These are not the best of times for European soccer. A look at the various current world championships tells all: not one of the six major titles is held by a European team. The honors list reads like this: World Cup champions: Brazil; under-17 World Cup: Mexico; under-20 World Cup: Argentina; Confederations Cup: Brazil; Olympics: Argentina; World Club Champions: Sao Paulo of Brazil.

Not a European name in sight – and the list is actually a lot worse than it looks, because of the six beaten finalists in those competitions, only two were from Europe.

One recent title the Europeans did manage to win was Euro 2004, albeit a fairly safe bet since the tournament is limited to European teams. But the winner, Greece, played such appallingly dull and unimaginative soccer that it merely emphasized the sad state of the European game.

Last summer came the Confederations Cup,played in Germany, which ended with yet another resounding slap in the face for European soccer – a Brazil vs. Argentina final. A South American triumph on European soil – that is not supposed to happen. World Cup history virtually forbids it: just once, 47 years ago, Brazil pulled it off by winning the 1958 World Cup in Sweden. But no European country has ever won a World Cup played outside Europe.

More humiliation arrived for Europe when FIFA announced its Player of the Year award last month. Brazil yet again, in the person of the ever-smiling Ronaldinho. Not just a win, but another wipeout – Ronaldinho won by the insultingly huge margin of 956 votes to 306 over the runner-up, England’s Frank Lampard.

If things are gloomy for Europe, they could hardly look brighter for Latin America. Six of the winners I’ve mentioned are from South America,with Mexico as the seventh.The Latin game is dominating world soccer at the moment, a truly remarkable state of affairs when one considers the sport’s wealth and power are heavily concentrated in Europe.

South American clubs – even the big ones like Argentina’s River Plate and Brazil’s Sao Paulo – are constantly in financial difficulties,forever forced to sell their best players.The buyers, of course, are the rich European clubs, like Chelsea, Real Madrid, Milan, and Ronaldinho’s own Barcelona.

European clubs – and not just the major ones – are increasingly relying on imported talent. The players come from all over – from Africa, Asia, America – but the top ones are predominantly from Latin America, players like Ronaldinho, his Barcelona teammate, the young Argentine Lionel Messi, and another trio of Brazilians: AC Milan’s Kaka, and Real Madrid’s Ronaldo and Robinho.

It is no secret what makes those players outstanding. It is, in a word, artistry. Superlative skill with the ball, an instinctive feel for the sport, and the game-winning ability to create and score goals, often memorably dazzling goals. While the Brazilians and the Argentines seem to have a production line for those much-desired players, the Europeans find it difficult to breed them.

Why that should be so is much discussed, but the most obvious reason is the most likely one. Europe, because of growing wealth and educational opportunities, has lost its working classes, its reservoir of young boys who have little to do but play street soccer, with the sport as their only way out of poverty; boys who play soccer morning, noon and night, boys who play without adult supervision, boys who learn early on to play inventively and instinctively.

In Europe,street soccer has all but disappeared,replaced by something very different: the soccer academies,run by the pro clubs, where young boys play under strict supervision, where they receive a good deal of instruction,and where the treasured instinct tends to get squeezed out. The rich clubs spend millions of dollars running their youth academies, but they all spend much, much more buying imported players.

That is the first contradiction.The second arises when the imported players are required to “adapt” to European soccer, to play a more physical, tactically-organized game. At its crudest, that means suppressing the very talents – the creativity, the unpredictability – that attracted European buyers in the first place.

The difference between the European and Latin approach is also succinctly illustrated in the contrast between the two midfielders who finished first and second in the Player of the Year award: the flamboyant Ronaldinho and the workmanlike Lampard.

The Latin Americans, naturally, do best in the Latin Euro pean countries – particularly Spain, Portugal, and Italy. But their ability to survive and to star in such unlikely places as Germany, Russia, and Poland is clear evidence that their style of soccer has a strength that can withstand the onslaught of European methods.

What is true at the individual player level is mirrored at the team level. The Latin American game comes out on top, which is why Brazil, the holder, is everyone’s favorite to repeat at this year’s World Cup.

But the impeccable reasoning – which also puts Argentina as joint third favorites with host Germany, right behind secondplace England – is to be viewed with suspicion. The World Cup brings its own brand of logic, a tangled,messy version of the real thing.Beware Brazil – “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown” could almost be a World Cup theme song. Four years ago, France and Argentina were heavily favored; both were surprising first-round casualties.

Neither Brazil nor Argentina will find it easy to win in Europe, despite that fact that both countries will almost certainly field starting elevens composed entirely of players who play for European clubs. England looks like the best of the European opposition at the moment, and recently – though not too convincingly – beat Argentina 3-2 in an exhibition game. And Germany and Italy lurk with menace, two countries with a knack for tournament heroics.

European soccer, for sure, is down. But definitely not out. The World Cup, staged on its own soil, is its chance to re-establish credibility.

pgardner@nysun.com