Liverpool kept their dreams alive with a somewhat fortuitous 4-1 over Porto yesterday. The scoreline was very flattering to Rafa Benitez's men, but they won't complain as they are still in with a chance to go through.  They must now go and win in Marseilles, in what is a very tight group. All 4 teams are still in with a chance of going through, with Porto on 8 points, Marseille and Liverpool on 7, and Beskitas on 6. It won't be an easy task though, as Marseille have already gone to Anfield and taken 3 points, and all they need is a draw to progress.

The other two British teams with clouds hanging over their qualification hopes are Glasgow rivals Rangers and Celtic. Celtic are away to AC Milan, although the Italians are already qualified, and Celtic need just a draw to progress, so we might well see a stalemate. Even if they lost, Shakhtar would still need to overcome Benfica to have a chance, and that won't be easy since Benfica will want a place in the UEFA cup.

Rangers have a slightly more high pressure situation. They play Lyon in what is basically a direct contest for the second spot. Rangers need a draw to advance, and Lyon need to win. It is probably going to be an epic encounter, and the press will not doubt be bringing up the France vs Scotland allusions from the recently concluded Euro 2008 qualifiers. Rangers will be disappointed though by their performance versus Stuttgart, losing 3-2 late on after being 2-1 up.

Well, if everything goes correctly for the three Brit sides, the knockout stage of the Champions League might just see an astonishing 6 out of the 16 teams come from Britain.

The 8 teams qualified thus far are: Chelsea, AC Milan, Barcelona, Manchester United, Roma, Inter Milan, Sevilla and Arsenal.

My picks for the remaining eight are: Porto, Marseille, Schalke, Real Madrid, Olympiakos, Celtic, Rangers and Fenerbhace.

Spare a thought for the once great Dynamo Kyiv, who have 0 points, and for Valencia... they're not even in contention for a UEFA Cup spot at the moment.

In a recent interview, Alex Ferguson said that it was his duty to produce English players, because nobody else was going to. Whether he intended it that way or not, the media interpreted it as a pop at Arsene Wenger and Arsenal, and probably a bit at Liverpool as well.

Of course, this all comes on the back of England's defeat to Croatia, and their generally bad football over the last year, and how all this is somehow the fault of foreign players coming in, and how clubs like Arsenal and Liverpool don't produce enough English players. Of course clubs like Manchester United and Chelsea are hailed for having "English souls" and whatever else, but that's really a lot of crap. It's easy for the two richest clubs in the country to go out and spend 10-20m on an English player and then claim that they have homegrown players. It's also nonsense.

So I thought i'd take a look at the two clubs named as the big "saviours" of English football, and see just exactly how many English international players they've "produced".

From the England squads, Manchester United have Wayne Rooney, Michael Carrick, Gary Neville, Wes Brown, Owen Hargreaves, Rio Ferdinand and Ben Foster. Which is fine I suppose, it's nice to have 7 England internationals, and I guess Alex Ferguson can be proud of that. But when it's used as stick to beat other clubs and managers with, then it becomes very, very unfair, because how much did these players cost?

Well, Rooney cost £27 million, Carrick cost £18m, Hargreaves cost £17m, and Ferdinand cost £33m. Ben Foster was a £1 million buy from Stoke, and ONLY two players - Gary Neville and Wes Brown - are from United's "famed" youth setup. Well, that's a total cost of £96 million! It's easy to brag about your "English core" when you're filthy rich isn't it!

And Chelsea? Well they have Ashley Cole, Wayne Bridge, John Terry, Frank Lampard, Joe Cole and Shaun-Wright Pillips. Once again, errr... well done for having all these Englishman in the squad, but again, how many have Chelsea produced? Just one - John Terry. As for the rest? Ashley Cole cost about £17 million (£5m + William Gallas), Wayne Bridge cost £7m, Frank Lampard cost £11m, Joe Cole cost £7m and Shaun Wright-Phillips cost £21m. Total cost: £63 million.

Chelsea and Manchester United spend more on their beloved English players than most clubs (Arsenal included) do in 2 or 3 seasons on ALL their players. And how many can you say are worth it? Is Owen Hargreaves really worth £17m when Mathieu Flamini cost £1m? Is Rio Ferdinand really worth £33m when Kolo Toure cost £750,000? Is Wayne Bridge worth £7m when Patrice Evra was only £4.5m? And Michael Carrick £18m when the far superior Xabi Alonso was only £11m? There's a reason that clubs look abroad for players, and it's not because they dislike English players or want to harm English football, it's because the prices and hype that surrounded even a moderately talented English player are ludicrously high, and clubs other than Chelsea and Manchester United can't really throw the money around.

In any case, we've seen that between them, Chelsea and Manchester United presently have only three club-produced England internationals in their squads. So why don't we look at the recent England squads, and the number of players that have been club-produced by the "Big Four", and when they won their first caps:

Manchester United: Gary Neville (1995), David Beckham (1996), Phil Neville (1996), Wes Brown (1999)
Arsenal: Ashley Cole (March 2001), David Bentley (September 2007)
Liverpool: Steven Gerrard (2000), Michael Owen (1998)
Chelsea: John Terry (June 2003)

OK, so Manchester United have the most home-produced players of those 4, but the most recent cap of them all was Wes Brown in 1998, and he's not even that important. They're basically still living off the reputation of their much vaunted "Golden Generation", but the fact is that United have not produced a decent English player in years and years, and their present crop are decidedly ageing and average at the ages of 32, 31, 32 and 28.

And I'd like to follow that up by asking you which club from the "Big Four" has produced the most number of players to be capped in this decade? Well the answer to that, funnily enough, is Arsenal! Two is not a large number, but it's certainly more than Manchester United have given to English football in the last 7 years. And if you look at the recent England youth squads, you will find that it's Arsenal who are producing the most talented young English players, and in good numbers as well. Surely this can only be because of their foreign manager, and all the incredibly talented foreign players that are there in training and on the field?

Incidentally the two clubs that have contributed the most to recent English squads are Leeds and West Ham. Leeds - Aaron Lennon, Paul Robinson, Alan Smith, Scott Carson, and Jonathan Woodgate
West Ham - Rio Ferdinand, Joe Cole, Michael Carrick, Frank Lampard and Jermain Defoe (although the latter was schooled mostly at Charlton)

Thank you Croatia, for bringing down to earth the most over-hyped national team on the planet. Exemplified by the hype that Soccernet loves to throw out:

The 2014 World Cup will cost a staggering minimum of 10 billion US dollars for Brazil to organise, the majority of which will be borne by the public sector.

It has been a long time since Brazil hosted a major tournament, and a lot of the stadiums require work, including of course the legendary Maracana, which was built for the last World Cup that Brazil hosted, 53 years ago.

The tournament is expected to be held across 18 cities, and so the money spent on World Cup development will greatly improvement infrastructure all over the country (hence the decision to make it a largely public sector undertaking).

The outcome of the tournament will be interesting, since it was only after hosting their last World Cup that Brazilians went football crazy, and the tournament will return now to the country which produces some of the sport's finest moments and people, both on the field, and off it.