Advertisements
Home

European Success Comes at Africa’s Expense: Former U.S. President Barack Obama’s First Major Post-Presidential Speech Focuses on Football but Misses the Mark

Leave a comment

Former U.S. President Barack Obama chose to make the focus of his first major post-presidential speech football, and in so doing proved (as has become the norm for globalist figures) his distance from the people. At an event in South Africa celebrating the 100th anniversary of Nelson Mandela’s birth, Mr. Obama praised the French national football team as an example of “inclusivity”. Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, however, his speech missed the mark on many levels.

As I have written before, the FIFA World Cup—particularly the 2018 incarnation of it—has become a propaganda tool for globalist interests. Predictably, Mr. Obama’s speech followed the globalist logic. Mr. Obama noted that the “multicultural” French squad confirmed Mr. Mandela’s “principle that we are bound to a common humanity”, and that this is a

 

truth that is incompatible with any form of discrimination based on race or religion or gender or sexual orientation. And it is a truth that, by the way, when embraced, actually delivers practical benefits, since it ensures that a society can draw upon the talents and energy and skill of all its people. And if you doubt that, just ask the French football team that just won the World Cup. Because not all of those folks – not all of those folks look like Gauls to me. But they’re French. They’re French.

 

While Mr. Obama may have wanted his “observation” to be interpreted as one in favor of multiculturalism, instead it seems that he has not abandoned the race-baiting tactics which have so disastrously divided the United States; indeed, the focus in this statement is not on the caliber of play but instead on the physical appearance of the French team. And that is something that someone as “tolerant” as Mr. Obama should have recognized before making such a ludicrous statement.

 

Yet Mr. Obama was not done. He continued by saying:

 

Embracing our common humanity does not mean that we have to abandon our unique ethnic and national and religious identities. Madiba never stopped being proud of his tribal heritage. He didn’t stop being proud of being a black man and being a South African. But he believed, as I believe, that you can be proud of your heritage without denigrating those of a different heritage.

 

Here I am forced to ask who—aside from, perhaps, Google—would ever claim that being proud of one’s heritage means denigrating those of different heritage? Mr. Obama seems to be going by the bizarre logic of Google, which equates xenophobia with nationalism, that I criticized on 10 July. It is a shame that Mr. Obama is so caught up in the narrative he is trying to spread that he cannot see the problems inherent in his effusive praise of the French side.

 

While the French side deserve all the credit in the world for winning a physically and mentally taxing tournament like the World Cup, the image of the “multicultural” French side may not be as rosy as some commentators seem to assume. As I have written about previously, globalization is essentially imperialism with a kinder face. In France’s case, their “multicultural” football team may be less a reflection of their “tolerant” society (which, in actuality, is fairly racist), and more a reflection of neo-colonialism; the team is the fruit of past imperialism! France’s team won the world cup with a squad featuring a many players of African descent; according to Yahoo Sports, there were players of Congolese, Guinean, Nigerian, Cameroonian, Algerian, Mauritanian, Senegalese, Malian, Tologlese, Angolan, Zairian, and Moroccan descent in the French squad. Yet, at the same time, this World Cup saw the worst performance for Africa, as a continent, since 1982; it was the first time in 36 years that an African side failed to appear in the tournament’s second round, and the African contingent’s 15 games resulted in 10 losses, two draws, and just three wins.

Comically, the BBC asks, rhetorically, “What Went Wrong for Africa in 2018?”, and they suggest VAR and “bad luck” as possible answers. Readers who expect honest reporting—rather than globalist rhetoric—from journalists would do well to avoid the BBC, because the answer is quite clear: What went wrong for Africa is that some of Africa’s most talented footballers are currently playing for European countries! If Mr. Obama actually cared for Africa—as he continually claims to do—he could have addressed the neo-colonialism of the French football team while also praising it. Or he could have praised Croatia, who—despite their small size—showed what a team can do when both players and fans are united with a strong sense of national identity and national pride. In the end, however, Mr. Obama’s rhetoric is just that: rhetoric. It has no basis in reality, and merely represents another form of globalist propaganda. Meanwhile, I am hoping for a true African success at the next World Cup. After all, that is likely what Nelson Mandela would have truly wanted: the sons of Africa playing under an African—and not a colonial—flag.

 

Drogba.jpg

For Instance, Didier Drogba didn’t play for France…He Played for the Ivory Coast. Image Courtesy Of: https://fr.starafrica.com/football/articles/mondial-2018-drogba-revient-sur-lechec-de-lafrique/
Advertisements

Thoughts on Google’s Manipulation, Nationalism, and Football Part 2: The Tribulations of Croatia’s World Cup Adventure

2 Comments

Author’s Note: Upon returning to Turkey from a short trip to Greece I was reading the daily news at home and could not help but notice the main(lame)stream media’s obsession with the word “xenophobic” (and its other forms, like “xenophobia”. When I looked it up on Google, just to see how they would define it, I was surprised to see that—as a synonym—Google decided to provide its users with “nationalism”. This is, of course, absurd and only someone with a very weak knowledge of the English language would accept “nationalism” as a synonym of “xenophobia”. Yet, since Google is so keen on brainwashing internet users around the world I thought that I should—in the vein of famous Sociologist C. Wright Mills—stand up to this absurdity. This is part two of a two-part post responding to Google’s unacceptable attempts to mislead the public.

 

Nationalism:Xenophobia.png

Beware Google’s Manipulations. Image Courtesy of Google.com

 

Like many previous World Cups, Russia 2018 has been presented to fans as a globalist celebration of “one world” and “one game”. Of course, this message has been mainly sent by FIFA’s corporate sponsors, which look to steamroll the world—and football fans—into one homogenous, all-consuming, mass. That Budweiser (France 1998) and Coca-Cola (Brazil 2014) sent the same messages during previous World Cups goes to show the extent of consumerism’s intimate ties to the World Cup experience in the age of extreme capitalism.

