[NZerFromHK]

http://www.online-betting-guide.co.uk/worldcup/winner.php

This one gives both the US and Australia at 1:151.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

The United States still has a chance. Some other country than Brazil should win, though. The French seem to be more proAmerican than them.

[FostersExport]

These are the top 20 sides using the ELO rating system, which is good enough for every other sport that uses ratings and is a far better system than the cock-eyed method FIFA uses:

Ranking Team Rating
1 Brazil 2010
2 Netherlands 1977
3 England 1957
4 France 1944
5 Czechia 1939
6 Spain 1936
7 Argentina 1918
8 Italy 1913
9 Portugal 1894
10 Germany 1888
11 Denmark 1866
12 Mexico 1859
13 Uruguay 1818
14 Romania 1816
14 United States 1816
16 Sweden 1812
17 Croatia 1807
18 Ireland 1794
19 Australia 1793
20 Turkey 1780

Argentina looks a little low down at 7th and I think this underestimates the African sides but I think that gives a truer reflection of the US team, which is useful but hardly fifth in the world. 14th is not bad anyway, given how competitive international soccer is. FIFA don’t even use their own rankings for World Cup seedings. They know their system is flawed.

[Jameison]

"This one gives both the US and Australia at 1:151. "

Giving the US (quarter finalists in 2002) the same odds as an Australia that has never done anything much in the World Cup, is reason enough not to take these British bookies seriously.