Dr Mohamed Kirat
By Dr Mohamed Kirat
For a whole month, until July 13, soccer fans around the globe are going to be glued to their sofas to watch the 64 matches of the world soccer tournament in Brazil. The whole world is talking one language — soccer. People from the four corners of the planet have met in Brazil with the colour of their national flags on their faces, chanting their national anthems and showing pride in their origins, identity and nationalism.
Over the decades, football has become more than a game. For many nations and people, being among the 32 national teams in the final of the soccer world cup championship is more than a mere participation and playing matches. It’s the honour of the country, its success of being among the best 32 countries in soccer in the world. When a small country of 3.5 million inhabitants like Uruguay beats a country of 300 million people and more, that means a lot to politicians and decision makers who want such achievements very badly to legitimise their own existence. They just use such wins in world football to show their good management of building a country strong enough in football to be among the best in the world.
During such ecstasy, the people, the hopeless, the masses, the poor forget about their daily problems and live the euphoria of winning and beating big nations. Football provides light relief from the routines and fatigues of day-to-day life. Football offers ordinary people the chance to escape financial worries and the anxiety of
daily life.
Four billion people watched the inaugural ceremony of the 20th soccer world cup championship in Brazil and the match between the host country and Croatia. The last game of the tournament, the final on July 13 will be for sure watched by more than 4 billion people. Head of states and dignitaries will be there, in the meantime, protesters are taking advantage of this world event to show their anger regarding the $11bn that Brazil spent on infrastructure and stadiums.
In the past, Brazil has witnessed hundreds of demonstrations by citizens expressing discontent about poor public services, corruption, mismanagement, social inequalities and unemployment. The relationship between football and politics is unique. Football and politics share more similarities than some may at first think. Both have audiences of millions. Both generate extreme tribalism. Both share expectation, revel in triumphs and, yes, in rivals’ defeats. Both share a constant command of the limelight, an intrusive media and fierce loyalty from their supporters. And very often both have the ability to unite a nation — dignified in times of tragedy and joyous in times of victory. Football knows no boundaries: class, race or religion. It bears no impact on a player’s ability to shine for 90 minutes. Conversely, it also mirrors many social issues; Islamophobia; racism; homophobia; anti-Semitism; sectarianism and sexism, which, despite being societal problems, attract extra attention due to the great popularity of the game. Its influence on ordinary working-class people is immense.
In Brazil, a lot of the damage that the World Cup could potentially inflict on Dilma Rousseff, the president of the country, has already been done. Support for the tournament has decreased from 79pc in 2007 to 48pc on its eve. The unrest created a chink in her armour that got bigger as disillusionment with the competition grew. The election is still Ms Rousseff’s to lose, but defeat is no longer inconceivable. So far, hosting the Cup looks like a political curse in disguise. Why would anyone in this football-mad nation wish for defeat? The answer is probably politics. Opponents of Ms Rousseff may be hoping that a poor performance by the national squad could translate into a rout for her and her Workers’ Party (PT) in a general election in October. Is this wishful thinking? Or do sporting results in fact have political implications?
The 1930s, 40s, and 50s make up a formative period for football as an international game, with 1930 being the year of the first World Cup which took place in Uruguay. The period was also one of widespread political and cultural unrest.
Inevitably, these three decades were host to numerous cases where football transcended sport and took on wide reaching political or cultural relevance. The stories stretch from the victorious villain, such as the Italian Fascists and their national football team in the 1934 World Cup, 1936 Olympics, and the 1938 World Cup, to the uplifting triumphs of good over evil, with the American black athlete Jesse Owens and his triumph over Hitler’s Aryans.
The Nazis did not have enough courage to hand the gold medal to the world champion, who according to Hitler, is not eligible to compete with his “masters”, the Aryans.
A major issue addressed when it comes to sports and politics is the national anthem. Players are supposed to sing it with compassion and love which means a high degree of their patriotism and their eagerness to play and win. The opposite is the lack of patriotism and nationalism.
To Jean Marie Le Pen, the founder of The National Front Party, a right-wing extremist leader in France who has a long history of anti-Semitism, racism and bigotry and is a fervent critic of emigrants and French of foreign origins, most players who played for French national side have nothing to do with France and have no right to represent France. Thus, for example, voices on the French Right questioned some of Les bleus’ proper love of France during the team’s poor performance at the last soccer World Cup in South Africa in 2010. However, the same voices were silenced when the legendary Zinedine Zidane — of Algerian origin — scored two goals against Brazil to lift the World Cup for the first time in the history of France.
Although this fact is often overlooked, sports and politics are intricately intertwined. Politics often manifests itself through sports, and sports have often been exploited and used as political propaganda.
This is possible because of the ways both national and local identities become associated with sports teams. This is particularly true in the realm of what has become the world’s sport: soccer. Since so many countries have become so physically, emotionally and mentally invested in that particular game, it has become another branch of political expression, identity and propaganda.
The 1978 World Cup in Argentina, for instance, was used by the country’s dictators to try and show the rest of the world that everything is fine and the country lives in peace and harmony.
In Europe, during the era of the dictatorships that plagued the continent from 1930s through 1950s, soccer and politics were two sides of the same coin.
The writer is a Professor of Public Relations and Mass Communication at the College of Arts and Sciences, Qatar University.