 

images.jpeg

Coca-Cola Advert from Brazil 2014. Image Courtesy Of: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRjm8Vl6uN4zjSqehlv7Hu8GFWIlZZNLh9p2Jk-OMbf4Uf0atBTRA

 

Unknown.jpeg

Budweiser Advert from France 1998. Image Courtesy Of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8uoRvD-FCw

 

Watching this World Cup, it is fascinating to see just how wary the news media—and FIFA—are of any messages which run afoul of the utopic “one world” message espoused by globalism.  Anything that goes against the narrative is liable to be labeled as “nationalistic” or—perhaps, judging by Google’s twisted logic—xenophobic as well! In a World Cup competition—itself a sporting event contested by the representatives of nation-states—there is always going to be a tension between nationalism and globalism. Just like this tension is evident in the wider world, so too is it evident in the World Cup. Despite what the globalists may wish, nationalism is not going away (a fact which the late Anthony D. Smith continually reminded scholars of). Interestingly, it is Croatia—the tournament’s unheralded surprise package—which has brought this tension to the fore time and again during the tournament.

 

Croatia is a small Balkan nation of around 4,000,000. Despite its small population, however, the Croatian team has shocked the world by making it all the way to the World Cup final. Of course, this is not the best outcome for the sponsors; after all, they are all about the markets, and a bigger population means a bigger market which means more money. And this may be why the Croatian team has been criticized time and again for—perhaps unwittingly—going against the globalist narrative. Most recently, following Croatia’s upset of England in the semifinals, the main(lame)stream media outlet Bloomberg published a piece with the sub-headline “The small country wins thanks to a unique combination of professionalism and warlike nationalist fervor”. While the author is correct in asserting that football did indeed play an important role in the break-up of Yugoslavia and subsequent identity formation of an independent Croatian state, the disdain for any type of “nationalism” is evident in the text: one passage reads “While soccer fans remain a political force, with all their nationalist warts and anti-capitalist pathos, the fervor of the 1990s no longer determines the political landscape”. Clearly, to the author, “nationalism” and “anti-capitalism” represent “warts”; they are disfigurements which need to be removed in order for Croatia to fully enter the globalist utopia.

 

It is important to note that this is just a journalistic interpretation of Croatia’s unprecedented success. Meanwhile, FIFA has also been swift to reprimand Croatia’s team—and players—for other actions which have gone against the globalist narrative.  Defender Domagoj Vida received a “warning” from FIFA for a Youtube video dedicating Croatia’s quarterfinal victory (over Russia) to Ukraine. Mr. Vida explained that the video, in which he says “Glory to Ukraine”, is a joke dedicated to his Ukrainian friends at Dynamo Kiev (the footballer’s former club). Predictably, the video did not go down well with FIFA, who sent an ‘official warning”. Given that the video was pro-Ukrainian, Russian politicians were—like FIFA—quick to condemn it, with the Russian parliament’s sports committee member Dmitry Svishchyov saying “Political, nationalist and racist slogans are not welcome at the World Cup.”. From this comment, it seems that Mr. Svishchyov has either been reading too much Google, or he is mistaken as to what entails “racist” and “nationalist” speech. Expressing support for one country—in this case Ukraine—does not entail “racist” speech. Unfortunately, however, the global culture industry continues to frame the debate, and anything that goes against the narrative is liable to be labeled “racist”… or worse; Mr. Vida escaped with a fine but the Croatian official also appearing in the video was fined 15,000 Swiss Francs.

 

1034225456.jpg

Domagoj Vida, a Hero to Many For Resisting the Global Culture Industry. Image Courtesy Of: https://tr.sputniknews.com/spor/201807151034289908-vida-ukrayna-yanlisi-ikinc-video/

 

Yet this was not the only moment of “indiscretion” for the Croatian side. Following the team’s round of 16 victory over Denmark, the Croatian soccer federation was fined over 70,000 USD for “an incident in which members of the Croatian national team were seen drinking ‘non-authorized beverage products’”. The “non-authorized beverage product” in question was one not officially approved by FIFA as an official World Cup beverage, yet by daring to consume such a beverage the Croatian team was fined ten times what Russia was fined for unfurling a neo-Nazi banner against Uruguay earlier in the tournament. Clearly, adhering to the globalist logic of consumption is much more important than being “tolerant”; this fact alone should be enough to show World Cup fans just how hollow the globalist tropes of “tolerance” are.

 

These tropes are so hollow that FIFA continually contradicts itself while attempting to tow the globalist line. Following the semi-finals, broadcasters were ordered to stop “zooming in on ‘hot women’ in the crowd” of World Cup matches. Apparently, such “zooming in” is a result of sexist broadcasters. Of course, one could easily point out that showcasing female fans does quite the opposite; it provides an opportunity to showcase female fans and thus allows football to become less of the male preserve that it has traditionally been. Football is best with fans, and their gender should not matter. Unless, of course, FIFA wants to create a controversy out of nothing.

 

_102485477_gettyimages-538998040.jpg

Apparently, These Fans Should Not Be Shown (According to FIFA). Image Courtesy Of: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/44800145

 

Similarly, the British Independent claims that France’s “multicultural” team (and the patriotism it elicits) does not “disguise the racism in French society”. What The Independent fails to note is that France’s “multicultural” squad is a direct result of colonialism; the sons of French colonial possessions have come to the metropole to represent the national team in this World Cup, yet there is no mention of this uncomfortable link in The Independent’s piece. Rather, they prefer to focus on the perceived racism that exists in French society. Of course, underlining the team’s connection to the colonial past would have undermined the main(lame) stream media’s case, so it went unmentioned. Yet, for those of us who care not for equality but who strive for justice, this is unacceptable; in order to keep globalism from becoming an extension of imperialism we must not be silent when we see immigrants being exploited (a topic that the Washington Post hints at when noting the issues with calling France an “African team”). Wouldn’t it be nicer if there actually was an African team in the latter stages of the World Cup, rather than a French side advertising the European nation’s neocolonial tendencies? Of course it would be…but don’t expect that kind of analysis from the Washington Post, which prefers divisive race baiting in their “analysis”. And yet, when a former Croatia manager points out the national backgrounds of the French side, he is immediately slammed for being “racist”. Again, it represents yet another attempt to slander Croatia, the side that FIFA’s corporate sponsors did not really want in the final; England would have brought in much more publicity (and, of course, money). This is why it is important to read through the lines of the headlines put out by the main(lame) stream media; most of it is just a cheap way to frame debate and increase the divisions among people based on gender or race.

