UEFA President Michel Platini and FIFA President Sepp Blatter (January 12, 2009 - Photo by John Gichigi/Getty Images Europe)
... UEFA understands what FIFA does not, namely, that freedom works. National teams will never be as
good, as entertaining, or as compelling as teams composed of free individuals willingly and contractually
cooperating toward one common purpose. Open systems of nationality come closer to the ideal of freedom
than closed systems, and the national teams themselves recognize this.
[...] FIFA and its World Cup, like nationalism, will persist as long as we have nations and nationalists,
ethnic pride and prejudice, to perpetuate them. These ideas that destroyed so many lives on so many
occasions throughout the twentieth century are the not-so-beautiful underside of the beautiful game. The
game is unquestionably more beautiful without them.
I'm not really sure I agree with Marcus' premise or his conclusion. Marcus acknowledges that UEFA has its own nation-based competition, the Europa Cup. While players in UEFA are obviously permitted to choose their clubs and their allegiances, is FIFA (and the World Cup) really that different? In a FIFA competition, a player still has the option of choosing to play for his country; it's not like they are forcibly conscripted into military service. In fact, isn't one of the collective complaints that more top-level players are prioritizing their club sides over their national teams?
I'm also not sure I buy his argument that mercenary teams (for lack of a better description) would provide better competition and more entertainment than a national team. Does he mean any national team? An average national team (is there such a thing?)? A lower-tier national team? And as far as enhanced competition and entertainment goes, I can't get past the current, bloated examples of Manchester United, Real Madrid et al.
FIFA's current Westphalian structure may seem antiquated, but the conception of nation-states as units of competition is not anachronistic or obsolete. In fact, it's only about 350 years old. Marcus argues that nationalism and ethnic pride should be cast aside, because they can spill over into prejudice and destruction. But this argument seems a little extreme and overreactive. He seems to be advocating a move toward some type of transnational cosmopolitanism, but at this point in history such a move itself could only be achieved by imposing it on those who have gotten used to nationalism as a marker for team loyalty and affiliation (players and fans alike).
Without these loyalties, based on arbitrary factors like place of birth, would people get the same enjoyment (or anguish) from last week's Germany-Australia match? From top to bottom, Germany fielded a vastly superior team. The competitive imbalance would still have been possible in a contractually libertarian system, but would there have been the same level of emotional support for the Australia side (or whatever they would have been called. The Sydney Foster's?)? Part of the reason we love sports is because loyalty and fandom are unreasonable.
Over-infatuation with the right of contract, and the ugly results of this, are why we have things today like labor laws and public health ordinances, so people don't contract away basic entitlements. I see similar (though obviously less severe) problems with diving into mercenarism in this context, too. But putting aside the question of how things should be, I still can't get past the question of how things actually are. I just don't think people are ready to give up FIFA's foundations of nationalism and, yes, borderline jingoism, just yet. Even if they should, it's a separate question of whether they will.
I'd be interested in hearing other people's thoughts on this stuff.
1 comments: on "On FIFA, UEFA and competing visions"
Yes, his comments are interesting. In all honesty, FIFA and UEFA are really not as different as the writer, Marcus, makes it seem.
We need nations just as much as we need clubs. His first point about the quality of play is flawed. He states that, "National teams will never be as good, as entertaining, or as compelling as teams composed of free individuals willingly and contractually cooperating toward one common purpose."
Firstly, the quality of play at club level will always be higher than the quality of play at international level. This is because (duh...) players train with their club most of their lives, while they only meet up with their national team for international duty. The ratio is about 9/1. But aside from that.
He writes that individuals are "willingly and contractually cooperating toward one common purpose." I respond with two beliefs. Firstly, I believe that individuals playing on the national team do so freely and out of their own will because of the honor and pride involved in representing one's country. The common purpose is different for different teams. For top-tier teams it would be winning tournaments, for lower level teams it would be qualifying for tournaments. Either way, you play for one common purpose and that is to win for your country.
(Sure, you get the occassional Dimitar Berbatov and Zlatan Ibrahimovic who have retired from the international fold. But that is because they have tried their best at the international level and aren't satisfied. They don't believe they can achieve anything with their national teams, Bulgaria and Sweden, respectively, more than they already have. Sweden made it to the last world cup and european cup, but this year they did not qualify. Why would Ibra waste his time playing friendlies during the summer/fall when he could be concentrating on more important priorities, with all due respect to Sweden. Furthermore, both players play for top-level clubs who are challenging for all honors consistently, Manchester United and Barcelona, respectively.)
Secondly, not all club players are playing with "one common purpose". They play for many reasons. Money, a move to a bigger club, cities they like, their family needs to be settled, and, of course, titles. In different teams, these competing priorities are definitely valued differently by the players. Furthermore, what happens when there is too much individual freedom and freedom of contract?
I assume the writer would wholeheartedly agree with the Bosman Rulings of 1995, allowing players the freedom to move and switch between clubs of their own accords. This was a good move at the time because it allowed players freedom. The climate back then was very restrictive and this was a progressive move.
Even FIFA are not closed on their conceptions of nationality, and the author agrees with this by citing 'closed' and 'open' conceptions of nationality, Germany being an example of an open one. This is where I tie back what I said at the start, that FIFA and UEFA are actually not as different as people think.
FIFA allows players to choose their nations. Kevin-Prince Boateng just recently made his switch from Germany to Ghana because it allows him the 'freedom' to play where he wants. Amauri got his Italian citizenship recently, which would have allowed him to play for his native Brazil or Italy. There are countless examples of these, across all sports and countries. Nations give individuals citizenship at the last moment just so they can represent them during a major sporting tournament (..ahem..olympics).
oh man, i've written too much...i dont even know what my original point is....
Post a Comment