Tag: World Cup

The Two-sided Coin of the World Cup

Football’s World Cup – a review

It is probably a bit non-PC [PC = politically correct, Ed] to say anything negative about the World Cup, but I sense that the importance of being PC is beginning to wane; not that it ever bothered me anyway.

Let’s look at the positives, since almost everything has some positives somewhere; Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and the North Korean regime being obvious exceptions.

  • They built world-class stadia on time.
  • The foreign visitors who were there generally got to venues on time and the matches all started on time.
  • Inside the stadia (despite the obvious occasional sillinesses for which we can blame FIFA), everything went tickety-boo. According to some pundits, the atmosphere was “the best ever”, despite (or because of?) the hideous vuvuzela.
  • There was no major crime wave, no terrorism, no significant disasters of any kind.
  • The South Africans were reportedly very hospitable.
  • Opposing fans celebrated together; the England fans totally restored their reputations; reports of drunken English mobs were distinguishable by their absence. (they probably couldn’t afford to get there.)
  • South Africa took pride in its ability to put on the World Cup, which many had suspected it incapable of.
  • For a month the nation forgot all its problems; most people had a big party, even if the South African team (and Africa in general) was made to realize the enduring gulf between its standard of football and that of the other continents.

So, all’s well that ends well, then? Unfortunately not ….

  • The country paid around 10 billion rand to put the event on, three times more than original estimates. Where did all the money go?
  • The country is left with giant stadia that may never again be filled, the so-called “white-elephants” typical of almost all these major events. Apparently even the wondrous “Birds-nest” stadium in Beijing used for the opening ceremony of the Olympics has only been used once since 2008.
  • Only half the number of expected foreign tourists came, as the organisers over-priced everything. Organisers claim the extra income generated will pay for the costs, but nobody believes them …..
  • Preparations for the World Cup provided jobs, but those workers are now back on the street. The ordinary people of South Africa benefited little from the event, except in terms of “national pride”.

And there of course is an interesting animal; “national pride”. In a grown-up world, you’d have hoped that national pride would be best achieved through one of the following:

  • the building of suitable housing for the population
  • the setting-up of an affordable and accessible national health system (fat chance, even the USA hasn’t got that!!)
  • the diminution and ending of corruption
  • the creation of a fair society
  • the development of the economy to provide jobs and create wealth to allow ordinary people to live decently and comfortably

Any of these and other things could be seen as deserving of “national pride”, but the ability to put on at vast expense a four-week jamboree that mostly benefited the political elite, other nations, FIFA and the international television networks is a dubious contender for “pride”.

But of course it depends which side of the coin you are looking at. For some, all the expense justifies the “putting of South Africa on the map.” The politicians as usual will have been the most happy; four weeks in the spotlight strutting about on the world stage, loads of media coverage, hundreds of journalists hanging on their every word …

As for the real ethos behind the World Cup, the bits that don’t hit the glitzy headlines, two in particular struck me as symbolic of Man’s capacity for self-delusion; Africa’s attitude to its poor and the obscene power of international non-governmental monopolies such as FIFA.

These have been variously described in excellent articles written by proper journalists. The first example is from Globalpost. I find it pretty depressing.

Green Point Stadium, Cape Town: In Cape Town, Green Point Stadium is covered in a sheath of woven fiberglass so that it glows at night like a floating bowl. But its location on six city blocks in a prime real estate area has also created controversy. In 2006, the city’s government published a study that found the stadium’s location offered the least amount of economic gain to Cape Town’s resident. In fact, repairs to several older stadiums in the surrounding area could have led to savings that could have paid for 250,000 new homes for the city’s poor, according to researchers.

But FIFA wanted a stadium that would sit between South Africa’s iconic Table Mountain and Robben Island, according to reports, causing the football federation’s president, Sepp Blatter, to come under fire.

“I really think that we’re going into Green Point because Sepp Blatter says: ‘I like Green Point,’ not because it is the best thing for South Africans,” Cape Town’s then-mayor, Helen Zille, said in 2006.

Sepp Blatter will take his $2 BILLION profit away with him to some lush office somewhere, while the ordinary residents of Cape Town pick up their lives as before. How long “national pride” will sustain them is a moot point.