 

Keeping these examples in mind, football fans must wonder: where is the freedom in a world dominated by the logic of extreme capitalism and consumption? When corporate interests decide what drinks a team can and can not consume, it becomes clear that we are living in an age of corporate fascism. When broadcasters are told what images of fans they should focus on—and which types of fans they should ignore—it becomes clear that we are living in an age of corporate fascism. When the news media attempts to divide people based on demographic characteristics, it becomes clear we are living in an age of corporate fascism. It is these types of social control that we all must resist, regardless of the team we support or the nation we are a citizen of. The only way to defeat globalism—and its corporate sponsors—is by standing up for countries and their cultures. Otherwise, we risk becoming anonymous parts of a homogenized global “culture” of consumption. Nationalism and patriotism are not xenophobia, despite what Google might say.

 

Please See Part 1 Here.

Notes from the First Week of the 2018 World Cup: A Lesson in the Culture Industry of Globalism

Leave a comment

The 2018 World Cup is sorting out to be less of a sporting event and more of a propaganda machine for the budding culture industry of globalism and globalization. While events on the pitch play out—like Mexico’s shock upset of defending champion Germany—they are interpreted through the lens of a globalist culture industry which prefers to tie what happens on the field to events off the field; indeed Germany’s loss has been blamed on the row over German players appearing in a photo with Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a topic I have written about. Of course, this has not been the only instance where politics and off the field concerns have stolen the spotlight from what we should be focusing on: the sporting competition on the field.

Former U.S. national team star Landon Donovan caused “outrage” after appearing in a Wells Fargo ad to announce his support for Mexico. In the advertisement (which can be seen here) Mr. Donovan says “Wells Fargo and I are inviting anyone in need of a team to root for to join us in cheering for the Mexican national team. Vamos Mexico!”. In a Tweet announcing his support for the United States’ southern neighbor, Mr. Donovan appears with a scarf reading “my other team is Mexico”.

 

Screen Shot 2018-06-20 at 5.20.31 AM.png

I join Carlos Bocanegra in saying “Really?”. Image Courtesy of: https://www.upi.com/Sports_News/Soccer/2018/06/18/World-Cup-USMNT-icons-disagree-with-Donovan-for-support-of-Mexico/9461529329390/

 

It didn’t take long for other former U.S. national team players to respond to Mr. Donovan’s comments. On his Instagram account, Cobi Jones said “Nah man! Mexico is not ‘my team.’ Mexico is a rival in CONCACAF. In sport there is something sacred about rivalries. Meaning and history behind them! I don’t see Brazil cheering for Argentina. England cheering for Germany. Barca for Madrid. Man U for Liverpool or Lakers for Clippers. Yankees/Red Sox etc … It’s sports and you’re allowed to cheer against someone. Let alone your regional rival!”. Former striker and current ESPN analyst Taylor Twellman also joined in, saying on Twitter “I’d rather cut off my toe than ‘root for [Mexican flag] and I’m on the outside on this one, but how could I root for my/our rival? Imagine any [Chilean] players rooting for [Argentina] today. I can’t imagine how American Outlaws would feel if I rooted for Mexico … but then again I’m old school.” Of course, these emotional responses are both warranted and also understandable.

 

Screen Shot 2018-06-20 at 5.20.43 AM.pngScreen Shot 2018-06-20 at 5.20.19 AM.png

Proud Americans. Images Courtesy Of: https://www.upi.com/Sports_News/Soccer/2018/06/18/World-Cup-USMNT-icons-disagree-with-Donovan-for-support-of-Mexico/9461529329390/

 

The previous generation of U.S. soccer players proudly represented their country at a time when football infrastructure was all but non-existent in the United States. Despite this lack of institutional support, they successfully qualified for the 1990 World Cup and built football in the country through their dedication and hard work. Therefore, when a player like Landon Donovan comes out and—in the name of a sponsorship deal with Wells Fargo—seemingly ignores the blood and sweat which (literally) went into building U.S. soccer from the ground up, it is bound to touch a nerve.

Unfortunately, however, comments like Mr. Donovan’s have come to be expected in a world which favors political correctness and culture industry catchwords over real emotional attachments. Indeed, the fact that Mr. Donovan prefers attachment to global capital (in the form of Wells Fargo) and culture industry compliant catchwords—over attachment to his nation—is evident in his response to criticism. His post in response both attempts to reaffirm his patriotism while also catering to the dominant strand of globalist one dimensional thought: “I believe in supporting each other and building bridges, not barriers”. Mr. Donovan is looking to defend himself by falling back on the politically correct trope of “building bridges”. What Mr. Donovan does not understand is that none of his former team-mates are advocating “building barriers”; rather they are just pointing out the rather obvious fact that it is ok to not support your rival; not supporting a rival does not mean hating a rival. Unfortunately, however, in the modern world it is the utopic ideas of “love trumping hate” which tend to frame events in a zero-sum game of “love” vs. “hate”. There can be no middle ground, and we see similar interpretations as regards other off the field developments during the 2018 World Cup.

