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

1 Comment

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

 

 

FIFA Corruption: The Globalist Model for a Brave New “World Society”?

2 Comments

I have written before about the theories regarding the U.S. government’s corruption case against FIFA, the governing body of world soccer. Although the U.S. attempt to clean up the game may have been positive, it is clear that there was also some geopolitical wrangling going on at the time.

Former U.S. President Barack Obama was not able to bring the World Cup to the United States because, ultimately, Qatar won the prize. Yet the fact that disgraced former FIFA President Sepp Blatter recently admitted to calling Mr. Obama before the final decision was made public suggests that there was more that a little politics involved in FIFA’s “choice” to award the world’s most prestigious tournament to Qatar, itself a country with very little footballing history.

One of the themes emerging from Mr. Blatter’s revelations is just how deep the corruption goes—both financially and, unfortunately, politically. Mr. Blatter might have seen it as a purely financial transaction, which is to be expected in the era of industrial football: “America is very good for us [. . .] The sponsors, the broadcasters, the fans. It would help football there after 1994, almost 30 years, and that is good for football.” Here Mr. Blatter is merely invoking the logic of industrial football. Yet, somewhere along the line, politics got in the way. According to ESPN’s story, the former corrupt leader of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, is “under investigation in his country for his part in the bid process. Blatter has previously alleged Sarkozy applied pressure on [UEFA President Michel] Platini to change his vote [on where the World Cup would go] in a meeting also attended by Qatar’s crown prince.” Why political leaders should get involved in a footballing decision is a question that all football fans should be asking.

As other media outlets have outlined, FIFA’s corruption is undeniable (here and here). It seems that, sometimes, the globalist logic is what runs world football: In a fake bid to create “multiculturalism” and “diversity”, world football has given the World Cup to an Arab country because it is “their turn”. For real football fans, however, the reality should be apparent: in order to line their pockets, many FIFA officials knew that they could take Qatar’s money while also looking like they were somehow contributing to the globalist zeitgeist of “multiculturalism” and the continual attempts at a global shift away from the “West’s” domination of the global culture industry. To put it bluntly, it is one of the most blatant marriages of football and politics in the history of the world—and on a global scale.

While the United States has wasted over 300 billion dollars in the Middle East between the end of WWII and 2010, it is clear that throwing money at the region solves nothing in terms of “bringing it in line” with the interests of global (and extreme) capitalism. It is also clear that Qatar is involved in their own attempts—perhaps sanctioned and even encouraged by the West, since Qatar is intimately tied to global financial flows—to achieve a regional hegemonic position in the Middle East. This has been most clearly evidenced by the country’s recent investments in Turkish sports and the political fall-out with regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Egypt (which have hitherto resisted the forces of extreme—Western style—capitalism). This is because the World Cup is an amazing coup for Qatar in terms of increasing their “soft-power” in the region while also cementing the country’s standing within the existing neoliberal order.

 

original.jpg

Just Think About How Much of This Money Could Have Been Spent on Bettering the Lives of Both Americans And Middle Easterners? Perhaps Infrastructure Spending Vs. Meaningless Wars and Imperialism in the Name of Extreme Capitalism? Image Courtesy Of: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/us-aid-middle-east_n_3779275.html

 

Most importantly for football fans—and the average citizen all over the world—is that FIFA’s corruption shows clearly what a globalist regime in charge of the world would look like. This case highlights all of the dangers that a technocratic and bureaucratic ruling elite—on a global scale—would present to the world. This is because a globalist ruling class would:

 

  • Disguise corruption and increasing inequality as “equality”;
  • Further enrich the super-rich at the expense of the poor (Who is building Qatar’s stadiums?);
  • Inject itself into every aspect of our lives, controlling even our leisure time, a time that should be exempt from the concerns of economics and politics, in a crude attempt to regulate even our most basic human emotions, such as our support for sports.

 

Globalism (the ideology) and globalization (the process it supports) are both inherently corrupt and exploitative systems; it is up to us as citizens—of whatever country we live in—to hold our leaders accountable in order to resist it.