Roadside waterseller in Gabon, West Africa

The Marketing Bonanza: If you’ve been to Africa and driven around a bit, you’ll know that there are street traders everywhere. These are desperately poor people who will try to flog you anything and everything. They wander up and down lines of cars carrying their pathetic wares. In the ferocious midday heat women often carry large heavy  buckets full of water bottles on their heads. Many do this all day every day to earn a pittance.

But of course, like beggars in the big city, they don’t really create the right “image” and “ambiance” for a major international event with its glitz and invasion of well-off foreigners. So, as reported in “The Guardian” they were simply banned whenever the authorities considered it appropriate. So much for the World Cup “improving the lives of ordinary Africans”.

But not just anyone will be allowed to participate in what President Jacob Zuma calls “the greatest marketing opportunity of our time“. Informal traders – a significant part of the working poor – are subject to a verbatim “exclusion zone” from the bonanza in the fan parks, fan walks and stadiums. For them, the World Cup may as well be happening on another continent.

I have personal experience of something similar in Gabon. When the wife of President Bongo died, the whole country was ordered to do a week’s mourning. Street trading was banned. This of course did not affect the elite, but for many of the rest it meant the difference between eating and going hungry. When a few daring and desperate people dared to try to sell their pitiful produce in some locations the police confiscated it and trashed their stands.

And FIFA? It is reported to have made $2 BILLION in tax-free profits. Who controls this money? Why is it tax-free?  How will it be spent? To whom is FIFA really accountable? Ah, to national Football Associations? You mean like the British one, which pays £6 million per annum to a failed manager, which is three times more than the German Coach gets?

These vast sums swilling about leave a nasty taste in the mouth. Of course, any organisation’s primary concern is usually to its own self-aggrandizement, so nothing new there. Even the European Union refuses to get its accounts signed off properly, so what faith the common man can have in the honesty of these vast international organisations is questionable.

Well, the World Cup has come and gone and it provided much entertainment for those watching the games. The long-term legacy for the ordinary people of South Africa (43% of whom live on less than $2 per day) is another matter, so forgive me if my rejoicing is muted.

PS The Vuvuzuela …. nothing to me more clearly illustrates Man’s stupidity. The sound output of this instrument is 113db, which can apparently become harmful to the hearing after only 90 seconds. Those in the stadia (including the players, by the way – did anyone ask THEM what they felt?) were subject to nearly TWO HOURS of continuous multiple vuvuzuelae. Many of those people will have had their hearing IRREPARABLY DAMAGED. This will only become clearer to them in LATER YEARS.

For me it is a symbol of our stupidity. All the above health risks are clear and known. Did FIFA ban the damned thing? OF COURSE NOT!! That would have diminished the “local colour” so vital for the international media, which gives Blatter his $2 billion profit. Who gives a damn about ordinary people’s hearing? I doubt whether Sepp Blatter exposed himself overmuch to the bloody things, though he seems pretty deaf already. Once again, for a transient thrill or benefit we do ourselves lasting damage, no different from the way we often treat the planet of course.

By Chris Snuggs

The Football World Cup Final

And the best side won!

SPAIN AT LAST - AND DESERVEDLY - WIN THE WORLD CUP!!

Background: People of my generation were doubly spoilt in the 60s to 80s; it was a golden age of both popular music and football. As for the latter, we thrilled at the Brazilian and Argentinian magic, the famous German “efficiency” – and occasional touch of magic of their own – and of course the Dutch sides of 1974 and 1978.  Their “total football” and tremendous skills made them exhilarating to watch. The names still linger in the memory; Cruyff, Krol, Neeskens, Hahn, Rep, Rensenbrinck, van Hanegem, van de Kerkhof …

But they never quite made it to the summit. This was not through any lack of quality, but they didn’t have – for me – that little bit of luck at the right time that you almost always need at this level. Could this latest Dutch team possibly do what the astounding Cruyff team hadn’t quite managed to pull off?

Setting the Scene: Unfortunately, the omens for the final weren’t that great. The Dutch coach had made noises about it “not being pretty” and that he didn’t mind how they won as long as they did. There was in fact to be no romantic looking back to the magic of the Dutch sides of 1974 and 1978; this Dutch side was pragmatic. They were going to make up for the past. They were NOT going to be the third Dutch team to lose in the  final ……

In truth, they had done well to make the final, in particular stunning the much-fancied Brazil; you had to take them seriously after that. But they were efficient rather than slinky-skilled like the Spanish. With only one real star, the mercurial Arjen Robben, they were hard and “pragmatic”, which unfortunately – and as it once again proved in the final – often means “rough and brutal”.