When the coach of the South Korean national team Shin Tae-Young “admitted that his team mixed around its jersey numbers for recent training sessions and warm-up games because he believes Westerners find it difficult to ‘distinguish between Asians’, USA today deemed the comments “extraordinary”. Of course, there is nothing very “extraordinary” about the comments; Mr. Tae-Young’s move was a strategic one in footballing terms yet, in the world of one-dimensional thought, USA Today needed to frame the move in terms of the politically correct discourse created by the globalist culture industry. At the same time, there was outrage when the Mexican team’s fans chanted “homophobic slurs”. Of course, much of the outrage in The Guardian’s story comes from “Professors” at U.S. Universities who have very little knowledge of first hand football culture. Most real football fans know that, in the stadium, one’s sexual preference is irrelevant; what matters is supporting your team. Unfortunately for football fans of all sexual orientations, however, this fake outrage—and virtue signaling—only serves to further alienate football fans from one another. These divisions mirror the divisions created by the global culture industry in other walks of life.

Consumers of sports and main (lame)stream sports media prefer to have their own sense of “morality” and “virtue” confirmed, rather than look at the bigger picture. This is why CNN gleeefully reports on Russian oligarch (and Chelsea owner) Roman Abramovich’s program to bring seriously ill children to the World Cup. While Mr. Abramovich’s actions are of course laudable, they gloss over the cut-throat manner in which the oligarch made his billions during the free-for-all of privatization following the collapse of the Soviet Union. CNN prefers to sing the praises of virtue without even focusing on how the money was made in the first place.

In sum, football fans this summer should be cognizant of the fact that the FIFA World Cup is far from a sporting event; instead, it—like many international events—has become an incubator for the inculcation (indoctrination?) of the globalist culture industry. This culture industry is attempting to gradually homogenize the emotions of the world under the guise of a sporting event. What we all must remember, however, is that manufactured emotions are not real in any sense of the word, rather they are represent a gradual pacification of the world in order to create more docile bodies—in the Foucauldian sense—to participate in consumerism on a global scale.

 

sepp20001.jpg

From the 2014 World Cup, But Still Very Relevant. Image Courtesy Of: https://thesunshineroom.com/category/world-cup-2014/

Football Shirts Get Political Again, This Time in The United States

1 Comment

Almost a month ago, I wrote about a case where a football shirt started a political storm in Germany. Now, it seems, the same is happening in the United States. A few years ago, as I was filling out my Panini album (a must during a World Cup year), I couldn’t help but lament the fact that both Turkey and the United States would not be playing. For the U.S. it is an even bigger failure (given the amount of money invested in football), and the squad will have to settle with appearing in a few pre-tournament warm-up matches. While the U.S. faced France on June 9 2018, a French friend texted me to ask “Why are the U.S. jerseys so hideous?”. I didn’t know what he meant, so I tuned in and took a look. Indeed, the jerseys were a little off…the numbering scheme was, for some reason, colored like a rainbow! The players looked like school children, and—as a shirt enthusiast—I cringed at the design. The problem, of course, is not the fact that the U.S. men’s national football team is supporting gay pride. The United States is a diverse nation, and its gay citizens are just as valuable as its straight citizens. Indeed, the only thing that should matter, in an international football match, is representing your country. In this case, the only thing that should matter is being American. And that is the issue with these shirts: it is an unnecessary distraction and the numbering color scheme represents the ongoing politicization of all spheres of culture—sports included—in the United States of America. It is certainly a slippery slope.

 

GettyImages-966129008.jpg

Really? Image Courtesy Of: https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/team-usa-ireland-pride-jerseys-friendly-dublin-484427761.html

 

The politicization of U.S. Soccer brings to mind the furious campaign by former star Eric Wynalda to become president of the U.S. Soccer federation. Mr. Wynalda, in the run up to his campaign, said all the right things. Indeed, he asked the right questions:

 

We have countries like Uruguay with 3.5 million people in the whole country. You have Iceland who’s beating England. They have more active volcanoes than coaches. We here have this massive undertaking. We have 350 million people [in this country] and we can’t figure out how to find 11? Really?

 

Sadly, however, U.S. Soccer would not listen, showing both the corporatization of football in the U.S. as well as the larger world. The mainstream media labeled him an “outsider” (the LA Times) and the New York Times—leaders of media manipulation as they are—chose to highlight his personal financial problems. The LA Times article identifies the main reason Mr. Wynalda has had trouble in the football world:

 

Multiple efforts to become an MLS head coach went nowhere, as his contemporaries with vanilla personalities were awarded positions. U.S. Soccer’s player of the decade in the 1990s, a veteran of three World Cups, became an outsider.

He wouldn’t encounter such obstacles in almost any other country, where strong if not downright defective personalities are accepted as byproducts of the creativity necessary to be a star player [Emphasis Added].

 

As football has become increasingly corporate in the age of industrial football, creative ideas—as is the case in most industries—have been discouraged. This is why Mr. Wynalda’s struggles are not just a “personal trouble”, to borrow the language of American Sociologist C. Wright Mills. Rather, they are representative of wider “social problems”: Industrial society in the United States has become reluctant to open itself to any ideas which challenge the dominant narratives, creating an environment which fosters one-dimensional thought in boardrooms across corporate America and in classrooms throughout the American education system.

 

0443174.jpg

Eric Wynalda, A Patriot Who Has Become an Outsider In Our Brave New World. Image Courtesy Of: https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2016/06/02/us-win-over-colombia-1994-world-cup-announced-were-here-stay

 

Of course, this is not the recipe for a successful country, a peaceful society, or even a functioning football association. We, as a society, have become used to allowing technocrats to shape all facets of our lives. The two candidates Mr. Wynalda ran against, Sunil Gulati and Carlos Cordeiro, were typical technocrats. The former is an economist who teaches at Columbia University; the latter is a former partner at Goldman Sachs. In fact, Mr. Cordeiro said he was the only candidate with  “the skills to help oversee an organization with a 170 person staff, a $110 million budget, a $150 million surplus, and more than four million players, coaches, and referees”. While these are of course important factors to consider, the fact is that these skills have absolutely nothing to do with football but everything to do with business. When profit becomes the main consideration, however, these are the qualities that come to the fore. In an uber-rationalized world—in the Weberian sense—an emotional former footballer like Mr. Wynalda is deemed unacceptable for the position; instead, it is investment bankers and economists who are the ones favored. And that is how we come to an absurd situation where the most important colors of a football shirt are not the national colors of a nation but those on back of the shirts.

