yes, I'll admit it, I'm mildly interested, but not because I have a taste for salacious scandal.


Instead, I sit here attempting to better frame the failures of '98 in light of these new revelations. The questions that present themselves are as obvious as they are impossible to answer: Would the Americans have crashed out so miserably had Harkes not been left out? Did internal strife wreck US fortunes before the tournament ever began? Did Steve Sampson handle the issue correctly?

***

Teams are invariably judged by their performance on the field. Though ready made excuses are now available, nothing that Harkes, Wynalda, or Sampson did will ultimately change the perception that the United States regressed as a footballing nation at France '98. Still, the drama does provide at least one insight that fans will likely forget as soon as it's realized; often, events on the field are directly impacted by that which happens off it. No team exists in a vacuum, sealed away in isolation booths until kickoff; the dynamics of personal interaction, the choices certain individuals make, and the way problems are controlled will always impact performance.


I know that I'll view '98 slightly differently now. Nothing that occurred forgives the results, but it does provide us fans with a better understanding of the "why's". As England wrestles with their own captain's infidelity, it will be interesting to see the fallout. Unlike Steve Sampson, Fabio Capello isn't just dealing with internal team dynamics (though those might be mitigated by the fact that Bridge is not generally thought of as a potential England squad member); public pressure is also a factor, and may ultimately decide what action the England boss takes.


If England does fall flat this summer, I doubt many will point to the Terry scandal as a factor. Well before the tournament begins, Terry's indiscretions will have faded from memory as a nation ramps its collective excitement up for the most important sporting event on the planet, one they believe they can win. But should rifts develop and fester, or Terry's actions alter the way Capello is able to manage his team, England might find itself in a similar position that the US did back in 1998; unable to completely focus on the task as hand, underachieving is a very real possibility.


I really don't care about the details of Terry's affair with Bridge's WAG*, Harkes' dalliance with Waldo's wife, or moralizing on the actions of anyone involved. John Terry should remain England's captain for as long as he's a leader on the field and his teammates respect him. The quality of his character has absolutely nothing to do with it. If Steve Sampson left John Harkes off of the 1998 US World Cup team because the situation was too much of a distraction, or because Harkes would not have been able to play up to his full ability, then he made the right call. But if Sampson, and Fabio Capello must be wary of falling into the same trap, chose to pass judgement on Harkes as a person and removed him because of it, he failed his team.


For me, the most interesting aspects of these scandals is the effect they have on team dynamics and how the squads are viewed in a historical context because of them. Repercussions matter much more than who did who, where, and when.


Still, sometimes I feel like a man on an island. Mainstream media outlets certainly aren't running the Harkes-Wynalda story today because the '98 World Cup team should now be viewed through a different lens.