What I’m Reading: April 21, 2007

There may be no greater factor in shaping the development of soccer than money. Several writers have commented on the link between the oodles of cash that have been invading and the success of English teams in this year’s Champions League. It is surely no coincidence that Chelsea, Liverpool, and Manchester United are among the richest teams in English, indeed, the world, and are three quarters of the Champions League semifinalists.

In order to keep its status as the world’s richest league, the Premier League is following the lead of everyone else and their mother interested in making a buck today: looking to China. As Oliver Tse, the brains behind SoccerTV pointed out in a recent EPLTalk interview, teams in England see China as their growth opportunity.

Premier League bosses, then, will have been heartened by an article from the International Herald Tribune this past week about the popularity of soccer in the Middle Kingdom. Interestingly, Eric Pfanner writes that “Unlike America, where soccer is now the most popular participation sport among children, relatively few Chinese actually play the game. But in contrast to the United States, where soccer rarely breaks into network television, the sport is a media phenomenon in China.” Why is that?

The outlook for soccer’s growth in China may be rosy, but economic success in other parts of the world isn’t nearly so easy to achieve. Take, for example, the 2006 World Cup. An article on the website Just 4 Business quotes a report by German academics which “demonstrate[s] that expectations of the event having a boosting effect on the economy were completely exaggerated.”

This report is interesting, though it will probably be little noticed since the tournament was completed nearly a year ago. Positive economic effects are often cited as a rationale to have a country host a tournament. Governments vying for the rights to host a major tournament often use this rationale to support their bids (see, for example, England’s 2012 Olympic bid, which is supposed to boost depressed areas of London). But rarely have I heard cold, hard economic data to support these seemingly altruistic assertions. As someone who loves sports and cares about social justice, I find the building of new stadiums when so many people continue to live in abject poverty a difficult quandary.

Take, for example, the 2010 World Cup. The South African government will spend millions of dollars to build stadiums while half of its people live in poverty. On the other hand, I want a World Cup with stadiums worthy of the great occasion. I don’t know what the answer is, but I think that bringing economic statistics into the debate is helpful.

An artist’s rendition of the King Senzangakhona Stadium, currently under construction in Durban

The question of whether to spend money on new stadiums in a poor country will be on display in 2010 and now also in 2012. That’s because UEFA awarded Euro 2012 to the joint bid of Poland and Ukraine. Surprising many who had expected “old-Europe” power Italy to be given the tournament, Michel Platini repaid the Eastern European countries who had voted him into power by awarding the tournament to two of its members. Now that Poland and Ukraine have been awarded hosts of the tournament, they face that massive task of preparing for it.

As Jonathan Wilson points out in the Guardian, the task will be massive. Stadiums in these countries are in need of upgrades, as is general infrastructure, but Wilson optimistically suggests that “the investment a major tournament will bring will go not to a country that largely wasted its last opportunity, but to a country in desperate need of it.” I hope that these investments in Ukraine and Poland will ready them to host a successful tournament. And I hope, perhaps optimistically, that they will also benefit their people long after Euro 2012 is over.

In 2012, Europe’s best soccer players will be heading east for this prestigious tournament. But sixty years earlier, the Jews were doing everything they could to leave Central and Eastern Europe. At the conclusion of World War II, the liberated concentration camps were full of Jews who had escaped Hitler’s plans to exterminate them, many of whom would later go to Israel, the United States, and other more welcoming countries.

But as Allon Sander wrote this past week in Ha’aretz, one of the first things former concentration camp prisoners did after being freed was to begin playing soccer. Sander writes, “Just one month after the establishment of [displaced persons camp] Landsberg, the Sports Organization for Former Polish Prisoners in the Camp demanded soccer balls and uniforms.” Soon after, the Jews had organized leagues and by 1947 there were 120 teams in Jewish leagues in Germany.

