With its youth system, strong national team, and financial prudence as well as the entertaining style of football employed by both the country's international side and its top clubs, it's not difficult to understand why Germany has been branded a soccer success.

And it is. Just not as much as we perceive it to be. Yet.

While the march of Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund to Wembley has been thrilling to watch, it's too early to tick the box marked "Era of German domination."

Bayern's haul of four European Cups is impressive but Liverpool, A.C.Milan and Real Madrid have all done better. And the Munich giants haven't conquered the continent since 2001.

Only two other German clubs have also won the tournament whereas England has produced five different champions.

In total, German sides have only six titles between them, well behind Italy and England, with 12, and Spain's 13.

Even the much vaunted Die Mannschaft can't claim to be the best ever international team. Their tally of three World Cup victories is impressive, but they last won the event in 1990, almost a quarter of a century ago.

Brazil, France, Italy and Spain have all enjoyed periods of international superiority since then.

However, no-one can equal Germany's record of 12 top-four finishes in World Cups and that consistency is now allied to, arguably, the most exciting crop of young footballers the country has ever produced.

As my CNN colleague Tom McGowan wrote this week, Germany have strength in depth from defense to attack. Manuel Neuer, Matts Hummels, Iklay Gundogan, Mario Gotze, Marco Reus and Thomas Muller, to name but a handful, make national team coach Joachim Low the envy of his peers.

Germany's youth system and the relative buoyancy of its national economy are two key reasons behind their football ascendency. Any talent identification manager will tell you that growing a sport and improving standards is a numbers game. In essence, the more youngsters who play, the more stars you'll end up with.

Germany has tapped into its large Turkish, Polish and African immigrant population. And the scary thing is, it could do better. Being born in the country doesn't automatically entitle you to German citizenship. You have to apply for it.

That process is bound to dissuade some immigrants' children, although plenty still choose to play for Germany rather than the nation where their parents or grandparents are from.

Mesut Ozil and Sami Khedira are two examples, although their stock has fallen slightly since their move to Real Madrid. And that's where my point about the economy comes in. Many Spanish football experts I've spoken to this week insist their country's austerity measures are having a negative impact on the clubs. Although the financial weakness of La Liga, Real and Barcelona apart, is not a new thing.

In contrast, Germany is dealing with the global economic downturn better than many other nations and the Bundesliga is one of the best run leagues in the world.

According to accountant Deloitte's reputable Sports Business group, Germany's Bundesliga is only the fourth richest in Europe behind England, Spain and France.

However, it's growing fast. It already has the best attendances of any of its European rivals while revenues for the entire league broke the $2.6 billion barrier for the first time last season.

So that's the reality, but let's return to the perception or, if you like, the X-Factor that German football has always had.

I was amused to see former England striker Gary Lineker's name trending on Twitter during Bayern's first-leg demolition of Barcelona.

It was down to fans poking fun at Barca defender Gerard Piqué who claimed, before the game, that Lineker's famous quote - "Football's a simple game. You play for 90 minutes and then the Germans win" - isn't true any longer.

After a 7-0 aggregate thrashing and the first all-German Champions League final, it's never felt more true.

It used to be a soccer stereotype. A slightly lazy cliche that didn't always bear close scrutiny: Germany always winning at football.

Yet, as Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund imperiously brushed aside La Liga's leading clubs in the UEFA Champions League semifinals, the reality is coming close to matching that perception.

We've seen all-Spanish, English and Italian finals in the Champions League. Now, for the first time, a deutsches derby will decide who is the best club side in Europe.

Like “Knock knock” jokes, FIFA’s soccer world rankings have long been a source of amusement but the latest list, putting England above Italy and Denmark above Brazil, is an embarrassment to the world’s most popular sport.

Some aspects of the current top 10 make sense. Spain, the record-breaking European and world champions, have increased their lead in first place ahead of an entertaining Germany team.

After their disappointing displays at Euro 2012, the Netherlands have fallen to 8th while Italy – the surprise success story from the recent tournament in Poland and Ukraine – are back into the top 10 having risen to 6th place.