 

The decision to allow rainbow colored numbers—in support of Pride month—drew outrage from many. In fact, it even made a footballer for the US Women’s national team abandon her dream of representing her country because her faith did not allow her to wear the “pride” shirt in question. Given this situation, it is easy to see that there is a problem here.

 

jh.jpg

Jaelene Hinkel Chose to Speak Up. Unfortunately, It Cost Her the Opportunity to Represent her Nation. Image Courtesy Of: https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/team-usa-ireland-pride-jerseys-friendly-dublin-484427761.html

 

While gay pride should certainly be supported—gay individuals are equal citizens of the United States—there are ways to do this and, unfortunately, football shirts are not the place for this. Anything that willfully alienates people—gay or straight, religious or secular, male or female—from the larger community (in this case the nation) should not be supported by anyone who is truly tolerant. It seems that forcing footballers to wear jerseys which support a certain quasi-political message represents an egregious imposition of politics on sports. It is no different from the calls from gay individuals to boycott the fast food restaurant Chick-fil-A ( https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lgbtq-eating-chick-fil-a_us_5b1fb4cee4b09d7a3d770c81 . No one, regardless of their sexual orientation, has a right to tell people where to eat. Encroaching onto people’s personal lives like this is a form of fascism, and cannot be tolerated by anyone who values the liberty and freedom of individual human life.

 

US-Soccer-696x434.jpeg

One of the First Lessons of Sport is That the Name on the Front of the Jersey Matters More than the Name on the Back Of the Jersey. The Same Goes For the Colors of the Jersey. If We Truly are “One Nation” and “One Team”, as the Banner Suggests, then We Have No Choice but to Abandon the Divisive Virus of Identity Politics. Image Courtesy Of: https://gaynation.co/outrage-as-us-soccer-team-dons-rainbow-jersey-for-in-support-of-rainbow-community/

 

Perhaps if the US Soccer Federation had spent its time developing the football program—rather than catering to identity politics—the U.S. would have a team to root for in the World Cup. Instead, we see the regressive nature of progressive America as the quality of football suffers when technocrats choose politics over sport. The politicization of football shirts, therefore, clearly shows that authoritarianism knows no political allegiance; it can come as easily from the “left” as it can from the “right”. Divide and rule is the oldest trick in the book, so resist the divisions and stand up for your country!

 

1280px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg

 

 

The Latest Betrayal of Main(Lame)stream Media

Leave a comment

History is full of journalists who strove for the “truth”; they saw through the manipulations of the culture industry and tried their best to give their readers at least a semblance of an alternative view on current affairs. While I put the term “truth” in quotations above, this is only to recognize that absolute “truth” is a difficult thing to find for any human being. This does not mean that existential philosophy is the end all and be all, rather it is to say that many of us—as unique human beings—have different perspectives on the world. This is to be expected from a humanist view point. Unfortunately, however, too many modern journalists have chosen to avoid even attempting to find “truth” in their reporting; rather, they have—it seems—chosen to focus on what can best be termed as nonsense.

While this blog is about football, there are certain times when I cannot help but point out absurdities in the modern world since, as a sociologist, I work with the words of C. Wright Mills in mind: It is the job of the Sociologist to point out absurdities in the world. And, indeed, the modern world throws out absurdities almost every day.

Most recently, I came across a piece in The Guardian with the headline “Hate body odour? You’re more likely to have rightwing views”. Now, clearly, this is absurd. So I dug further. Indeed, the article claims that, according to research published in the British journal Royal Society Open Science “People who have a greater tendency to turn their nose up at the whiff of urine, sweat and other body odours are more likely to have rightwing authoritarian attitudes”. The Guardian continues, claiming that “The team say the findings support the idea that a feeling of disgust might partly underpin social discrimination against others, with the link rooted in a primitive urge to avoid catching diseases from unfamiliar people or environments”. Indeed, according to the co-author of the research, Dr. Jonas Olofsson from Stockholm University and the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study, “authoritarian attitudes might, at least in part, be rooted in biology”.

Now, the idea that one’s world view should be rooted in biology is very clearly a slippery slope; biological determinism is something that most sociologists—and indeed, I’d say most academics—should have given up long ago. Yet, clearly here, we see “research” which attempts to tie a concern for hygiene with “authoritarian” ideas. Unfortunately, however, the absurdity does not end here. Indeed, the Los Angeles Times chose to cite the same story with the headline “Disgusted by other people’s body odor? You might be more likely to support Donald Trump”. Again, this is absurd. Yet the main(lame)stream media will go to any length to attack Mr. Trump—and his supporters—even if it means demonizing people whose only concern is with basic human hygiene. After all, one of the first rules of being a decent citizen—of whatever country one may be a citizen of—is not making others uncomfortable as a result of your own body odor!

It is interesting that the main(lame)stream media chose to focus on this rather absurd piece of “research” rather than on a piece published by the (much) more reputable journal Political Psychology entitled “Finding the Loch Ness Monster: Left‐Wing Authoritarianism in the United States”. Given the agendas and narratives of the main(lame)stream media, it should not be surprising that they should ignore the presence of left-wing authoritarianism in the U.S. Yet it is also concerning, considering that the body odor “study” cited by The Guardian and the Los Angeles Times used the right-wing Authoritarianism scale which the authors of “Finding the Loch Ness Monster” criticize for not being accurately representative of “authoritarian” sentiment at all; rather—they argue—it reflects a particular conservative point of view which was prevalent in 1980s America. In short, it is a bogus scale used by bogus research to confirm a certain narrative.