The idea that Jews would be interested in playing a game so soon after witnessing the worst horrors of the 20th century is a bit surprising. But, as Sander points out, Jews had been instrumental in spreading the gospel of soccer from the UK into Europe.

Sociologist Detlev Claussen claims that while conservatives opposed such development and supported athletic and gymnastic movements - team, elitist and non-competitive sports - the Jews happily accepted the British way. As such, the Jews were an engine for spreading sports throughout Europe.

Since surviving attempts to exterminate them in World War II, Jews have done much to try to reduce the suffering of other oppressed people (see, for example, the recent collaboration between the National Holocaust Museum and Google Earth to document the genocide in Darfur). But the state of Israel, where many Holocaust survivors settled, has done its share of oppressing its Arab neighbors. In soccer, as in life, bigotry among some in Israel is evident, as was documented by Rob Hughes in the International Herald Tribune. Hughes writes about Bnei Sakhnin, a team in Israel made up mostly of Israeli Arab players. The team is currently in the second division, but is looking likely to win promotion to the top division, where they have previously spent some time. During their previous time in Israel’s top league,

The welcome into Israeli’s soccer elite was not uniform. Jewish companies did not come forward to sponsor a team that mixes Arab and Jew and even Christian. The conservative extremists drawn to Beitar Jerusalem vented their bitterness by placing an advertisement on the Internet and in a daily newspaper. It suggested that Sakhnin’s presence was the “death” of Israeli soccer.

The Bnei Sakhnin squad

Bigotry is not confined to the Middle East, of course. In England, birthplace of soccer, controversy was generated this week when the BBC announced that it would have a female announcer at the game between Fulham and Blackburn. Some immediately came out against Jacqui Oatley’s appointment to the game.

Said Steve Curry, Sportsmail writer, “It is an insult to the controlled commentaries of John Motson, Mike Ingham and Alan Green that their domain is threatened by a new arrival whose excited voice sounds like a fire siren.”

Not wanted to be out-bigoted, former manager Dave Bassett said, “I am totally against it and everybody I know in football is totally against it. The problem is that everybody is too scared to admit it. I knew this would happen eventually. The world of football is so politically correct these days. I’m completely relaxed about women presenting football shows. Women like Clare Tomlinson are very good. But commentating is different. You must have an understanding of the game and the tactics and I think in order to do that you need to have played the game.”

In a retort to those against Oatley’s appointment simply because of her sex, Paula Cocozza of the Guardian wrote the following:

Why do the Bassetts and Currys in football permit themselves to say such things? Why, like sensible sexists in other walks of life, don’t they at least have the decency to exercise a little self-censorship rather than give vent to the chill draughts wafting through their heads? There is no acknowledgment of offence. Surely, having kicked racism out of football, and having now turned their attention to homophobia, the gentlemen at the Football Association will have to decide there is no place in their sport for sexism.

I agree whole-heartedly with Cocozza. But even while I revile the attitudes of Bassett, Curry, and those who share them, I wonder why they have such animosity toward female commentators. Granted, these are two football “experts” who have yet to turn their calendars past 1962, but where does their anger come from? Do they spew such vitriol when male announcers screech like fire sirens? Would they rail against Tommy Smyth’s inane babble if they had to put up with it in Champions League matches? I doubt it.

We in the US have not done much better on this front, though I have heard a few women calling college football and baseball games (if there are more than that, I’m not sure, as my sports-viewing diet is almost exclusively soccer). We do have the always-perky female sideline reporter, but I’m not sure if she is a boon or hindrance to gender equality. Veronica Paysee traveled to the 2002 World Cup to commentate for ESPN, but was reviled by soccer fans (see her profile on amiannoyingornot.com) because she knew nothing about soccer (she was, however, 2000 Miss Florida USA runner-up).

