Sir, – I trust that I will be excused for indulging in more than one wry smile, reading your sports journalists’ retrospective pieces on the recent World Cup: in particular their brave efforts to file copy under the heading “highlights”. Let me explain.The first World Cup that absorbed my attention was the one that took place in 1958, which was won, of course, by Brazil. That was also the year in which a young teenager called Nascimento made his World Cup debut. Not long afterwards, he became (extremely) well known under the name Pelé, and (excluding the hiatus arising from England’s win in 1966) came increasingly to the fore. He played his part, and how, in Brazil’s wins in 1962 and 1970. The standards of play established by Brazil in that era have rarely been equalled; and they were the standard bearers for what, with some justification, could indeed be termed “the beautiful game”. For a number of reasons, some of which might be addressed by your journalists with a little more urgency, those halcyon days are no more. There were, of course, memorable goals in 2026 (as one might expect in a tournament of over 100 games, and many many hours, but it would be an insult to the older players to attempt any comparison between what they provided in the 1970s with what was on offer in 2026). Soccer just may be entering a state of worldwide decline, and there are numerous disturbing signs that such is the case. In particular, there is the elephant in the room which journalists and other commentators need to consider rather more closely than hitherto. I refer to the conspicuous increase in what would once have been regarded as foul play.I recall that it was possible for the great John Charles to claim that he had never in his career been judged to be guilty of foul play but in contemporary soccer, the jostling, pushing, shoving and wrestling that is widespread during the taking of every corner can only be seen as what it looks like: utterly disgraceful behaviour.Even more reprehensible is what has rapidly become the habit of going in studs up in the tackle with the intent not of blocking the ball, but of targeting as viciously as possible the ankles or lower leg of the opponent. I can recall no instance of that kind of play in either Stanley Matthews or Tom Finney, and it defeats my best imaginative effort to envisage it as part of their sporting endeavour. What all of this means is that soccer, at the highest levels, must clean up its act. In the meantime, said authorities might like to savour or digest the obvious irony that rugby, which seems to be more rough and physical, comes across as a less dangerous game, because it is so much better monitored or policed. – Yours, etc, Brian Cosgrove, Cornelscourt, Dublin 18.