The Spanish had shown great footballing skills, particularly in their mastery of the midfield, where they choked the life-blood out of the Germans in the semi-final. Pundits had agreed that the Germans had shown them “too much respect” and “allowed them to play their own game.” This, however, was one mistake the Dutch were NOT going to repeat. They were unlikely to be able to out-football the Spanish, so another strategy had to be found.

The Referee: What an honour to referee the World Cup Final! What excitement Howard Webb and his team must have felt as the kick-off approached. But it’s a fantastic “one-off”; you can never turn back the clock. Mistakes are fixed in time and unerasable, and there were to be several to scar the memory of his special day; which is a personal tragedy in itself.

The Game: Let’s not beat about the bush; the first half was a disgrace. The Dutch game-plan seemed to be to kick the Spain out of their rhythm and indeed even off the field. Some of the tackling was appalling. Feet were smashing in left, right and centre with no hope of getting the ball. Webb was forced to issue yellow after yellow, yet seemed so stunned by and unprepared for the ferocity of what was going on that  in fact, he was over-lenient despite the  number of bookings (14 yellows and one red, easily a record for the final). The Dutch were lucky to reach the interval with 11 players. Van Bommel could well have gone with a straight red; how de Joong didn’t get a straight red is a total mystery to everyone I’ve talked or listened to.

It was appalling, and not just in terms of what was actually happening, it being quite sickening to see players smashed recklessly to the ground. After all, a single clumsy, violent and of course illegal challenge can end a player’s career. No, the deeper tragedy was in the realization that in their desperation to win, the Dutch had cast aside sportsmanship and in essence betrayed the memories of their magical predecessors.  I have no idea what their coach said before, but the brutality of much of the tackling seemed so widespread that one felt it could only be part of a game plan and not just “World Cup nerves”. After some time, the Spanish (somewhat naturally) began to respond in kind so that the yellow cards began to mount up on both sides, and then, mercifully, came half time.

The second half was a bit better; had the players had a bollocking in the dressing room? Of course, for almost half the Dutch side they now HAD to be more careful, since a second booking meant they were off and their team one man down. As it happens, they survived till extra time before they had a man sent off; how is a mystery, and sadly, the referee has to take the blame. Yes, it is a showpiece. Yes, in one sense a sending-off would “spoil the game”, but the spoiling would have been self-inflicted by the Dutch, not the referee’s fault.

The Result? Non-partisan before the game, I was now rooting for Spain. Despite my nostalgia for Dutch teams of the past, their cynical approach could not prevail, could it? But the Spanish were doing everything possible to gift them the game. They simply could not find the goal, despite their usual domination of the midfield. The funny thing is that despite their being “the best side of the tournament”, they won it by scoring the fewest goals in World Cup history – only EIGHT, and winning ALL the knock-out stages just 1-0. As time went on, it seemed they would never score, with shot after shot whizzing miles over the bar or left or right of an untroubled goalkeeper, while the Dutch lurked and waited and should have won with Robben’s one-on-one with the Spanish goalkeeper after a magnificent through-ball on the counter-attack. Mysteriously – and tragically for the Dutch – Robben could not lift the ball a couple of feet and thus surely over Cepillas’ desperately-sliding legs.

And so we went into extra time, the Dutch seeming to play for a draw until finally their misdeeds caught up with them and Heitinga was sent off. With Dutch legs flagging Spain launched wave after wave of attacks and finally found the target with 10 minutes to go. This spared us the agony of a penalty shoot-out, which I would have backed the pragmatic Dutch to win.

But thank God they didn’t and that their brutality of the first half was not rewarded. I asked myself whether a Dutchman could have been proud of this side. Surely nationalism and pride should not prevail over sportsmanship? I am waiting to see what the great Cruyff has to say about it all. (see below)

Sadly, the Dutch players took the defeat badly, with endless complaints about the refereeing.

Agreed, the ref had a very poor game (though the players must take much of the blame for this.) Apart from all the brutality, he missed an obvious corner to the Dutch just before the latter scored their goal. But had the Dutch won, I suspect there would have been an absolute furore in the media, and a legacy of much bitterness.