What is most important to recognize is that The Guardian and the Los Angeles Times are not the most reliable of news sources, at least when it comes to doing their jobs. In fact, with less than a week to go before the FIFA World Cup, neither paper has reported (as of the time that this piece was published) on the fact that a Kenyan referee appointed to Football’s biggest tournament has resigned after it was revealed that he took bribes while officiating in Africa. While this kind of corruption threatens the integrity of the game most of the world loves, you won’t see it reported on by the lame(main)stream media.

 

Screen Shot 2018-06-07 at 8.48.13 PM.png

The Guardian Cannot Seem to Report on Real Issues . . . Image Courtesy of Google Search.

 

Screen Shot 2018-06-07 at 10.07.08 PM.png

. . . Even on their Sports Page, Even Though They Are The “Sport Website Of The Year”. Image Courtesy Of: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/sport

 

Screen Shot 2018-06-07 at 10.28.13 PM.png

Yet, Apparently, the LA Times Cannot Be Bothered Either. Misery Loves Company, I Suppose. Image Courtesy of Google Search.

 

A simple Google search of both The Guardian and the Los Angeles Times has no mention of this scandal (in fact, a search of The Guardian reveals an ironic headline from 2010 “Kenya leads way in ending blight of corruption in African football” instead). In a bid to follow the globalist narrative, both papers refuse to admit that the globalists from FIFA turn a blind eye to corruption nearly every day. And it has to make the reader pause for thought: Which is more important? Taking every possible route to criticize U.S. President Donald Trump and his supporters, or pointing out—and rooting out—corruption in both African and world football? Clearly, the reader should know—by now—what the most important thing is between these two choices. Let’s just hope that more people start to recognize that the main(lame)stream media are only interested in following their own narratives, while ignoring the well-being of the world we live in.

The Top World Cup 2018 Shirts: A Lesson in Late Stage Capitalism and Global Homogenization

Leave a comment

Four Years ago, I wrote a piece detailing my top picks among the 2014 kits and my choices for the top five classic world cup kits. With just seven days until the 2018 FIFA World Cup kicks off in Russia, I thought I would do the same. However, this year, the list will be a little more sociological than the one from four years ago.

Indeed, outlets like GQ have provided their rankings, as well as a slew of other websites; one need only search “top world cup shirts 2018” in order to be bombarded by hundreds of choices. This is why my list will not be so much as a ranking. Instead, it will be commentary on just how late stage capitalist logic—and one dimensional thought—invade every aspect of our lives. This invasion—similar to the colonization of the life world by the system, that Sociologist Jurgen Habermas has written about—is very evident in the world of football shirts.

For an introduction to the topic, please see my earlier post from 6 July 2017 here. In short, my argument is that when the logic of consumption drives the creative process, one dimensional thought becomes the norm. Designers and creative minds are unwilling—in fact, in some cases, they may even be scared—to stray from the “tried and true” methods. After all, these are the methods that have brought profit. Therefore, creativity is stifled by a dominant form of one dimensional thought which cannot stray from its own money-making logic.

This is why cars have started to look more and more the same, and why mobile (or cellular) telephones are virtually indistinguishable from one another regardless of if they are iPhones, Samsungs, Nokias, HTCs, LGs, or any other brand. As a human society, we have become used to images—we are obsessed with them, as Jean Baudrillard has said—and this means that our reality is more of a hyperreality dominated by these images. We know what a mobile phone should look like, anything that does not look like the image we have been grown used to cannot be a phone (think of flip-phone versus iPhone). Similarly, with cars, we see the same process. We have become used to what a “luxury” car should look like, so we cannot conceive of anything that does not look like what we expect (perhaps this is why Hyundais and Kias look virtually the same while also resembling more expensive brands like BMW and Audi).

 

cellphones.png

Which One Of These Is a Phone? Image Courtesy Of: https://thoughttamales.wordpress.com/tag/prepaid-cell/

 

Screen Shot 2018-06-07 at 9.04.33 AM.png

The Same Car? Image Courtesy Of: https://www.carwow.co.uk/blog/kia-sportage-vs-hyundai-tucson

Unfortunately, football shirts are not immune from this ongoing homogenization in the name of increasing consumption, and the latest World Cup shirt designs show this. More than a few of this year’s shirts bare a striking resemblance to older shirts, which makes for a very boring overall lineup.

 

Spain 2018. Image Courtesy Of: http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/gallery/world-cup-kits-ranked-2018

Screen Shot 2018-06-07 at 8.31.03 AM.png

 

Spain’s 2018 shirt did not impress GQ, and this is perhaps because it is just a re-hashing of the country’s classic 1994 design.

 

Spain 1994. Image Courtesy Of: http://www.branchofscience.com/2014/05/nineties-kits-usa-94-special-part-two/

spain-home.jpg

Colombia 2018. Image Courtesy Of: http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/gallery/world-cup-kits-ranked-2018

Screen Shot 2018-06-07 at 8.41.09 AM.png

 

Another shirt that GQ didn’t like. Perhaps that is because this is just a modernized version of Adidas’ 1996 template; the antecedent of this shirt was perhaps Romania’s Euro 1996 shirt.

 

Romania 1996. Image Courtesy Of: https://thefootballshirtcollective.tumblr.com/post/142359500227/repost-199698-romania-home-shirt-from

tumblr_o584vpLJ8f1rtjl8do1_1280.jpg

 

Mexico 2018. Image Courtesy Of: http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/gallery/world-cup-kits-ranked-2018

Screen Shot 2018-06-07 at 8.31.28 AM.png

 

Mexico’s 2018 kit is not very imaginative (and has no resemblance to the beauties from 1998 which actually paid homage to Mexico’s Central American heritage). Instead, this kit seems to have been inspired by Bulgaria’s 1994 World Cup Kit. I suppose that is globalism at its best; in 20 years Mexico went from gaining inspiration from their own history to gaining inspiration from…Bulgaria. Maybe it is due to the fact that both countries’ flags share the same tricolor, who knows.

