What I’m Reading: September 30, 2007
Chelsea and Arsenal have provided an excellent study in contrasts this week. While Roman Abramovich was busy parting with Jose Mourinho, the best manager Chelsea has ever known, and bringing in a stooge who has already lost the dressing room, Arsenal played some fantastic football and turned in a financial report that propelled them up the clubs rich list to second in the world (behind only Real Madrid). The contrast was clear for all to see: Abramovich’s ego was taking Chelsea down as quickly as his rubles had taken them up the footballing hierarchy while Arsenal had taken a slow and steady approach, with investment in a new stadium and faith in their young players. At least for now, the Gunners appear in a much stronger position (that is, until Alisher Usmanov takes over).
More than any single person, Arsene Wenger is responsible for Arsenal’s success. It is no coincidence that Wenger has a master’s degree in economics. He gave a fascinating in-depth interview to the Guardian in which he imparts some economic wisdom. “What bothers me is when a club lives beyond its means,” he says, contrasting other clubs with Arsenal’s own steady approach. Wenger also has said recently that, even if he were to receive a large transfer kitty, he’d give it right back because he has worked hard to build his young team and doesn’t want or need new, expensive players. Based on his team’s performance so far this season, you’d have to say he is right.
The “Professor” Arsene Wenger (photo: Who Ate All the Pies)
Across London, new Chelsea manager Avram Grant has been struggling to take on a position for which he is clearly unqualified. Criticism in the English press of the Israeli manager’s appointment and early performance has been loud and harsh. As a result, the Jerusalem Post reported this week that a British law office is considering the possibility of filing suit against some in the media for the “racist overtones” the coverage has supposedly contained. The law office points particularly to an article by Martin Samuels in the Times which discussed the Jewish connection between Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich and Grant, and suggested it may be partly responsible for the new manager’s appointment. The idea that this may be grounds for a lawsuit would be laughable in the US. But given the much weaker freedom of speech protections in Britian (see a libel case that Andriy Shevchenko won recently against the Daily Mirror) without the strong protection the First Amendment offers, lawsuits against defamation in the media are much more common in Britain.
Avram Grant (l) talking with Roman Abramovich (photo: Daily Mail)
There are many factors that will most likely lead Avram Grant to fail at Chelsea. But one interesting factor that made some newspapers was the fact that Grant was unable to be with the team in the run-up to his first match (which Chelsea lost to Manchester United 2-0) because it was the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur. Meanwhile, in Spain, Real Madrid’s Malian midfielder Mahamadou Diarra is fasting during the month of Ramadan. Despite this obstacle, he is still training and playing in matches with the team.
Tim Vickery has written a very interesting column about the controversy in Brazil surround Kerlon, whose “seal” dribbling was brought to an inglorious end by an opponent’s elbow (the player, Coelho, was subsequently suspended for four months). Vickery puts the controversy into context by talking about Brazilian soccer from an anthropological perspective.
The noted Brazilian anthropologist Roberto da Matta has written that unlike European football, the game in his country “is a source of individual expression much more than an instrument of collectivisation”. He continued that it was a battle of “individual wills who seek to escape from the cycle of defeat and poverty”. In a very hierarchical society, the player who comes up with a new trick is a pawn who has turned the tables and become a king. It perhaps helps explain why Brazilian football has come up with so many moments of individual genius - and also why those on the receiving end of the move feel especially humiliated. Their personal defeat is being publicly rubbed into their nose. Kerlon’s problem is that his seal dribble is being viewed as a provocation.
Finally, a question I want to put out in the hopes that someone might offer insight. A recent article by the New Yorker’s brilliant financial writer James Surowiecki (his is about the only financial writing I can stomach) discussed piracy. Surowiecki mentioned that, in 1932 a group of fashion designers sought to punish stores selling knock-off clothing. He writes, “Retailers selling knockoffs were ‘red-carded,’ and [fashion] guild members wouldn’t sell their merchandise to red-carded store.” My question is this: Do the fashion guild red cards have anything to do with their subsequent use in soccer. Former referee Ken Aston is normally credited with the invention of yellow and red cards (they were first used in the 1970 World Cup), having been inspired by a traffic signal. But is their previous use in fashion, some 40 years earlier, at all related to the way red cards have come to be used in soccer?
And some quick hits to finish off:
- The New York Times Goal! blog discusses the positive reaction the Brazilian women’s team was getting in their homeland during the Women’s World Cup. Too bad they lost to Germany today.
- The blog Throughball is beginning a series of posts on old New York Times articles on soccer. Josh begins with one from 1885.
- The Gay World Cup opened in Argentina this past week. In a part of the world not known for being accepting of homosexuality, Argentina in general and Buenos Aires in specific (it allows civil unions) have become destinations for many gay and lesbian tourists.
February 15th, 2008 05:51
hindsight…..looks like you might have been wrong re A. Grant…….and Samuels The Times’ reporter surely its in the name?