My favorite newspaper, the Christian Science Monitor, rarely covers soccer (heck, they don’t even have a sports section). But when they do, they have just the kind of story that fascinates me: all about the intersection of soccer and culture. Three such articles have popped up recently.

The first article deals with the Palestinian women’s national soccer team (did you know one existed? I didn’t) and their struggles to field a team, let alone be successful. Many obstacles hinder the formation of the team, including the Israeli occupation which separates West Bank and Gaza-based players and the negative attitudes of some religious authorities to the idea of women playing sports.

Both of these hindrances reflect other work I’ve encountered. The struggles of the team to bring together players from the West Bank and Gaza is the central issue of the film Goal Dreams. It documents the doomed attempt of the Palestinian men’s team to qualify for the 2006 World Cup. The most memorable moment of this film is the rage which overcomes the players as they are not permitted to pass through Israeli checkpoints in order to get to Egypt, where the team is training. The issue of religious opinion about soccer reminds me of the work of University of Florida sociologist Tamir Sorek. He has researched, among other things, the “Islamic Soccer League,” which is an attempt by some Muslim religious authorities to appropriate soccer for religious goals, and remove less desirable aspects of the game (men in this league are required to wear Islamic clothing when playing). Given the reluctance of some to permit men’s soccer to be played, it is a testament to the will of the women in the Christian Science Monitor article that they have formed a Palestian team at all.

A second article, headlined Nike’s Dilemma: Is Doing the Right Thing Wrong?, looks at the debate over the sportswear giant’s recent decision to pull out of contracts with a Pakistani company accused of using child labor. The article problematizes the issue, making it more complicated than the usual arguments, which focus on human rights versus economic development. The central question is: will pulling out from this part of Pakistan because of some violations of child labor laws truly help eliminate that problem or will it simply plunge the region (which produces 70% of the world’s soccer balls) into poverty?

The third article deals with Ecuadorian star Agustin ‘Tin’ Delgado’s attempts to help his native Chota Valley. This impoverished area of Ecuador is populated almost exclusively by Afro-Ecuadorians and the article discusses race relations in the South American country (also check out the excellent photo gallery). Kudos to Delgado for building a soccer club and health clinic in the Chota Valley. And, now that he’s been suspended for a year after getting his Mike Tyson on in a recent game, he’ll have a lot more time to help out.

For all the examples of soccer players who use their money to feed their hedonistic needs, there are some who give back to the communities they grew up in, and the world at large.

Many have taken to being “goodwill ambassadors” for UNICEF, including David Beckham, Ivan Zamorano, Francesco Totti, Kanu, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, Luis Figo, and even Diego Forlan (Manchester United fans might be a bit surprised to hear that he does have enough skill to make lending his name to UNICEF mean anything).

Other UN agencies have gotten to use soccer players’ names in their campaigns: Ronaldo became a “Messenger of Peace and Goodwill” for the United Nations Development Program and recently teamed up with Zidane to promote a “green” 2010 World Cup.

The bald, head-butting Frenchman has done much other charity work as well. He seems to delight in simply traveling to other countries and glad-handing the locals. Earlier this month he was off to his ancestral homeland of Algeria after a trip earlier this year to Bangladesh on an invitation by Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus.

Very often, players choose charity work that is close to their own upbringings. Ronaldinho, who grew up in the desparately poor favelas of Brazil, last year signed up to help the UN to reduce global poverty. Just this past week, he opened the Ronaldinho Institute to help poor children growing up in his hometown of Porto Alegre.

But for pure off-the-wall charity work, you need look no further than to former Brazilian hardman and current national team coach Dunga. The flat-topped, square-jawed Dunga has lent his name to promoting the rights of Native Brazilians, including appearing at last year’s “Indigenous Games.” Despite being a borderline dirty player, Dunga’s commitment to this less sexy issue deserves praise.

From the New York Times article headlined Iran Is Seeking More Influence in Afghanistan

“The battle for young hearts and minds plays out in Herat, where children play soccer in front of an American-built school; behind it, a school built by the Iranians.”

Stereotypes about economic policy on either side of the Atlantic are as follows: Americans are intensely capitalist while Europeans embrace socialism. As with all stereotypes, there is a grain of truth in this one. You need only look at the degree of inequality in both places to see this difference: the American economic boom has largely benefited the wealthy while countries such as Norway use their wealth to establish a strong social safety net.

Ironically, the Americans=capitalists, Europeans=socialists stereotype is turned on its head in relation to soccer. In several ways, Europeans have embraced incredibly cut-throat, money-focused policies in the way they run soccer. I will focus on two areas here that epitomize the difference in approach among American sport bosses and their European counterparts.

1. Advertising on Uniforms

A recent article in the New York Times discusses MLS’s attempts to place advertisements on the front of their team’s uniforms. What is shocking is not that this is happening, but that MLS, in the year 2006, is the first American sports league (I’m not counting NASCAR) to sell sponsorship on uniforms. As Jack Bell points out in the Times, European teams have been plastering their jerseys with advertising for over 30 years.

When Real Salt Lake players run out next season with Xango (a mangosteen juice, whatever that is) on their chests, they will be the first athletes in this country to do so. What is even more incredible is that other American sports are not showing any interest in this money-making ploy. Indeed, American team owners resent the idea of doing putting Sony, Ford, or Cheerios on their jerseys. Bell quotes Dave Checketts, owner of Real Salt Lake and the NBA’s Utah Jazz saying, “There is something about a city name on the jersey that seems sacred to [owners].”

Yum, mangosteen juice …

When was the last time you heard the idea of something being “sacred” and off-limits to American corporate interests? European soccer teams have, ironically, been much more eager to accept the idea of sponsors’ names being placed on their uniforms and for one simple reason: money.

2. Salary Cap

If you’ve watched the English Premier League in the past few years, you are aware that the biggest change has been the rise to prominence of once moderately successful Chelsea. Chelsea has become successful for no reason other than the riches of its owner, Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich. Since he bought the West London club, they have spent over 540 million dollars on new players.

What is amazing in a continent with high rates of redistributive taxation is that there has been very little attempt to limit the spending of uber-rich clubs like Chelsea. The contrast with the NBA and NFL, both of which have strict salary caps, is marked. In Europe, the rich clubs remain rich and are successful (Real Madrid’s consistent success over the past half-century is an excellent example). They spend what is necessary to buy the best players and pay whatever salaries they demand because there is nothing limiting them from doing so. Smaller teams can occassionally compete for a short time but then melt back into obscurity (see Leeds’ decline from Champions League semifinalists in 2001 to their current struggles to avoid relegation from the League Championship).

Europeans accept a degree of ruthless economic dominance in soccer that they would never accept in society. And Americans who deplore government interference in their personal lives love the fact that the Detroit Lions have a chance to actually win a few games next year. It’s all because of economic policies that break the capitalist/socialist stereotypes of Americans and Europeans.

Well, I’m back. Not sure how bad I ever was. Hope you enjoy reading!