By Dr Mohamed Kirat
For a whole month, until July 13, soccer fans around the globe are going to be glued to their sofas to watch the 64 matches of the world soccer tournament in Brazil. The whole world is talking one language — soccer. People from the four corners of the planet have met in Brazil with the colour of their national flags on their faces, chanting their national anthems and showing pride in their origins, identity and nationalism.
Over the decades, football has become more than a game. For many nations and people, being among the 32 national teams in the final of the soccer world cup championship is more than a mere participation and playing matches. It’s the honour of the country, its success of being among the best 32 countries in soccer in the world. When a small country of 3.5 million inhabitants like Uruguay beats a country of 300 million people and more, that means a lot to politicians and decision makers who want such achievements very badly to legitimise their own existence. They just use such wins in world football to show their good management of building a country strong enough in football to be among the best in the world.
During such ecstasy, the people, the hopeless, the masses, the poor forget about their daily problems and live the euphoria of winning and beating big nations. Football provides light relief from the routines and fatigues of day-to-day life. Football offers ordinary people the chance to escape financial worries and the anxiety of
daily life.
Four billion people watched the inaugural ceremony of the 20th soccer world cup championship in Brazil and the match between the host country and Croatia. The last game of the tournament, the final on July 13 will be for sure watched by more than 4 billion people. Head of states and dignitaries will be there, in the meantime, protesters are taking advantage of this world event to show their anger regarding the $11bn that Brazil spent on infrastructure and stadiums.
In the past, Brazil has witnessed hundreds of demonstrations by citizens expressing discontent about poor public services, corruption, mismanagement, social inequalities and unemployment. The relationship between football and politics is unique. Football and politics share more similarities than some may at first think. Both have audiences of millions. Both generate extreme tribalism. Both share expectation, revel in triumphs and, yes, in rivals’ defeats. Both share a constant command of the limelight, an intrusive media and fierce loyalty from their supporters. And very often both have the ability to unite a nation — dignified in times of tragedy and joyous in times of victory. Football knows no boundaries: class, race or religion. It bears no impact on a player’s ability to shine for 90 minutes. Conversely, it also mirrors many social issues; Islamophobia; racism; homophobia; anti-Semitism; sectarianism and sexism, which, despite being societal problems, attract extra attention due to the great popularity of the game. Its influence on ordinary working-class people is immense.
In Brazil, a lot of the damage that the World Cup could potentially inflict on Dilma Rousseff, the president of the country, has already been done. Support for the tournament has decreased from 79pc in 2007 to 48pc on its eve. The unrest created a chink in her armour that got bigger as disillusionment with the competition grew. The election is still Ms Rousseff’s to lose, but defeat is no longer inconceivable. So far, hosting the Cup looks like a political curse in disguise. Why would anyone in this football-mad nation wish for defeat? The answer is probably politics. Opponents of Ms Rousseff may be hoping that a poor performance by the national squad could translate into a rout for her and her Workers’ Party (PT) in a general election in October. Is this wishful thinking? Or do sporting results in fact have political implications?
The 1930s, 40s, and 50s make up a formative period for football as an international game, with 1930 being the year of the first World Cup which took place in Uruguay. The period was also one of widespread political and cultural unrest.
Inevitably, these three decades were host to numerous cases where football transcended sport and took on wide reaching political or cultural relevance. The stories stretch from the victorious villain, such as the Italian Fascists and their national football team in the 1934 World Cup, 1936 Olympics, and the 1938 World Cup, to the uplifting triumphs of good over evil, with the American black athlete Jesse Owens and his triumph over Hitler’s Aryans.
The Nazis did not have enough courage to hand the gold medal to the world champion, who according to Hitler, is not eligible to compete with his “masters”, the Aryans.
A major issue addressed when it comes to sports and politics is the national anthem. Players are supposed to sing it with compassion and love which means a high degree of their patriotism and their eagerness to play and win. The opposite is the lack of patriotism and nationalism.
To Jean Marie Le Pen, the founder of The National Front Party, a right-wing extremist leader in France who has a long history of anti-Semitism, racism and bigotry and is a fervent critic of emigrants and French of foreign origins, most players who played for French national side have nothing to do with France and have no right to represent France. Thus, for example, voices on the French Right questioned some of Les bleus’ proper love of France during the team’s poor performance at the last soccer World Cup in South Africa in 2010. However, the same voices were silenced when the legendary Zinedine Zidane — of Algerian origin — scored two goals against Brazil to lift the World Cup for the first time in the history of France.
Although this fact is often overlooked, sports and politics are intricately intertwined. Politics often manifests itself through sports, and sports have often been exploited and used as political propaganda.
This is possible because of the ways both national and local identities become associated with sports teams. This is particularly true in the realm of what has become the world’s sport: soccer. Since so many countries have become so physically, emotionally and mentally invested in that particular game, it has become another branch of political expression, identity and propaganda.
The 1978 World Cup in Argentina, for instance, was used by the country’s dictators to try and show the rest of the world that everything is fine and the country lives in peace and harmony.
In Europe, during the era of the dictatorships that plagued the continent from 1930s through 1950s, soccer and politics were two sides of the same coin.
The writer is a Professor of Public Relations and Mass Communication at the College of Arts and Sciences, Qatar University.
