Football Fervor—Is It Worth It?
By “Awake!” correspondent in Spain
IT WAS just a few minutes before eight o’clock on Sunday evening, June 13, 1982. It is estimated that 1,500 million people had centered their attention on King Juan Carlos who was giving a brief discourse. What was he talking about that would capture the attention of so many people? Would it be imminent world disarmament? Or the solution to the world’s economic crisis? No, it was something much more ephemeral—a third of the world’s population was watching the opening ceremony of the 1982 World Soccer Cup.
Although the final result is known to millions, a few questions about the 1982 World Cup competition are apropos. For example, How does the World Cup competition function? Does it serve as a model for football to become better and more attractive in the future? For children and youth, does it inculcate the principles of good sportsmanship? Or is that asking too much?
In actual fact the current competition started two years earlier when 107 different national teams were grouped geographically for their play-offs to decide the final 24 qualifying nations. The question then was, which of the 107 would compete in Spain?
By the spring of 1982 this big question was answered. The victors were: Algeria, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, Czechoslovakia, El Salvador, England, France, Germany, Honduras, Hungary, Northern Ireland, Italy, Kuwait, New Zealand, Peru, Poland, Russia, Scotland, Yugoslavia. Argentina and Spain had automatically qualified—Argentina for being the previous cup winner and Spain for being the host nation.
Giant-Killers?
Under new rules the qualifying nations rose from 16 to 24. This meant that some nations were represented with relatively little experience in championships of this kind—especially Kuwait, Cameroon, Honduras, Algeria and New Zealand. The experts immediately wrote these off as of little consequence against the Goliaths of the established soccer-playing nations. Were they right in their forecast?
The first round of games soon brought upsets. The opening match between the reigning champions, Argentina, and the challengers from Belgium produced a surprise result—Belgium won. That seemed to set the tone for the whole championship—a string of surprises. Outstanding teams, such as those of West Germany, Spain, Czechoslovakia and Peru, were unable to beat the underdogs. Before the match against Algeria the German manager was heard to say: “If we don’t beat Algeria I’ll take the next train home.” His comment proved to be imprudent. West Germany lost by two goals to one! However, like Argentina, West Germany passed to the second round on a points-accrued basis. Needless to say, the German manager delayed his journey back to West Germany.
However, by the second round 12 teams had qualified—10 from Europe and 2 from South America. Which would be the finalists? Many hoped for and expected a final between the giants of South America, Brazil and Argentina. Did it turn out that way?
More surprises! Both Brazil and Argentina were eliminated. The semifinals became an all-European affair with France and West Germany joined in combat and Italy facing up to Poland. West Germany, after being 3-1 down in extra time, forced a draw and then won on penalty kicks. Italy beat Poland 2-0. That meant the final for the World Cup would be Italy versus West Germany. Although this resulted in an all-European final, even many Europeans were sorry to see the Brazilians eliminated with their attractive style of football. The joie de vivre seemed to have evaporated from the competition.
Nevertheless the football fervor increased. Over 90,000 packed out Madrid’s Santiago Bernabéu Stadium for the final. Did West Germany win the Cup as many had expected? Yet another surprise—“Italy shattered the great German machine” was the headline in the Madrid daily ABC. “Italy win brawling finale” was The Guardian’s comment. Italy became world soccer champions for the third time in their history. For them the 1982 World Cup had been a winner. But perhaps for soccer in general the World Cup competition presented a more than slightly tarnished image. Why do we say that?
Brawling and Shamming—Necessary?
David Lacey, The Guardian sports correspondent, wrote that in spite of Italy’s 3-1 victory over West Germany “it was clear that the good name of football had become an irrelevance compared to the all-important matter of winning.” He then raised the question: “Was it really necessary to subject everybody to a month of what was often mediocre football in order to produce a brawling finale which did little to alleviate the gloomy prospects for the future of the game as a spectator sport?” He continued: “One lost count of the number of times those who had been tackled lay on the ground apparently at death’s door and in the next instant were seen chasing for the ball.” This shamming is laid on to deceive the referee and obtain a more severe penalty against the opposing side. As such, it is playacting and hypocrisy. It may be “professional” but it is neither ethical nor noble.
Why is there this tendency toward violence and shamming, even at the highest levels of this professional sport? Precisely because it is a highly paid professional sport, and winning means so much. The dangers of this trend go far beyond the field of action. Children and youngsters tend to imitate the professionals, and thus violence and hypocrisy creep into school sports. This fact was acknowledged by a well-known Australian cricket player, Dennis Lillee, who was temporarily suspended from international matches for kicking the Pakistan captain. He later apologized, saying that the incident “set a bad example for children and for this in particular I am truly sorry.” Would that more sportsmen were conscious of the effect of their example on children!
Without a doubt professional sportsmen and sportswomen strive very hard to reach the pinnacle of their sporting achievement. But the bottom line is that sports should be just a recreation, a pastime. It is not the most important factor in life nor is it mankind’s most vital occupation or need. Thus the Bible’s expression is very appropriate: “I myself have seen all the hard work and all the proficiency in work [which also applies to sports converted into work], that it means the rivalry of one toward another; this also is vanity and a striving after the wind.” (Ecclesiastes 4:4) The modern-day violence, shamming and also spectator hooliganism are the fruits of the “rivalry” and competitive spirit.
Therefore it is appropriate to ask, Is professional football an uplifting influence today? Does it draw people together, or does it tend to heighten old rivalries? Does it make for more genuine peace between the nations?
A Force for Peace and Unity?
One touching moment at the inaugural ceremony held on Barcelona’s Nou Camp football field was when a young boy, dressed in soccer gear, advanced across the field to place the ball on the center spot. Everyone’s gaze was upon him as he deposited the ball on the turf. To everyone’s surprise the ball opened and out flew a dove, the symbol of peace!
Such idealism was soon shattered on the field of play. As the Madrid Gaceta Ilustrada commented on one match: “The most agitated game: Italy-Argentina. At the thirty-eighth minute of the first half thirty-eight fouls had been committed. One a minute.” If you participate in sports, do you want to imitate that kind of example? As a spectator, do you enjoy watching that kind of negative play?
The next World Cup competition is scheduled for 1986. Its month of football fervor is expected to bring tremendous free publicity to the host nation, as well as economic benefits to some. But what about football itself? What direction is it taking? Will there be a return to clean, open football, attractive to the public? Or will the ever larger stadiums become even emptier? Will football fervor diminish or flourish? Time will tell.
[Picture on page 19]
The dove was inside the ball. Did it bring peace?