 

Bulgaria 1994. Image Courtesy Of: http://kirefootballkits.blogspot.com/2011/10/bulgaria-kits-world-cup-1994.html

Bulgaria Home and Away Kits World Cup 1994.jpg

 

Germany 2018. Image Courtesy Of: : http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/gallery/world-cup-kits-ranked-2018

Screen Shot 2018-06-07 at 8.31.42 AM.png

 

While Germany’s shirt might be striking in this line up, it is merely a rehashing of the classic West Germany shirt from 1988. And, like so many shirts on this list, the new one is not as nearly as well designed as the old one. Indeed, sequels are never as good as the originals.

 

Germany 1988. Image Courtesy Of: http://hullcitykits.co.uk/meet-the-hck-staff/

WG1990.jpg

Nigeria 2018 (Image Courtesy Of: http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/gallery/world-cup-kits-ranked-2018

Screen Shot 2018-06-07 at 8.32.07 AM.png

 

Nigeria’s new kit has been widely touted as one of the best in this year’s tournament. GQ calls it “eccentric”, and given that it is already sold out in the UK it goes to show that sometimes it pays to stray from one-dimensional thought. Yet, at the same time, even this shirt is not completely unique. When I first saw the shirt I couldn’t help but think that I had seem something like it before. Indeed, it bares some resemblance to Holland’s classic 1998 design and West Germany’s Euro 1988 Away kit as well as Northern Ireland’s 1990 Umbro shirt.

 

56230_Basten_Gullit_1988_Final_Cs_1_grande.jpg

Holland 1988. Image Courtesy Of: https://www.retrosyrarezas.com/products/holland-netherlands-mens-retro-soccer-jersey-euro-88-gullit-10-replica

 

Germany Home and Away Kits Euro 1998.jpg

Germany 1988-1990. Image Courtesy Of: http://kirefootballkits.blogspot.com/2016/07/germany-kits-euro-1988.html

 

Dowie~1.jpg

Northern Ireland 1990. Image Courtesy Of: http://nifootball.blogspot.com/2006/10/iain-dowie.html

 

It is important to note that this list—and this criticism of the 2018 shirt line up—is not to say that respecting the past, and paying homage to past designs, is not a bad thing. Indeed, respecting the past and what has come before is a good thing. But this does not mean that we should be blind to the fact that, in the name of consumption, we are being sold the past back to us in the present. It means that while we—as consumers—are paying more and more for our products, while the designers may be getting less and less creative. And it also means that there is a very real double standard in world football when it comes to shirt designs.

I will leave this post with a comparison between the 1996 Turkey Home and Away shirts and the 2016 “Spider Man” home and away Turkish Kits. Perhaps, in this instance, the designers would have done well to seek some inspiration from the past. But even here, the “past” of 1996 still represented by an Adidas template.

 

20180607_164123.jpg

New vs. Old. I am not a fan of the new shirts at all. Image Courtesy of the Author.

 

In March 2018 a Turkish sports pundit, Mehmet Demirkol, came out threatening to take the Turkish FA to court if they did not return to the classic Turkish national shirt design. The classic design has been changed on and off for years, culminating in the monstrosity of the 2016 “Spider Man” kits. And it is here that I agree with Mr. Demirkol. There is such a thing as national symbols, and—as Mr. Demirkol argues—the football shirt is a national symbol. We do not see international corporations like Nike and Adidas playing with German, English, Brazilian, Dutch, or Argentine kits. No, such countries have been wearing similar designs for years. Indeed, as I pointed out, Germany has returned to a classic design for the 2018 World Cup. Yet countries like Mexico and Turkey have their kits played with—and their national heritages ignored—by the whims of global capital. In order to resist the ongoing global homogenization of global corporations and globalist ideas, it is important to respect your national heritage regardless of which country you come from. And, even when it comes to football shirts, we can still stand up for our countries in the face of globalism.

 

fft16_mf535736.Jpeg

The Classic “Red Stripe” Design Evoking the Turkish Flag. Image Courtesy Of: http://www.milliyet.com.tr/yazarlar/baris-kuyucu/17-yil-sonra-klasik-forma-1206165/

Football and Geopolitics: Behind the FIFA Scandal

4 Comments

May 27 2015 will prove to be a day that lives in infamy—the day scandal rocked world soccer’s governing body, leaving 14 FIFA officials under arrest in Zurich, Switzerland. This is, of course, old news. I’ll try to make it interesting by putting the whole surreal event in a geopolitical context. Lets start with the basics. It was the United States Department of Justice that spearheaded the operation in a 164-page 47-count indictment. In some ways it felt like turning back the clock; the United States of America emerging from its isolation to ostensibly “save the world” by crossing the oceans as in World War One and World War Two. Of course, there were reasons for this particular move since parts of the scandal pertained directly to the United States of America; the Economist outlines them nicely. A video version for those averse to reading is available courtesy of CNN.

The United States has, since World War Two, controlled much of the world system indirectly through both formal and informal international organizations, befitting its hegemonic role. Financially it was initially through the Bretton Woods system, since then it has been the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. Politically control came first through Woodrow Wilson’s brainchild the League of Nations, now there is the New York headquartered United Nations. Culturally the United States has been able to influence the world to a great extent as well; first through Hollywood and music, now it is through technological advancements such as iPhones and iPods, Google, Facebook and Twitter that American culture is felt the world over.

The one sphere in which the United States has failed to make a global impact is, arguably, the world of sports. Indeed the results of a 2014 Harris poll, which has asked Americans aged 18 and older the simple question, “What is your favorite sport?” every year since 1985, tell us that Americans are very USA-centric when it comes to sport.