However, that still puts the Azzurri behind England, the team they beat in a penalty shoot-out at the quarterfinal stage. While a victory on penalties suggests a close game, most neutral observers agreed the English had been thoroughly outplayed.

FIFA’s ranking is a complex process and the most crucial point is that it calculates positions based on results over a four-year period.

Essentially, it uses a formula that takes into account whether a team wins, loses or draws, added to how important the match is, the strength of the opposition and where they are from, to create a points score for every side each time they play.

Factoring in which confederation a team is from is an interesting part of the equation and a controversial one, according to Romanian computer programmer, Eduard Ranghiuc, who runs a football ranking website.

His understanding of FIFA’s rankings calculations led to him spotting errors in their sums. World football’s governing body now check his website before they release their figures.

Ranghiuc claims that teams from smaller confederations get fewer ranking points for the same result against the same opponents as, say, a side from Europe or South America. He prefers another ratings system, called Elo.

He told CNN: “As far as I can tell from comments I received on my blog and what I've read on various message boards, fans prefer Elo because it's more stable. You won't see teams shooting up 30 places after winning a match.”

“Elo doesn't punish teams for playing too many friendlies. Mexico for instance could be much higher if they would play fewer friendlies. All points gained are divided by the number of games. And then there's the usual distrust towards FIFA. You can't blame the fans.”

But even Elo doesn’t differ that drastically and I would go even further to try to make FIFA’s world rankings more intuitive. How about using a player rankings system – like the FIFA-backed Castrol Index – that gives each international squad an innate value?

Or issue ranking lists less frequently to avoid short-term ranking aberrations?

Golf’s world rankings have also been heavily criticized, with many experts unhappy that recent number ones include players like Lee Westwood and Luke Donald – who are yet to win any of the sport's four major titles, the most frequent barometer of success.

At the same time, golf's list is flexible enough to have quickly put Tiger Woods back up into the top four, from below 50th in the world, once he started winning again – and that is a true reflection of how he is rated and how well he is playing.

Ultimately, football’s world rankings need to “look” right at a glance. Two years before they host the World Cup, five-time winners Brazil are 11th in the world, below Denmark and Croatia, and I doubt even fans from those two European countries would agree their national sides are better than one containing Neymar, Pato, Kaka and the rest of the so-called Samba Boys.

The USA are down at 35th in the list despite their proud recent record in major competition.

It’s those sort of eyebrow-raising results that leave FIFA’s ranking system open to mockery.

London’s Olympic Games will be the poorer for David Beckham’s absence and his omission from Britain’s football squad highlights the lottery of selections based on subjectivity instead of results.

The fact that so many of the UK’s esteemed football writers - normally highly critical appraisers of sporting talent – have voiced their dismay on social networking sites shows how many experts recognized that Beckham’s place at the Olympics was about more than just his merit as a player.

Henry Winter of Britain’s Daily Telegraph newspaper wrote “Becks deserved more respect.” Matt Dickinson from The Times tweeted, “shocked by the Beckham news” while The Mirror’s John Cross said he was “Stunned – Beckham deserved it on every level.”

Even Italian football writer Tancredi Palmeri joined the debate, comparing the announcement with Roberto Baggio’s controversial omission from Italy’s 2002 World Cup squad.

The former England captain inspires loyalty from those who have watched him play. In the country which invented soccer, attitude is valued as highly as technique and Becks always looked like he was giving 100 percent.

On top of that, Beckham is a global sporting icon who has maximized his brand value off the football pitch as much as his talent on it.

The star midfielder was even used as part of the team which successfully secured London's right to host the Games for a third time in 2005.

Forbes magazine’s most recent list of the world’s highest paid players put Beckham top, above other more highly-rated stars like Real Madrid’s Cristiano Ronaldo and Barcelona’s Lionel Messi.

Although the 37-year old Englishman plays in America’s Major League Soccer, which is considered at least one level below Europe’s top leagues, his presence in the United States has helped boost his global celebrity.

And, like it or not, the Olympics is now as much about sporting superstars as those heart-warming stories of little-known athletes, from far flung corners of the planet, living off a pittance and defying the odds to reach the podium.