But in the end, they had nothing to complain about (which didn’t stop them looking). The better – and MORE IMPORTANTLY – more sporting side won, but the post-mortem will continue.  And the final questions are:

  • Is winning really worth losing your honour? If it is, then I’ll stop watching professional football; it’s already going that way to some extent as we saw on Sunday.
  • Will FIFA one day get its act together and sort out the constant gamesmanship and brutality that scar the game? Video evidence seems essential here, INCLUDING its use AFTER games to retrospectively punish bad and unsporting play, which too many players get away with.
  • Why is FIFA so CONSERVATIVE? Why not as in rugby a SIN-BIN for players booked? Knowing that a yellow card would mean 10 or 15 minutes off the pitch would seriously concentrate the minds one thinks.  I hate punishment on a philosophical level, but if it IS felt necessary then it HAS TO BE EFFECTIVE. It is not for nothing that I have nicknamed the FIFA President  Sepp Blabber, or even Blather – either seems appropriate.

By Chris Snuggs

PS I found out about Cruyff – as I had hoped and suspected he would,  he has severely criticised his own national team, showing the same admirable qualities as a man that he did as a player. His countrymen have to take a long, hard look at themselves after all this, not just at the way the team played but at how some people in Holland have reacted to the defeat.

Cheats Prevail Again

Well, the World Cup is great at one thing, throwing up moral dilemmas.

No, it's not Netball!

Once again a MASSIVE injustice has been done through inadequate and idiotic rules, but the REAL issue is the moral vacuity of much of this world, with an inability to be honest, true, moderate and humble.

Why “moderate”? Because so many are so GREEDY. Greedy for “success”, fame, money at WHATEVER THE MORAL COST.

Suarez of Uruguay hand-balled (see picture) to prevent a certain goal by Ghana. This would have meant Ghana won the game and became the FIRST African team to make it to a World Cup Semi-Final.

Handball is illegal; it is therefore absolutely clear that Uruguay defeated Ghana thanks to an illegal act. That is one tragedy.

The second and greater tragedy is that Suarez and millions of South Americans have REJOICED in this win obtained through cheating. But what sort of moral code is it that makes people REJOICE when they win through cheating? It is totally against the ethics of true sportsmanship, and is enough to make one vomit.

I don’t know what hope there is for the world when cheating is so widely applauded by those who benefit from it, and who would no doubt be the first to complain if cheating disadvantaged them.

Yes, this was three-ways a depressing nonsense:

  1. We lost the chance to see an African side progress, and the whole African continent feels justifiably robbed.
  2. The moral bankruptcy of the rejoicing Uruguayans and South Americans is nauseating.
  3. The idiocy of FIFA is shocking; this has been a problem for DECADES which they have FAILED to address; unlike rugby of course, where a penalty try can be awarded.

FIFA is a disgrace. They threaten France and Nigeria with expulsion for “interfering” in the affairs of their national footballing federation, yet does anyone in their right mind suppose that football in North Korea is not totally and utterly controlled by the tyrannical regime?

Sepp Blabber is a blot on the landscape, a moral and practical vacuum of pontificating mediocrity.

Oh, it is said that Suarez’ handball was “instinctive“? Give us a break.

A professional footballer’s instinct is NOT to handle the ball. His reaction certainly was “instinctive”, but to instinctively CHEAT.

The bottom line is that CHEATING HAS GAINED A MASSIVE ADVANTAGE. It should not and never should. Have we heard any apology from the Uruguayans? Ha, bloody ha. Man’s ability to rationalize his greed is astounding.

[Interesting article by Robert Peston of the BBC about England’s approach to the World Cup. Ed.]

By Chris Snuggs

“THE RIGHT STUFF”

Football – and the winner is ……. money and the lust for fame.

Well, the England v Germany game was tragic of course. But it wasn’t because:

  • the England team lost
  • they played not only badly but moronically, with an idiotic rush upfield of the whole defence as if it were the last few minutes of the game, thus allowing the Germans to score more or less at will
  • they repeated a few minutes later EXACTLY the same error as described above
  • the Germans scored a goal straight from the kick-off, which BBC commentators said they had never before seen in an international match
  • many of the players seemed “tired”, though this didn’t seem to trouble other players of the Premier League who were playing for other countries
  • the English players mostly plodded about like sleepy elephants compared to the racing panthers of Germany (resisting the temptation to say ‘panzers’)
  • the 5 million quid manager didn’t seem to have a clue; playing people out of position in a 4-4-2 formation that NOBODY else uses
  • there were no specialist wingers; quite useful for getting behind the defence and lobbing in crosses, a strategy that seems as foreign to the manager as he is himself
  • the same person was clearly unable to motivate and organise his players; as he speaks a different language this is not all that surprising – NO OTHER NATIONAL TEAM has a foreign manager, but we have to be different
  • the manager – with three goals needed in 15 minutes  brought on Emile Heskey as our ‘last hope’,  no doubt a worthy person but with a very poor goal-scoring record
  • the forward with the best goal-scoring record of all the English team (Crouch) hardly got a look-in
  • the players were clearly disorganised and uninspired
  • there seemed to be little real leadership on or off the field, with rumblings of discontent in the camp
  • for all of the above the FA is paying this hopeless manager nearly £20,000 per working day of the year

No, all the above is or was silly – or perhaps a better word is “pathetic”. The real tragedy concerns the goal that wasn’t.

The Goal that wasn't ....

Of course, this was every bit as silly as the rest of it, FIFA looking completely ridiculous by its refusal to contemplate the use of technology to enhance “fairness” (a concept I am quite keen on but which seems a bit out of fashion generally). It seems that some of the vastly-paid and expensively-hotelled world-ranging FIFA executives think that technology would “reduce the drama”. I am seriously hoping that Argentina “do a Lampard” on Germany in the Friday game so that the idiocy of this policy will be rubbed in, especially to the (rather sadly) gloating Germans.

But we STILL haven’t got to the tragic bit, which is that the Germans missed a chance to be remembered for ever as the team that owned up to a goal. Neuer, the German goalkeeper, has said that when the ball rebounded from the bar and went in (as it clearly did) he at once reached behind, grabbed it and hoofed it upfield “so that the referee wouldn’t think it had gone in.” which of course (being blind) he didn’t.

In other words, Neuer KNEW it wasn’t a goal but didn’t say so. With this action he joined the serial cheats, divers, “get-an-opposing-player-sent-off” and Maradona “Hand-of-God” players who will do anything to win. These are people to whom the concept of sportsmanship, fairness, honesty and “doing the right stuff” are alien.

In the case of Maradona, the ability of humans to reach the peaks of irony was once again illustrated when before the World Cup started he made a plea for “fair play”. I am unaware that he has ever apologised for his own cheating, but of course it is much easier to urge other people to behave in a certain way than to do it yourself.

Anyway, I do not claim the English would have done any different; we’ll never know. Just as we’ll never know what the score of this match WOULD have been HAD the goal been given. What we DO know is that we’ll be thinking for the next forty years about how silly and unjust this was just as the Germans have been whinging on for the same length of time about 1966. It could and should have been so different. HAD the Germans gone at once to the ref and said: “It was a goal”, they would have been moral heroes for the rest of footballing history rather than remembered (by me at least) as just another bunch of cheats.

The tragedy of course is that a TREMENDOUS OPPORTUNITY was lost to make a pitch for honesty, fairness, sportsmanship and decency. What an example that would have been to everyone, especially our kids! And WHAT A CHANCE to dump for ever and ever the image of football as a cheats’ activity dominated by the false Gods of money and fame as well as the stereo-typed image that some idiotic Brits have of Germans as unfeeling Nazis.

No, their instinct was NOT to admit the goal and to benefit from an unfair error. Sad … for the next 40 years we’ll be talking about the unfairness rather than what a wonderful gesture they made.

Oh, and as for 1966, let’s lay this ghost to rest. There was NEVER ANY QUESTION that it wasn’t a goal. The referee and linesman on that day BOTH said it was a goal and it is obvious from the reaction of the players that it was a goal, even if in those times the cameras were not as sophisticated as today’s and cannot definitively PROVE it was a goal. I am afraid this 1966: “It wasn’t a goal – we wuz robbed.” stuff is a bit like the urban myth: “The German army was stabbed in the back by politicians.” that Hitler exploited after WWI.

Well, for me the World Cup has lost some sheen; it is all so silly, nationalistic and rife with unsportsmanship. All that one lives with (one is used it these days), but the missed opportunity to make a moral stand is one I deeply regret.

I hope it is clear that this has NOTHING TO DO with my being English. Had our boys done the same I would have been just as sad, even more so, as – perhaps stupidly – I would like to think we are made of better stuff. However, football is not cricket and even cricket is often not cricket today either.

By Chris Snuggs