 

America’s Favorite Sports in 2014 (Courtesy of ESPN)

The National Football League (NFL)(Professional [American] Football): 35%

Major League Baseball (MLB) (Professional Baseball): 14%

College Football (NCAA): 11%

Auto Racing: 7%

National Basketball Association (Professional US Basketball): 6%

National Hockey League (Professional Hockey): 5%

College Basketball (NCAA): 3%

 

The top three vote getters—and more than half of the entire poll’s respondents and 60 percent—listed sports played almost entirely in the United States as their favorite sports. The next highest sport listed is Auto Racing. Although this is a global sport—think of Formula 1 and Rally cars—I personally believe that responders had NASCAR (Again, very American) in mind when answering this question. That leaves the NBA and the NHL—just 11 percent of all respondents called these two their favorite sports—as the only ostensibly international sports to make the list. I say ostensibly because although basketball is played all over the world—and the NBA has been making itself more international with each passing year—it is still a very different game than FIBA’s Euroleague, to name one. Hockey is international in the sense that the NHL has 7 Canadian teams (alongside 23 American teams), but I’m sure very few responders cited in this poll had ever watched a game from Russia’s KHL. Hockey also has a fairly small fan base, limited to those living in northern climates along a belt stretching from Vancouver to the steppes of Central Asia and going only as far south as, perhaps, Zurich, along that belt outside of the United States.

Soccer is certainly the one place in world sport—and world culture, for that matter—that the rest of the world has a chance to best the United States. And it is this chance for “the rest to beat the best of the West”—the battle between the global South and global North played out on the pitch—that gives international football, and the World Cup in particular, its unparalleled allure. The recently departed Eduardo Galeano’s masterpiece Soccer in Sun and Shadow explains the phenomenon well without explicitly saying it (and therein lies the book’s genius, at least for me). So why did the United States focus its power on FIFA, what I explained in my thesis was arguably the first international organization and the globe’s first foray into global civil society, when the US isn’t even interested in the sport? The answer may lie in the organization’s history. FIFA was founded in 1904 in the midst of a different era, the era of empires when the hegemonic power base was located in colonialist Europe and old world territorial powers such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Russian Empire, and Ottoman Empire were in decline. Fledgling nations rushed to achieve FIFA membership in order to affirm their independence—to states such as Lebanon, Syria, and others, emerging from the ashes of empires that had long controlled them as dusty peripheral provinces from lavish imperial palaces in far-off capitals, FIFA Membership was what NATO membership now means to Georgia, what European Union membership now means to Ukraine and Serbia. Membership to FIFA was a bold statement to the world: We Have Arrived! And this feeling has not gone away. Today there are 209 members in FIFA. Compare that to the 193 official member states of the United Nations. Look at Palestine’s attempts to push Israel out of FIFA if you don’t believe that FIFA membership can provide succor to those unable to get a seat at the United Nations at which to air their grievances. Perhaps the United States moved to strike a blow at an international institution that had strayed from its original goal of bringing together nations in fair play for everyone’s benefit; it was not founded to line the pockets of a few corrupt officials after all. So, like the American interventions in both World Wars, this can be looked at as another benign intervention by the world’s superpower in order to save the (sporting) world from itself. But there are other theories as well.

As many know, the nexus of the FIFA scandal lies in the bribes received by officials in return for, among other things, votes in choosing World Cup hosts. The hosts of the next two World Cups—as chosen by the aforementioned officials—are Russia (in 2018) and Qatar (in 2022). Both of these countries have something else in common—they are, on some scale, geopolitical rivals of the United States. And both won the right to host their respective World Cups over the United States’ interests; chief US ally England lost out to Russia in 2018 and Qatar beat out the United States’ own bid for 2022. Clearly, the United States could not sit idly by when the chance at winning a considerable amount of soft power influence in the world for themselves and their ally went by the way side. Russia has long been a geopolitical rival to the United States; Qatar is using the confusing situation in the Middle East to cement their role as a regional power in a region key to the United States’ foreign policy interests and hope that hosting a major sporting event such as the World Cup can add to their influence in the region. South African Sports Minister Fikile Mbalula represents another voice from the global South who criticized the U.S. move by mentioning the U.S./British alliance, saying that it is “for the United States and Britain to fight their own battles: ‘We have fought colonialism and defeated it and we still fight imperialism and we will fight it whenever it manifests itself.’

With the stakes this high, the United States’ move may still pay off. Although FIFA insists that there will be no re-vote for either the 2018 or 2022 World Cups, signs are showing that nothing is certain. Human rights groups have called on Qatar to publish the death figures for workers building stadiums for the tournament and it is estimated that 1200 migrant workers have died in the construction since 2014. Long-time FIFA president Sepp Blatter—who was reelected days ago despite the scandal—resigned on June 2 from his position at the head of Soccer’s governing body. These events—along with UEFA president Michel Platini’s long standing issue with the 2022 World Cup’s potential to affect the European football season—signal to me that a re-consideration may be on the cards.

In such a globalized world—where the World Cup has become bigger than ever—it is only fitting for the world’s sole superpower, the United States, to take a leading role. And in this increasingly interconnected world it is equally fitting that geopolitics is intimately linked with cultural and sporting events.

I find it refreshing that some action has been taken against corruption in world football. But there is still more to be done—the Economist warns that the endemic corruption in sports goes beyond just Sepp Blatter because “sports corruption is a reflection of wider problems—sport merely being an organism to which criminal succubi attach themselves—it is too formidable for sporting organisations to tackle alone.” For the sake of the game we all love let’s hope the United States’ intervention keeps the game from turning into a vehicle to make the rich richer. In David Goldblatt’s words, “the entire football industry has traded on the notion that the game really is the most global cultural practice in the world, a rare form of universalism on a divided planet. That, if nothing else, is worth salvaging from the wreckage.” I can only agree.

seppblatter-cropped-zcmts50hniqo1qmuvbv9bprh4

Image Courtesy Of: http://pulse.ng/sports/football/sepp-blatter-resignation-sepp-blatter-resignation-the-football-world-reacts-id3822195.html