Skip to main content

Men’s football International football – time for the final whistle?

Bert Schouwenburg explores the ‘ultimate political football for global elites’ ahead of the World Cup, and suggests what can be done about it

AT THE end of November, men’s domestic football leagues worldwide will be suspended to make way for the Fifa World Cup in Qatar, a month-long tournament featuring 32 national teams who have qualified from their respective regions.

You do not have to be a football supporter to know that holding the competition in the tiny Gulf dictatorship has been shrouded in controversy ever since they were awarded it in 2010 amid widespread allegations of corruption during the bidding process.

There is no doubt that Qatar is uniquely unsuited to holding an event of this nature.

It has no football culture to speak of and the climate is so inhospitable that a competition that is normally held every four years in June has had to be held over until the European winter.

More importantly, Qatar has been accused of funding terrorism across the Middle East and its ruling family has presided over thousands of deaths and injuries to migrant workers engaged in building the state’s infrastructure, including several brand-new stadiums destined to become expensive white elephants, once the World Cup is over.

Under the notorious kafala system, the workers are little more than slaves and, needless to say, trade unions are banned.

Not that this bothers Western “democracies” overmuch, as they scramble to increase imports of Qatari gas and oil to replace supplies from Russia.

What the Doha debacle does do is raise the wider question of whether international football continues to be viable or desirable.

Under the aegis of Fifa, the World Cup has become a huge money-spinning operation that, supposedly, benefits poorer and smaller nation states though the principal beneficiary is Fifa itself and a cabal of highly paid officials and representatives, several of whom have had their collar felt by international law enforcement agencies since 2010.

So lucrative is the World Cup that Fifa want 48 teams to qualify for the next edition and hold it every two years, a proposal that is vigorously opposed by the European (Uefa) and South American (Conmebol) associations.

Uefa do not want anything to restrict their own empire-building and the domination of a handful of clubs who want guaranteed access to the phenomenally successful and ever-expanding Champions League. And there lies the rub: what is more important, club or country?

Despite the obscene amounts of TV and sponsors money that are thrown at elite football clubs, in essence they are still representative of their community, as is every other football club throughout the world.

Their fortunes may wax and wane, but football supporters’ primary loyalty is to their chosen club, usually the one in their local area.

By contrast, nation states are arbitrary creations that are a necessary adjunct to the establishment order and have been remarkably successful in persuading or coercing people to obey laws pertaining to its perpetuation.

In addition to invented histories or myths and the paraphernalia of flags and anthems designed to foster a sense of common “national” interest between the working class and those in power, sports in general and football in particular are an invaluable establishment tool.

Witness for example Boris Johnson, who has zero knowledge or interest in the game, dressed up in an England shirt during the Euros last year.

Apart from the inherent unfairness and inequality of international football meaning that most countries will never get near to winning a World Cup or regional competition, it has little to commend it.

George Orwell once said that sport was “war minus the shooting” and anyone who has experienced the nationalist and racist sentiments that international games can engender would be inclined to agree.

The so-called football war between Honduras and El Salvador in 1969 is probably the most cited example of the game’s capacity to arouse enmity and hatred, though the real causes of the conflict lay elsewhere.

Nevertheless, the hypocrisy and double standards evident in global power politics are amply reflected in football.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has led to them being excluded from international competition, unlike England who participated in the 2004 Euros after the invasion of Iraq.

Israel, after years of persecuting the Palestinians could not find anyone to play against in their own region so the answer was to let them participate in Uefa competitions, as if they were in Europe. 

And the US made sure that they would not lose to Cuba during the 2021 Concacaf (North America, Central America and Caribbean FA) Gold Cup in their country by refusing to issue their players visas.

True to form, football’s governing bodies allowed the competition to proceed with no sanction for the US who went on to win it. And so it goes on.

Football is played and watched by hundreds of millions of people around the globe.

Its success lies in its simplicity, and played at the highest level can be an enthralling spectacle. Unfortunately, like everything else that capital touches, making money for corporate interests has become the dominant ethos in the professional game.

However, there is resistance from supporters who rightly recognise that, regardless of who owns a football club, ultimately it belongs to them and their community.

The international game is a different concept altogether and is the ultimate political football for global elites. What it needs, therefore, is not reform but a firm kick into touch. 

OWNED BY OUR READERS

We're a reader-owned co-operative, which means you can become part of the paper too by buying shares in the People’s Press Printing Society.

 

 

Become a supporter

Fighting fund

You've Raised:£ 13,288
We need:£ 4,712
3 Days remaining
Donate today