George Orwell on Soccer Nationalism

764dak

http://orwell.ru/library/articles/spirit/english/e_spirit

Now that the brief visit of the Dynamo football team has come to an end, it is possible to say publicly what many thinking people were saying privately before the Dynamos ever arrived. That is, that sport is an unfailing cause of ill-will, and that if such a visit as this had any effect at all on Anglo-Soviet relations, it could only be to make them slightly worse than before.
Even the newspapers have been unable to conceal the fact that at least two of the four matches played led to much bad feeling. At the Arsenal match, I am told by someone who was there, a British and a Russian player came to blows and the crowd booed the referee. The Glasgow match, someone else informs me, was simply a free-for-all from the start. And then there was the controversy, typical of our nationalistic age, about the composition of the Arsenal team. Was it really an all-England team, as claimed by the Russians, or merely a league team, as claimed by the British? And did the Dynamos end their tour abruptly in order to avoid playing an all-England team? As usual, everyone answers these questions according to his political predilections. Not quite everyone, however. I noted with interest, as an instance of the vicious passions that football provokes, that the sporting correspondent of the russophile News Chronicle took the anti-Russian line and maintained that Arsenal was not an all-England team. No doubt the controversy will continue to echo for years in the footnotes of history books. Meanwhile the result of the Dynamos' tour, in so far as it has had any result, will have been to create fresh animosity on both sides.

As soon as strong feelings of rivalry are aroused, the notion of playing the game according to the rules always vanishes. People want to see one side on top and the other side humiliated, and they forget that victory gained through cheating or through the intervention of the crowd is meaningless. Even when the spectators don't intervene physically they try to influence the game by cheering their own side and “rattling” opposing players with boos and insults. Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence: in other words it is war minus the shooting.

It is the most violently combative sports, football and boxing, that have spread the widest. There cannot be much doubt that the whole thing is bound up with the rise of nationalism — that is, with the lunatic modern habit of identifying oneself with large power units and seeing everything in terms of competitive prestige.

Still, you do make things worse by sending forth a team of eleven men, labelled as national champions, to do battle against some rival team, and allowing it to be felt on all sides that whichever nation is defeated will “lose face”.

His essay makes sense. It's about sport in general but he highlights that soccer has nationalism as a major problem. Nearly every thread on the internet about international or continental soccer reeks of nationalism.

Also, Dynamo beat Arsenal.

Minderbinder

There are a couple of truths in there but it is a bizarre essay full of waffle and devoid of any clear purpose. I don't think he's pushing his own agenda here.

764dak

764dak wrote: »

Nearly every thread on the internet about international or continental soccer reeks of nationalism.

Except perhaps threads by Irish people about English clubs?

Zebra3

764dak wrote: »

Nearly every thread on the internet about international or continental soccer reeks of nationalism.

Nearly every thread about international or continental "soccer"?

You've read them all? :eek::rolleyes:

So we're meant to believe that a thread about Juve v Milan will reek of nationalism? Parma v Genoa? Nantes v Nancy? Bayern v Dortmund?

Yeah, right.....

Lovely Bloke

He wasn't even at the games, so he can piss off and peddle his waffle elsewhere.

George who? Who is he anyway? Does he write for the Guardian? Sounds like it.

HalloweenJack

Football has changed a lot since then.

Nationalism was a big deal in the political climate of the time but I reckon nationalism in a footballing context has been diluted by many factors: players moving to play in other countries, foreign managers (personally, I'd rather we had the best manager available, regardless of nationality), the money at stake (FIFA paying off the FAI to keep their trap shut after Paris), the granny and residency rules, players have even been paid to play for countries (Jimmy Bermudez). These are not things I disagree with but it just shows how football has become such a massive business. The only real nationalism on display in international football these days comes from the fans, the stuff that goes on on the pitch is a lot more disconnected.

Still, you do make things worse by sending forth a team of eleven men, labelled as national champions, to do battle against some rival team, and allowing it to be felt on all sides that whichever nation is defeated will “lose face”.