 

qatar.jpg

Qatar’s Stadiums Under Construction. The Scene Reminds Me Of the Construction Workers in the Lego Movie (Itself a Criticism of Extreme Capitalism in the Modern World). Everything is Awesome (For Qatar, But Definitely Not For the Workers). Image Courtesy Of: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/world-cup-2022-qatars-workers-slaves-building-mausoleums-stadiums-modern-slavery-kafala-a7980816.html

Media Literacy And Syria’s Improbable World Cup Dream

3 Comments

I have written about media literacy in regards to Syria in the past, and a recent Daily Mail piece on the Syrian national football team’s World Cup hopes offers another chance to dissect media narratives. We know that Syria has been engulfed in a bloody civil war for half a decade. Yet, despite international opposition to the regime of Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian “state” has not yet fully collapsed because there is still—on some small level—a modicum of national “identity” left in the battered nation-state. This tragic civil war shows the dangers of allowing division to triumph over dialogue, and a recent article regarding the Syrian national football team shows why alternative readings of modern media narratives are necessary to form independent positions of thought.

Journalist Ian Herbert of the Daily Mail wrote a piece on 30 September 2017 entitled “Syria are on the brink of qualifying for the 2018 World Cup… but will their team just be a propaganda tool for the murderous Assad regime?”. With all due respect to Mr. Herbert, I took from his article the opposite conclusion: It is possible that Syrian qualification for the World Cup would actually be a propaganda tool for FIFA instead? I came to this conclusion after a critical reading of the article, which I will share here.

In the article Mr. Herbert makes a few arguments that could lead the reader to an opposite conclusion, yet the title has already framed the issue at hand for readers; no independent analysis is necessary and the reader is made to believe that anything good that happens for Syria’s national football team is bad. That the headline should be one of the first signs of a biased media piece is not very surprising. In just the second and third sentences of this article, we are shown how evil the Assad regime is: “One of the national team’s goalkeepers was deemed an enemy of Bashar al-Assad’s regime and survived several assassination attempts. Another was jailed. A talented member of the nation’s Under 16 squad was killed by a bomb a few years ago”. An educated reader, of course, will already know that this is the case. It will not seem out of place; it fits with the headline.

 

44E67ED200000578-4936834-image-a-98_1506798181312.jpg

Just Who Stands To Gain From Syria’s Possible Qualification For The World Cup? Image Courtesy Of: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4936834/Syria-brink-World-Cup-just-propaganda.html

 

In the fifth sentence, we see the shift: “Such is the backdrop to the most extraordinary of all the World Cup play-off ties: Syria‘s journey to the brink of qualification. Beat Australia over two legs, and Syria will have one final qualifier — possibly against the USA, of all countries — to earn a place in Russia”. Here are the seeds of a feel good story, one fit for a Hollywood movie. The team from the war-torn country, that the West is saving from a tyrannical leader, will face their liberators (here Australia and possibly the United States) in football and play for a right to go to the World Cup. What a narrative it is.

The article goes on to inform us that the seeds of the team’s performance were planted in the midst of the Assad regime a decade ago:

 

As the [Syrian national] side progressed deep into the qualification stages, the charismatic [coach Ayman] Hakeem has persuaded several of a golden generation developed in the past decade to put their abhorrence of Assad to one side and return to the international fold.

 

But before we get to thinking that there was actually a positive aspect to life under Assad, the author wakes us up:

 

They include veteran striker Firas al-Khatib, whose young cousin was killed in an attack on Homs, and Omar al-Somah, Syria’s most celebrated footballer due to his goal-scoring exploits with Saudi club Al Ahli – but this is by no means the fairy tale it seems. 

Assad’s regime is providing the team’s finances and seeking a propaganda coup. In the early stages of qualification, some of the team’s players wore shirts featuring an image of Assad at a pre-match press conference. 

Making it to Russia would create the impression of normality and order in his country. It would also give a headache to FIFA, who vehemently oppose political interference in football.

 

It is shocking that the writer makes the reader believe that Syria’s success would be a boon for the Syrian regime and not the West. As the author explains, there are few in Syria who do not want their country to win—and the piece ends with this quote from striker Firas al Khatib:

 

The people could do with some kind of enjoyment and happiness. The reason why I have come back into the team is very complicated but I can’t talk more about these things. Better for me, better for my country, better for my family, better for everybody if I not talk about that, but if we can win and go the finals it will lift the people. The people deserve that.

