Ugly Politics And Beautiful Game

Now that the World Cup is over, it’s a good a time to unpack all that happened. Not the actual play (although there were some absolutely gripping games), but the often darker political undercurrents that undergird the world’s biggest sporting event. From West Germany playing East Germany at the height of the Cold War to Nike being unable to provide the Iranian national team with cleats, the World Cup has never truly been divorced from the political realities of its time. At the World Cup, the beautiful game has never been just a game, and this is truer now then it has ever been. 

This World Cup saw a plethora of shocking upsets with heavy favorites losing to newcomers and underdogs. This is an apt metaphor for what we’ve seen happen in global politics, with what was once thought to be a deeply cemented world order slowly crumbling. The United States failing to qualify is a fitting allegory for America’s abdication of its global leadership position. And fitting, the specter of Russia looms just as large considering their position as host nation and their global ambitions on the international political stage.

Related: Candy Corn Sports… What Happened To Baseball?

Even while soccer’s powerhouse teams failed to perform, the effects of globalization could be seen in the style of play. While a nation’s playing style was once considered distinctive to each team, the majority of teams now adopt a much more technical style normally associated with European teams and inspired by European club football. Most countries’ star players play in one of the major European leagues, and if they don’t then they are influenced by the style of play broadcasted to millions around the world throughout the year. While nationalist leaders often decry the perceived threat of global homogenization no one dares do so when it comes to soccer. Just like in the global economy, it’s either adapt or die.

The effects of globalization could also be seen in the makeup of the teams vying for sports’ most sought-after championship. The final four teams all came from Europe, but a look at the names on the roster told a different story. Half of the Belgian and English teams had roots in Africa or the Caribbean. The Championship winning French team is made up primarily of players of an African background with a significant amount of Muslim players. This is in sharp contrast to the right-wing hyper-nationalism and racial identity politics that have begun to sweep across Europe.

There are many lessons that can be learned from this fact. France, plagued by xenophobia and Islamophobia, embraced their African and Muslim stars in a way that was both heartening and cautionary. The success of the French national team truly showed that immigrants can not only become members of society but that they can make significant contributions and make their country better.  On the other hand, immigrants don’t only matter when they succeed but their worth should come as an intrinsic part of their humanity.

Karim Benzema, the great Algerian-French player, once said, “If I score I’m French, but if I don’t I’m Arab.”

No matter how much we might wish that our sports be an escape from the realities of the real world the fact is politics permeates everything in the world around us. This is especially true when nations face off against each other in the world cup. The prolific sports writer Simon Kuper once wrote that when two teams take the field in the World Cup their nations’ histories take the field alongside them. At times this may mean that the beautiful game is besmirched by the ugliness of political competition. Then again, there are few things more emotionally charged than sports, so perhaps it’s fitting that politics is fought out on the pitch as well.