Veronica Paysee, recipient of a 67.46% annoying rating in 2003

The real question, of course, about announcers should be whether they are good at their job, no matter their sex. I have not heard Jacqui Oatley and am not sure if she is qualified to commentate on a Premier League match. But the fact that she is a woman should not impede her from taking on this new role. The sound of a female commentator is undeniably different from what we have been used to, but that does not make it inferior. Change is sometimes difficult to accept, especially in a beloved institution like football, but it is necessary in order to move forward as fans and as people.

Returning to the good ol’ US of A, I was struck by an article from the BBC which claimed Rangers want to set up a player exchange program with the LA Galaxy. The article quotes Rangers manager Walter Smith saying “With Beckham already signed, they will attract the cream of American kids who want to play alongside a superstar.” Smith, of course, would hope to attract these young American players to Rangers when they are further along in their careers.

I find Smith’s attitude both ignorant and offensive. It is ignorant because, unlike hierarchical European leagues, MLS has a system in place, like most American sports, to ensure parity among its teams. The best players in the US will not necessarily see the Galaxy as a “bigger” team, even with Beckham aboard, and want to move there, unlike Scotland, where Celtic and Rangers are the undisputed top two.

I also find Smith’s attitude offensive because, quite frankly, I don’t see much of a difference in skill level between the SPL and MLS. Rangers and Celtic are clearly a step above the other teams in Scotland, but the league overall is incredibly poor. Rangers and Celtic are good teams, but not great, and until they finally make the much-discussed move to the Premier League, I don’t see the benefit for American players in going there.

One of Ian Plenderleith’s columns at ussoccerplayers.com this week dealt with whether there is a difference in quality of play between English leagues below the Premier League and MLS. His conclusion (and keep in mind, he’s English):

In terms of atmosphere, tradition, passion and wit, attending a game in England, in the lower leagues at least, continues to be a more exciting and enjoyable game-day experience than it is in most MLS stadiums. But these established staples can not paper over the fact that many of these games are horrible to watch.

Plenderleith laments the “tedious, long ball game” that makes up much of English soccer outside of the Premier League. The Scottish have historically been known as more skillful than the English (their dribbling was renowned in the beginnings of the game), but anyone who’s watched an SPL game in the past ten years knows they’ve picked up the worst habits from south of Hadrian’s wall. Americans who move to Scotland to join Walter Smith’s Rangers would be making, in my opinion, a poor career choice.

Finally, a couple of articles on the influence of Spanish-speaking immigrants on soccer in this country. One article in the Washington Post deals with the increasing number of bilingual coaches for high school teams in Northern Virginia (an area with a large Latino immigrant population). Some American-born players have even learned Spanish in order to be able to communicate with their teammates. Stephen Dunlap, captain of Washington-Lee High School, said doing so “makes us relate to each other more. If we couldn’t understand each other but could play together, that would be enough. But being able to associate [with teammates] one more way is one more way to have a better team.”

And for my last article of the week, I have to give a plug to my mom, who brought it to my attention. The New York Times article, headlined “For Some Hispanics, Coming to America Also Means Abandoning Religion” deals with decreasing church attendance among Hispanic immigrants. One reason? They’re too busy playing soccer on Sundays!

Some quick hits to finish off:

• A unique way of trash-talking by Argentina and Brazil, as posted by the blog Too-Biased.
• The Voice of America says Zimbabwe’s successful U-18 team is bringing hope to the country. Strikes me as propaganda (from the VOA? No way!), but interesting nonetheless.
• Puma has signed up to provide uniforms Namibia. The blog Annansi Chronciles brings up the interesting point that Puma seems to doing a lot to make an imprint on the entire African continent (I remember noticing how many teams from the continent at the last World Cup were sponsored by Puma).
• It has nothing at all to do with soccer, but when the sport of Buzkashi popped up on not one, but two blogs I came across, I thought I should post the links. One blog describes the sport as “headless goat carcass polo.” Delicious.

Buzkashi players in action

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 21st, 2007 at 7:07 pm and is filed under What I'm Reading. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.