I think most football fans, especially those of teams in bigger leagues, would take particular delight in seeing their rivals getting spanked on a bigger stage, regardless of how it reflects on their nation.

No doubt the controversy will continue to echo for years in the footnotes of history books.

First I've heard of this tour. I'm not even sure if it's about Dynamo Kiev or Moscow or Tiblisi or the millions of Dynamos that existed in the Soviet Union.

It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence: in other words it is war minus the shooting.

There cannot be much doubt that the whole thing is bound up with the rise of nationalism — that is, with the lunatic modern habit of identifying oneself with large power units and seeing everything in terms of competitive prestige.

Apart from the hyperbole in the second half of the first, this bit still rings true.

People want to see one side on top and the other side humiliated, and they forget that victory gained through cheating or through the intervention of the crowd is meaningless.

Maybe so for people who aren't football fans but the vast majority of football fans don't give a crap if their side cheats to win.

Also, considering the piece relies a lot on "someone told me this, someone else told me that", it's a bit hard to take it seriously. I get the feeling that he was never particularly interested in football at all and just latched onto this incident for the sake of a good, old rant.

TheCitizen

764dak wrote: »

http://orwell.ru/library/articles/spirit/english/e_spirit









His essay makes sense. It's about sport in general but he highlights that soccer has nationalism as a major problem. Nearly every thread on the internet about international or continental soccer reeks of nationalism.

Also, Dynamo beat Arsenal.

Looks like he wrote it in 1945 which was just at the very end of WW2 and regular football still suspended.

Tom Mann Centuria

There's a good book about the tour called Passovotchka: Moscow Dynamo in Britain 1945
by David Downing in case anyone's interested.

TheCitizen

Stanley Matthews guested for Arsenal. They were 3-1 up at half time and lost 4-3, Orwell wouldn't have liked that.

LuckyLloyd

I hardly think his perception is controversial? Football is an incredibly tribal and nationalistic game and can act as a focal point for the basest politics. There is a reason why UEFA prevent certain countries playing against each other in qualifying games; why Russian fans made certain demonstrations in Poland in 2012; there has always been hooliganism and violence around derby games in the club sphere that involve sectarian or ethic divides (there's a good documentary on the tensions between Red Star Belgrade and Dinamo Zagreb games in the lead up to the last Balkan war). And the comments you've quoted on the win at all costs mentality and hypocrisy around cheating and foul play is a fundamental recurring theme on this forum every weekend.

A sporting event between two warring or hostile nations is highly unlikely to result in closer more cordial relations. The Olympic Games became a political football at the height of the Cold War. Sport is inherently nationalist in nature - nations have always sanctioned investment of public funds in order to win international sporting events and therefore win 'glory' on the global stage.

I personally don't see any major problem with this. I'd much rather have base nationalistic and jingoistic notions captured within the realm of sport than actual politics anyway, as we are starting to see the damage that can be caused when they are exploited for the latter purpose in terms of Brexit and Trump.

GLaDOS

I preferred 1984

Tom Mann Centuria

GLaDOS wrote: »

I preferred 1984

Platini was something else that year.

greendom

TheCitizen wrote: »

Stanley Matthews guested for Arsenal. They were 3-1 up at half time and lost 4-3, Orwell wouldn't have liked that.

Wenger out!

Andersonisgod

I think the role of nationalism and the amounts of politics involved in football at Orwell's time would've been perfectly in line with the reality of the situation. World Cups, football in the Olympics and Copa Americas all in particular at that time would've illustrated the nationalism and politics at play.

~Rebel~

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I hardly think his perception is controversial? Football is an incredibly tribal and nationalistic game and can act as a focal point for the basest politics.

True, just look at the craziness around the Poppy each year. It's no coincidence that the militaristic nature of it runs parallel with the nationalist sentiments in England. The last two years have been the most prominent i've seen it, just as nationalistic jingoism hits it's height.