For the non-soccer fans: Michels was the trainer who invented the Total Football playstyle and was named coach of the century by FIFA in 1999[0]. Although I just learned from Wikipedia that the above quote is taken out of context, I always thought it was an insightful one: football is ritual warfare. And as the article suggests, we're probably better off for its existence, because those tribal instincts are still in our DNA, and they need to come out one way or the other.
And I say that as someone who really dislikes football, partially because of the tribalism.
[0] https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102344...
"Panem et circenses" is hardly a new concept.
And 'international sports' don't really go back that far, surprisingly.
The 'oldest currently active international sports competition' is actually the annual hockey game between the Royal Military College (Canada), and Westpoint - or so I'm told. There are arguments for America's cup, but that's a different kind of representation. Those are 1870's vs. 1850's respectively.
So it's really kind of a new thing, and Olympics, World Cup, Commonwealth Games are definitely created in part to build fraternity and collegiately between nations etc..
I think it's also fair to question the term 'violence' because maybe it's really a matter of 'competition' at a physical, visceral level, i.e. 'dominance'. But it's a good point.
My point, exactly.
> they didn't represent anyone.
Of course their did. People had their favorites. Community had champions.
Besides, 11 people representing a country is just a ploy to entertain people. There is zero level of relationship between the players and the rest country.
Anyway, the point is moot. It doesn't change the basis of the mechanism: entertaining the mass so that they divert they aggressiveness.
Aside from the legal requirement that they be citizens of the country they play for, and that once a player represents his country in a competitive match, they are bound to represent that same country for the rest of their lives, barring some extraordinary situation where the country itself breaks up or ceases to exist.
Oh I so dare you to go to Brazil and say Neymar doesn't matter. Actually, don't, I don't want to be (indirectly) responsible for your maiming...
People have a strong illusion their connection is real
But the fact remains that they don't run after the ball themself. They don't make any effort in this competition. They don't even have any personnal relationship with the players.
I don't deny it's fun.
You should have fun.
But it's no more real than a movie.
See: mother + newborn.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/blue-versus-green-roc...
That said, you're right that it wasn't "international", but then again "nations" themselves aren't that old.
Nations are, nationalism and nation-states (which are different but related phenomena) aren't.
No, it's not, though some current national identities are. The idea of Israel as a nation (distinct from either a state or regional identity), for instance, is at least as old as the Old Testament.
Or better yet, invent football and do the same.
Nationalism didn't exist at the time, but ethnocentrism certainly did :)
International cricket pre-dates that. The first official international was between Canada and the United States in 1844, with 10 - 20,000 spectators. The K.A. Auty Cup is still played from time to time.
Perhaps a case could be made for cricket helping prevent nuclear war, as India and Pakistan manage to play each other in the various forms of cricket, though there isn't any love lost between the fans.
I guess we have civilized quite a bit.
Yeah that never happened.
That said, medieval jousting for example had what amounted to a multi national sports. It's just the nations where tiny.
That's absurd. Google "Olympic games" and then Google "peloponnesian war".
Ongoing international games as we understand them are a new phenom, dating back to the mid 19th century, and then only a few games.
The modern Olympics are not that old.
There were almost no such games for most of antiquity until late into the Enlightenment.
The ancient Greek Olympic games lasted for close to 1200 years. Unless your definition of ongoing is longer than that, I think they qualify.
The ancient Olympics carried a truce enforced by Zeus, unless your definition of international doesn't include "independent political entities who engaged in war" I think they qualify.
Though I do hear about conspiracies involving fixed games and about FIFA corruption from time to time, I imagine that they've done a lot more good for the world recently than the UN has.
Edit:
Sports are in general associated with some meaningful global events. The Olympics recently demonstrated this fact w/r/t North Korea.
No, they have not! I am not sure by what metric one can compare FIFA and the United Nations, but I don't think you you are familiar with the breadth of the UN's work. Selected achievements from their results page [1]:
-Every year we mobilize about $7 billion in humanitarian aid to help people affected by emergencies.
-Every year we assist over 34 million refugees and others fleeing war, famine and persecution.
-We vaccinate 40% of the world’s children, saving 2 million lives a year.
-In 2011 the UN will provide food to around 90 million people in 73 countries.
-In the past few years, the UN has expanded legal international rights to indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, migrants and their families.
FIFA is merely better at marketing...
I wonder if FIFA has ever been discovered to be running hugely corrupt wings like UN's WIPA which keeps trying to stuff some form of ACTA/SOPA/PIPA down our throats.
I wonder if FIFA has been found to ever profit from the rape and sexual abuse of minors. Minors, who descend from some of the most war-torn and horrific places on Earth.
7 billion annually and look how little they get done each year. Capitalism is much more responsible for Africa's and Asia's escape from poverty than the UN is - and that's a rather low bar.
I laugh at the idea that the UN, and not the charities they force to go through them, is responsible for saving 2 million lives per year. I wonder how many millions they let die each year.
In terms of global politics, FIFA is rather benevolent and yet they foster ongoing positive international relations benefits. The UN is, at best, malevolent, and I am dubious that their positives outweigh their enormous negatives, not to mention their negative externalities.
Surely, surely you’re joking?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_FIFA_corruption_case
That is an entire Wikipedia page about a corruption case only involving tax evasion , following an investigation by the IRS.
This is the FIFA , which decided, completely non corrupt of course, that Qatar is the best place to host a World Cup. Some people follow through on this anecdote with reasons as to why that’s a worse place to do so than actual Hell, but I prefer to prompt you to sit back a moment and think about that. Qatar. Forget about Russia: Qatar. For a sporting match. In summer. Qatar.
For context, these were the final bids for 2022: South Korea, Qatar, Japan, Australia, U.S.A.
Qatar.
FIFA is not corrupt? Sepp “football is politics” Blatter’s FIFA?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sepp_Blatter
Surely you’re joking?
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULI3x8WIxus