 

I do not think one could find anyone from a Western audience who, after reading the quote above, would not support the Syrian national team. It would be very, very difficult not too. And it should not come as a surprise to anyone that this particular quote was the one selected to close the piece. So why does the title of this piece conflict so much with its contents?

Perhaps it is because the author does not want to dwell on the fact that there might just be life beyond politics. Maybe it does not all have to be about politics, maybe we can—for once—celebrate Syrians being able to come together for the purpose of supporting their national football team. Or maybe it is because there are clearly some footballers—like apparently Firas al Khatib—who have some sense of national identity left that they care to spend their energies for their country’s team, since this would go against the anti-nationalism rhetoric of Western media outlets like the Daily Mail. Or maybe it is even because the truth hurts too much: the truth might just be that Syrian qualification for the World Cup will mean a propaganda coup not for Assad, but for FIFA. After all, FIFA has far more to gain from Syria’s qualification. It will mean a feel-good story about a country pulling itself together against all the odds, and those stories always sell. An emotional story about Syria will also help FIFA sell the World Cup and paint over the fact that they gave the 2018 World Cup to Russia (where stadiums are in trouble according to The Daily Mail) and the 2022 World Cup to Qatar, a state sponsor of terrorism. In short, it seems like FIFA has much more to gain from Syrian qualification for the World Cup than Bashar al-Assad does.

4506FE4100000578-4947998-image-a-69_1507117081864.jpg

 

Russian Stadiums For the 2018 World Cup Are…Different. Image Courtesy Of: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4947998/World-Cup-venue-Ekaterinburg-Arena-odd-new-stands.html

 

Who knows, with reporting like this, maybe the Russian football fans who branded the BBC “Blah Blah Channel” were right: mainstream media is too busy building narratives to actually report on anything in a non-biased objective way. Maybe it is because, in the age of 24 hour media available on the internet, journalists are no longer tied to their consumers. If no one pays for news anymore, then there is no longer a system of checks and balances. If journalists cannot be held accountable, then we–as the public–lose a valuable resource in the public sphere.
Russian-Football-Premier-League-Lokomotiv-Moscow-vs-Spartak-Moscow.jpg

Spartak Moscow Fans Voice Their Opinion. Image Courtesy Of: http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/spartak-moscow-fans-brand-bbc-10056759

 

 

US World Cup Hangover: The Economics of Soccer in the United States

1 Comment

The United States bowed out of the 2014 FIFA World Cup after a spirited performance against Belgium—a nation of just 11 million (or, as one humorous article put it, “a Dakota and a half”. For the record, Ohio’s population of 11,570,808 makes it the closest state in terms of population to Belgium. A “Dakota and a half” renders only around 1.5 million).

While the loss was not unexpected it was still upsetting for me as it is any time one of my countries loses in football—especially since, inexplicably, the US had a chance to win the game at the death before Chris Wondolowski—also inexplicably—managed to make a mess of his moment in front of goal. But football is, sometimes, like life. You get your one moment, and you either make the best of it . . . or you don’t. There is no real in between.

A few articles have been written in the wake of the United States’ second round exit, including a very interesting one that asks the question “Has the US Men’s National Team Plateaued?”. Personally, I would be less dramatic—after all, this is football and anything can happen. I should know. My other team, Turkey, made an improbable run to third place at the 2002 World Cup—and another to the semifinals of the 2008 European Championships with an admittedly under-talented side. Hard work coupled with heart and belief can go a long way in football (like it can in life)—just look at the Greece team that won the 2004 European Championship!

So do I think the United States will, in the next three World Cups (a twelve year cycle), have a stunning performance? Yes, I suppose I do. But I won’t ask them to compete with the likes of Brazil, Argentina, and Germany year in and year out. And that’s ok because I also—secretly—like soccer in the US to be more of an inside joke amongst those of us who truly enjoy the game for what it is, and not some marquis event for frat boys who want an excuse to slam beers at odd hours of the working day in the name of banal nationalism done ‘Muricuh style. And that inside joke would be made even sweeter if the US somehow managed to scare the world by advancing past the Quarterfinals of a World Cup. I’ve watched enough US matches on foreign soil to recognize the glee when the US concedes a goal—in the last week alone I’ve seen it in both Russia and Turkey—and I can imagine the fear of a US World Cup win.