Beckham isn’t the only headline act that Olympic spectators will miss during London 2012. Swimmer Ian Thorpe – a five times gold medallist – failed to make Australia’s team, although he only had himself to blame.

“The Thorpedo” simply wasn’t quick enough after coming out of retirement. And that was the problem for Haile Gebrselassie. The former world record holder for the 5000 meters, 10,000 meters and the marathon didn’t make the cut at Ethiopia’s qualification race.

However, unlike a swimming or running race, selecting a football team is subjective. And the coach of Team GB’s football squad, Stuart Pearce, had the perfect excuse to indulge in the sentimentality of including a fading football legend admired in Britain and around the world.

London 2012 is a one-off. Because England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland operate as separate football associations they are only entering a team this year because the tournament is on home soil. They won’t for future Olympics.

Tickets for the football matches haven’t been as popular as some of the other events. Beckham’s presence could well have boosted sales and, while making the Games a financial success isn’t normally a coach’s concern, perhaps it should have played a part in Pearce’s thinking.

Normally I would applaud a cold-hearted, logical approach to picking a team but Beckham should have been an exception to the rule.

You wouldn’t blame Mario Balotelli for digging out his “Why Always Me?” T-shirt after he was compared to King Kong by Italian newspaper Gazzetta dello Sport.

It was an ill-judged cartoon which proves, yet again, how much more attitudes in the football world need to change to stop black footballers being singled out for the color of their skin.

If a respected publication like Gazetta, which has been running for more than a century, can sanction an illustration comparing someone from an ethnic minority with a famous gorilla – even in jest – then is it any wonder that anti-racism campaigners remain dismayed by football’s attempts to eradicate the problem?

Putting aside this incident, maybe it's time for the sport's governing bodies to start docking teams points as punishment for racist transgressions.

That happened to Israeli club Beitar Jerusalem earlier this year. They had two points deducted after their fans chanted racist abuse at Nigeria-born Israel international Toto Tamuz. This was after a previous penalty, of forcing Beitar to play a match behind closed doors, had failed to stop the problem.

Gazetta has apologized for the Balotelli cartoon – which showed King Kong, with the striker’s face, astride London landmark Big Ben – after receiving complaints from readers. Reports suggest the player himself was also unhappy with the drawing, which was published ahead of Italy’s Euro 2012 quarterfinal against England.

The newspaper said: “We have to admit that it wasn’t our cartoonist’s best product. In these times we need a bit more moderation, caution and good taste … we have always fought against racism and condemned booing against Balotelli as unacceptable.”

This statement contradicts any argument that might have been made suggesting the drawing could have been interpreted as a compliment. In reality it was a clumsy reference, especially coming during a tournament that has been marred by racist controversies.

UEFA has already issued more than $218,000 in fines for incidents connected to racism by fans at Euro 2012. Both Croatia and Russia have been multiple offenders.

And although anecdotal evidence from the tournament suggests fears of xenophobia – particularly in Ukraine – have been exaggerated, the Balotelli insult has demonstrated that the anti-racism message isn't getting through to everybody and it's time for football's authorities to get much, much tougher.

Even just a few months ago, it would have been sporting heresy. Now, it was just a throwaway comment between colleagues in the office. “I’m bored with Spain.” I nodded in agreement - it was hard to argue.

Can it be true? Are we really getting tired of watching the world and European champions? An international side that echoes the quality of Barcelona; a team of footballing matadors with players who can humiliate their opponents, passing them to death and running them into the ground as they chase the ball in vain.

Surely the combined talents of Andres Iniesta, Xavi Hernandez, David Silva and the rest epitomize how the game should be played? Good football can invoke a strangely primitive, physical reaction and Spain’s swashbuckling, "tiki taka" style is ideally suited to stimulate us. Their tactical aesthetic should be as joyous to behold as a famous work of art.

And yet there is something missing. A nagging feeling in the back of the mind that prevents you falling head over heels in love with this Spanish side.

We got a huge response when we posed this question on Twitter earlier. Sean said Spain are: “Technically superb but dull. Wouldn't watch if they didn't have Iniesta. They play to not lose.”

