After today’s game against Mexico, Argentina are one step closer to winning the World Cup. The world will then also be one day closer to seeing the man, once the world’s best player, Diego Maradona, the current manager of the Argentine side, running naked through the streets of Johannesburg. This he has promised if Argentina make it to the Final and win.
When most of the world think of soccer countries they will likely often think of England, who were slaughtered by Germany 4-1 today. Why?
In Part One of Why Europe may not Win the World Cup we looked at the stats for the world’s richest League teams. These teams are the huge monopoly corporations of world soccer. Of the top 20 richest League teams in the world all are from the five largest populated countries in Europe. The top 20 are led by England with 7 teams, Germany (5), Italy (4), Spain (2) and France (2). These five richest European countries have large enough populations and home markets to support billion-dollar League teams and attract the best players in the entire world.
In this World Cup countries like France and Italy had huge expectations on them. When they were relegated their managers refused the normal formality of shaking hands with their coach opponents. So why did France and Italy get relegated so early?
As with any aspect of capitalist globalization there are some positives that accompany the negatives. The negatives are evident. Local League teams from Brazil to the Ivory Coast and beyond consistently lose their best players to Europe. Big money chases the talent and offer massive bribes for talented players to leave their homes and uproot their families to come to Europe.
During the regular League season the overwhelming majority of underdeveloped countries’ players play in Europe. Of the Brazilian squad in South Africa, only 4 out of 23 players play for a League team in Brazil. The other 19 are most all in Europe playing often for one of those top 20 League monopolies. Argentina? Sixteen of their 23 players in the World Cup play for European League teams. 15 of the Uruguay squad play in Europe too.
Even 16 of the USA’s World Cup team play in Europe. Because US capitalism has not developed a mass following for soccer, it is kind of like a 3rd world nation in the soccer world. This ironically, may give it a better chance of winning in international games.
The positive side of this process is that these players return from Europe to their national squads and bring back all they’ve learnt and it contributes to their national side.
In contrast to the above facts about Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and the US squads, the European big national sides are overwhelmingly confined to the isolated experience of only playing in their own countries.
Twenty-three of the 23 players for the German team DO NOT play outside Germany during the football league season. All of them play for German teams. England, the same. Not a single English player on its national squad plays outside of England. Apart from Cannavaro who has retired to Dubai but is still on the Italy team, all the Italian players only play in Italian soccer League teams. Spain is the exception with 3 players out of 23 playing outside the Spanish Leagues, but these three individuals play for English Premiership teams.
So what does this all mean? Or does it mean anything?
In terms of the nature of the game, it is more globally integrated than ever before. Almost anyone on the planet can watch the game and become a consumer of the business of football. If you have the patience you can even watch it on your cell phone. European capital sucks-in all the world’s best players and their technology makes it available for the world. Of course the rich nations get the front row.
The cost to Europe, not so much to small countries like Portugal and Netherlands, but more so to the big 5 European club nations, is that they do not need develop their home grown players. Or coaches. Why should they, if they can afford to buy the world’s best players to play in their billionaire leagues?
Which brings us to our most developed example of this process of global monopolization: England.
England lost today. Expectations for England were and will possibly continue to be incredibly high. This is both within England and elsewhere. English players look angry when they score, like they are men that finally proved themselves. The Germans today, in contrast, were relaxed and self-confident. The Germans were also young and agile.
England is the only country among the big 5 European countries’ national squads who do not hire a home-grown manager. This is a process long developed in English League football. Two of the three richest English League teams, Arsenal and Chelsea, have not had English managers for close to 20 years. Of the three riches teams in England, Manchester United and Arsenal are owned by American businessmen and Chelsea by a Russian billionaire.
Why could England not match Germany’s youthful team? Perhaps because for one or two decades England has been the most developed global capitalist football nation in the world. It has not needed to develop home-grown talent. It can buy it. This process may be killing England’s chances in world competitions. But in the end, where is the money in winning the World Cup? And isn’t that what capitalist football is all about?
It will be a long time before England’s national team manager will have the self-confidence or humor to offer to run anywhere naked.
No comments:
Post a Comment