It does not appear that soccer in the US will ever move beyond being an inside joke that becomes part of the country’s mainstream culture for just a few summer weeks once every four years (selling many Nike shirts in the meantime) before, again, retreating into hibernation. I don’t think like this because I’m negative or a non-believer in US soccer, it is mainly because I am a realist—both in International Relations theory and in terms of football. When one looks at the facts it should not come as a surprise that the United States will never be a true world power in football. At the heart of it—as in so many cases—lies economics (James Carville would be proud).

The top professional soccer league in the United States is Major League Soccer (MLS), a league that has been steadily improving since its inception in 1996 despite competing with the other major American sports for visibility, fans, and . . . athletes.

Its not hard to understand why. On April 10, 2014 MLS released their salary information and the results were shocking. The top seven salaries in MLS—those of Michael Bradley, Jermaine Defoe, Clint Dempsey, Landon Donovan, Robbie Keane, Thierry Henry, and Tim Cahill—account for 31% of all player salaries. In fact, as Empireofsoccer.com shows, the top 5% of earners represent 45% of total player salaries. That is a huge disparity for a country that prides itself on equality (perhaps there is a psychological dimension to this as well—the economics of MLS are fundamentally un-American!).

The salaries of the aforementioned seven players have, as empireofsoccer.com stated, inflated the league’s average salary to a figure of $207,831 (up from the 2013 figure of $165,066 when the median salary was just $100,000). Still, just a cursory look at a sample of the Colorado Rapid’s salary information for the 2014 season shows some glaring examples of the issues in play. At least three Rapids players—professional athletes who face far greater risk of serious injury daily than I ever did at work—make less money than I made sitting at a desk in my old day job!

Now compare the (admittedly inflated) average salary figure of $207,831 in MLS to the average salaries in the other major US sports from two years ago, courtesy of Forbes unless cited otherwise:

 

Major League Baseball (MLB): $3.2 million in 2012, now it is just under $4 million.

National Basketball Association (NBA): $5.15 million, now it is 3,453,241 (with a median of $1,500,000—fifteen times the MLS median in 2013).

National Football League (NFL): $1.9 million

National Hockey League (NHL): $2.4 million

 

The disparity is staggering. And now lets look back at that list of the seven highest paid MLS players, for a moment. Only three of the seven—Michael Bradley, Clint Dempsey, and Landon Donovan—are American. And after Jurgen Klinsmann’s now legendary snubbing of Landon Donovan, only two of them made it to the United States’ World Cup squad! Clearly, what big money that does exist in MLS is certainly not going to help the development of the US Men’s National team. And that means that for your average American soccer player, the chances of making big money at home—and representing your country on the biggest stage—are very small indeed.

This in itself poses a problem for the development of the game in the US. Many talented soccer players at the youth level in the United States often play multiple sports. Soccer is either a fall or spring sport depending on where you live, so that leaves the options of American Football and Baseball in other seasons, not to mention Basketball and Hockey in the winter months. Unlike in other countries, where football is the only money-making game in town, American athletes have other options as well that may prove to be more lucrative in the long term. While it is obviously difficult to make it as a professional in any of the major US sports, the fact that there is more money—and more collegiate scholarships (Soccer has the same number of NCAA Division 1 scholarships as Swimming/Diving and Wrestling)—available in the other sports means that it is very difficult to keep the country’s best athletes playing football. This is a fact that, unfortunately, does not bode well for the hopes of developing a truly world class US Men’s National Team; it doesn’t meant that it is impossible by any means, just that it is more difficult than it is in other nations.

 

Tim Howard Does His Country Proud, But Can Only Slump Off In The End As Belgium Move On:

274e02489eff483bb792a466b9738ae2-274e02489eff483bb792a466b9738ae2-0

 

Image Courtesy Of: http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/07/01/onsoccer/r7h11DZZUn5HsRJGqfZ0hJ/story.html

 

Older Entries