Matt hit the nail on the head when he wrote, “… they've taken the best of Barcelona and sterilised it with pragmatism. Devoid of creative abandon.”

The worry is that having conquered fluent, possession-based football, Spain’s players have set out their stall to win at all costs. Their focus on results has stunted their flair and taken the fun factor out of their play.

David told us: “My nipper, wife and I all agree that the speed and flair of the Germans is better to watch than the tippy tab (sic)." And hopefully that comment will counter any accusations that these are all remarks from jealous England supporters.

Germany, much like Croatia in their group game against Spain, have shown a passion and athleticism that the defending European champions seem to lack. I’ll admit it’s slightly unfair on the Spanish, but they make the game look too easy. Fans want to see the effort and strain on the players’ faces.

The same accusation used to be leveled at Formula One’s most successful driver, Michael Schumacher, or legendary golfer Ben Hogan. At their best, they were technically brilliant, practically unbeatable – but you may as well have been watching a machine such was the dispassionate nature of their excellence.

In many ways, you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Spain won’t care if football fans are getting bored with their clinical aptitude as long as they carry on winning major trophies. There was a time when they were regarded as the big underachievers of the international game.

Not anymore. Now they are simply, predictably, efficiently good, but crashingly boring.

I've never seen so many people make so little noise. For an hour, after Chelsea beat Bayern Munich in a penalty shootout to win UEFA's Champions League, a silent throng of 40,000 red-shirted fans stumbled past me, faces fixed with an expression of stunned misery.

They weren't leaving the Allianz Arena, where the final was played, but Munich's Olympic stadium. Bayern's former home had sold out, even though the only football action on display there was on a giant screen.

From outside it sounded like a real match was going on inside and, for long periods, there were thunderous roars of approval as the local team dominated their English opponents. And that explains the shock; the empty stares as the Bayern faithful walked home wondering how on earth their team had lost.

Not all left meekly. Hearing the English accents, many threatened the CNN crew with violence but their fury wasn't really directed at us. We were easy targets. Bayern's fans were actually angry with the footballing gods, and with Chelsea.

 Jubilant Chelsea players parade trophy

All day Munich had been tapping its metaphorical foot to a carnival beat. The city was rocking; the blue of Chelsea overwhelmed by the red of Bayern as supporters sung, danced and drank under a gloriously sunny sky.

Yet that joyous abandon was extinguished by another odds-defying display from a Chelsea side who have reveled in their underdogs tag.

Penalty shootout drama in Munich

How could a team that had finished down in sixth place in England's Premier League, that had been in disarray when Roberto Di Matteo replaced Andre Villas-Boas as manager in February, that rode its luck to beat Barcelona in the semi-finals, overcome the combined talents of Mario Gomez, Arjen Robben, Bastian Schweinsteiger, Franck Ribery and Thomas Muller?

As the 2011 champions from Spain had discovered in the previous round, football isn't won on paper. It's not enough to dominate the statistics. Bayern had 21 goal attempts to Chelsea's six. The German club earned 20 corners, Chelsea just one.

Chelsea's staggering Champions League victory over Barcelona proves that sport at the highest level can still shock us, defy all the odds and leave us open-mouthed and scratching our heads.

It proves that, despite the specter of corruption and match-fixing, the playing field is still a level one. That even if sponsors and governing bodies want the most entertaining or marketable sides to prevail, star teams don't win by right. Like anyone else, they must earn victory.

With Chelsea down to 10 men, their captain sent off, losing 2-0 and Barcelona's fearsome Camp Nou jubilant – be honest, what were you thinking? How long until Messi scores? Will it be a record win for the European champions, who were seeking a fourth title in six years? Who will Barca face in the final?

Whatever was going through your head, please don't try to convince me - even diehard Chelsea fans - that you thought the English team would go through. And even if you did, you weren't predicting that Lionel Messi - who has netted 63 times this season - would miss a penalty kick for the Spanish side and that goal-shy Fernando Torres would score for Chelsea, putting the outcome beyond doubt in the dying minutes.

Dropped by Spain and with just three Premier League goals to his name this season, Torres confidently skipped past Barcelona keeper Victor Valdes with almost miraculous confidence considering how unassured he has been since an $80 million transfer from Liverpool in January 2011 and how uncertain he looked on the pitch after his late introduction on Tuesday.

This was only a semifinal but Chelsea's win will go down as one of the greatest upsets in sporting history. I would put it alongside Buster Douglas flooring Mike Tyson to claim the world heavyweight title in 1990, Goran Ivanisevic winning the 2001 Wimbledon tennis title or the United States'  "Miracle on Ice" Olympic hockey gold in 1980 as a straightforward gob-smacker.

Chelsea may have been Champions League runners-up as recently as 2008 but the central players - Petr Cech, John Terry, Ashley Cole, Frank Lampard and Didier Drogba - were supposed to be past their peak.

Chelsea only have a temporary coach after Roberto Di Matteo was asked to pick up the pieces when Andre Villas-Boas was sacked less than a season into his mission of rebuilding the squad. The Blues are still down in sixth place in the Premier League, and face the prospect of missing out on Europe's top club competition next season unless they win the May 19 final in Munich.

Some will claim Liverpool's comeback in the 2005 final against AC Milan was more remarkable, but it wasn't against a side lauded globally as the best football team in history - although those boasts are sure to fade to a whisper now.

Barcelona remain technically breathtaking, but it turns out the better side doesn't triumph automatically. Sport isn't about entertaining. It's still about winning - no matter how you do it.

The sacking of Andre Villas-Boas proves that Chelsea is still a rich man's plaything but fans of the club should be grateful that owner Roman Abramovich is still paying attention to his footballing toy instead of leaving it, forgotten and unloved, at the bottom of the cupboard.

Forget talk of Abramovich shirking his long term project. He was right to ditch a manager who took the 2010 English Premier League champions, last season's runners-up, a club that's only been out of the top two once in the last nine seasons, and left them struggling to qualify for the UEFA Champions League after eight consecutive years in the competition.

Villas-Boas' oversaw just 19 wins in 40 games, giving him a win percentage of 47.5 per cent - the worst of any Chelsea manager in the Abramovich era.

Those bare statistics make it irrelevant whether or not Villas-Boas was the victim of dressing room militancy, senior players with a more direct line of communication to the owner than the manager himself.

Abramovich may have too many voices in his ear but, on this occasion, the whispering was correct.

The core of Chelsea's squad is ageing but remains strong and Villas-Boas tried to change too much too quickly, according to his predecessor at Stamford Bridge Carlo Ancelotti in a recent interview with CNN.

And before Ancelotti's comments are dismissed as sour grapes, remember the Italian has been a multiple league and European Cup winner as both a player and manager.

Villas-Boas wasn't a professional footballer and came to Chelsea after one hugely successful season with Porto - the club with the best resources in Portugal.

His former employers said the move had come too early in his career and I thought the same thing.

I'll admit I was impressed by his first news conference as Chelsea boss. I watched him last summer charm the entire media pack with his eloquent grasp of English and youthful exuberance.

It was echoes of 2004 when another brash, young Portugese coach breezed into Stamford Bridge but Villas-Boas has suffered by comparison.

Maybe Abramovich now realizes that only the original "Special One" will do. If Jose Mourinho's house hunting in London, just days before Villas-Boas' dismissal, was a coincidence - it's an extraordinary one.

Whoever the new manager is next season they will have money to spend. It's a myth to say Chelsea's owner has stopped investing in the squad.

He's parted with over $280 million in the last two seasons. That's the biggest two year spend on new players since he first bought the club.

Chelsea is still Abramovich's favourite football toy. He just needs to find the right playmate to share it with.

It’s been a long time since anyone referred to boxing as a gentleman’s sport. Or, at least, a long time since they did it with a straight face. Any lingering pretensions of pugilism as an honorable and noble pursuit have vanished forever following the ugly press conference brawl between Dereck Chisora and fellow Briton David Haye in Germany.

As the quality of boxing’s heavyweight division has declined, so the outrageousness of pre and post-fight “stunts” has increased. But all the experts I have spoken to insist this was not a set-up. It was a genuine outbreak of madness that has demeaned a sport already, metaphorically, winded and hanging on for the bell.

Haye's nonstop trash talk in the leadup to his disappointing defeat by Wladimir Klitschko and subsequent retirement last year hardly helped matters. If this incident was the result of an attempt to stir up interest in his bid to return and face Chisora's Saturday conqueror, Vitali Klitschko, then it can only leave a sour taste in the mouth of fight fans.

Muhammad Ali was the master of trash talk, but he had the wit and the talent to back it up.

For decades, boxing’s validity has been weakened by multiple governing bodies, a bewildering array of world champions at every weight class and frequently unjustifiable points decisions in major title contests. This latest scandal is another major blow.

I am not trying to suggest it will spell the end of boxing. While there is still money to be made from it, the fight game will continue. But when Chisora stepped down from the news conference stage in Munich to tangle with Haye, it plunged boxing's reputation further below the cut-off line for those fans who like their sport hard but also fair.

While racism continues to plague parts of European football, and Asian gambling rings fuel cricket’s match-fixing curse, boxing is being betrayed by its own athletes and their lack of class in certain situations.

Mike Tyson may have shocked us just as much when he bit a chunk out of Evander Holyfield’s ear in 1997, but at least he overstepped the mark in the ring; an outrageous act conducted in the heat of combat.

There is no such excuse to be attached to Chisora and Haye’s pathetic playground rough-and-tumble in front of the world’s media.

Boxing badly needs better role models right now. Even the two most respected and talented fighters at the moment, Floyd Mayweather Junior and Manny Pacquiao, have swapped insults during a prolonged negotiation over the one bout that could put their sport back on the map - but looks no closer to ever happening.

The biggest shame is that, if you look at the action in the ring, Chisora did surprisingly well against the elder of the Klitschko brothers - who are the only remaining global heavyweight drawcards. No one will remember the Zimbabwe-born Brit’s boxing display now.

And the only way the sport can redeem itself is if he, and Haye, are never allowed to fight again.

If you want to know why Tiger Woods isn’t about to dominate golf the way he once did, watch Luke Donald and Rory McIlroy go head to head at the Dubai World Championship this weekend.

Suddenly the sport’s focus is on two Brits –- 1st and 2nd in the world rankings -– battling it out to finish top of Europe’s money list. In years gone by, that sort of headline-grabber would have played out in the United States.

But this isn’t about a switch in golf’s geographical power base; it’s about a generational change. And the disappearance of Tiger’s fear factor despite his first tournament victory for more than two years.

While it would be a stretch to include Donald in the rising ranks of brilliant young golfers (despite his youthful looks, he is 34), the Englishman is finally fulfilling the talent that’s been evident for many seasons.

After four victories, three second places and 19 top-10 finishes in 2011, Donald has quite rightly risen to world number one –- despite his lack of a major title.

McIlroy, however, is at the vanguard of the players who are young, skilful beyond their years and impatient for success; not just the odd tournament victory here or there, they want major titles.

The 22-year-old from Northern Ireland has already done that, becoming the youngest winner of the U.S. Open since the legendary Bobby Jones in 1923. And that was despite the trauma of his last-round collapse in The Masters at Augusta just two months earlier.

Great things beckon for McIlroy, the cream of a crop that includes Australia’s Jason Day, Americans Rickie Fowler and Keegan Bradley and Japan’s Ryo Ishikawa.

Those players will have seen Tiger Woods’ win at the Chevron World Challenge as a challenge, not a barrier. Their whole approach to golf is “Bring it on!”

And the same could be said for a slightly older, but no more daunted group, which contains the likes of Masters champion Charl Schwartzel, 2010 U.S. Open victor Graeme McDowell, big-hitting Dustin Johnson and 2010 U.S.PGA Championship winner Martin Kaymer.

Tiger Woods' cheerleaders would have us believe that he’s about to turn back the clock several years, terrorize golf once again and storm past Jack Nicklaus’ record of 18 major titles.

But the world has changed.