Mercy Maud! I mentioned soccer's World Cup being treated as a Big Deal? Well, I had no idea, no idea at all. Over at Al Mohler's blog, he's written about the same thing, but more extensively, citing a Christian Science Monitor story, World Cup Boosts Growth, Binds Ties, Even Sparks War:
Brazilian banks will close early, British
productivity will nosedive, elections in Mexico could be affected, the
fate of the French prime minister may hang on results. The event will
touch even the frozen wastelands of Antarctica, where scientists have
set up a live Internet feed so as not to miss the action.
And at the grand finale on July 9, as many as a billion people -
one-sixth of humanity - are expected to watch 22 men, adept at
propelling a piece of leather around, compete for the ultimate victory
in team sports.
[snip]
Germany is bracing for 4.5 million fans to arrive
for the matches. The rest of the world is working to accommodate
broadcasts. World Trade Organization negotiators have agreed to end
meetings at 4 p.m. in time for kick-off. In China, 70 percent of
football fans said they planned to watch all 63 matches, even though
most will take place in the middle of the Chinese night. In the Koreas,
North has turned to South for help with rebroadcasting, so its people
can see some of the action. And Arab leaders are scrambling to help
poor citizens see the games after a regional pay-TV network bought
exclusive broadcasting rights.
This is simply sports gone mad, is all:
For the tournament winners, there are many
dividends beyond the honor of being called world champion. All of the
seven countries to win the trophy have experienced, however
temporarily, a "World Cup effect." When Uruguay beat Brazil in 1950,
the victory helped cement a nascent sense of nationhood in a country
with a large immigrant population. When West Germany won in 1954, less
than a decade on from the rubble of 1945, it became a symbol of
resurrection.
Finally, France's first victory in 1998 was hailed as its most
glorious moment since 1945. A million revelers poured onto the Champs
Elysees. President Jacques Chirac's poll numbers shot up. Much was made
of the "rainbow team" of Frenchmen, black and Arab second-generation
immigrants.
"All those postwar problems - rebuilding France, decolonization, the
war in Algeria, unemployment, social, and racial divisions - the World
Cup victory was seen as a step on the way to coming to terms with it
all," says Geoffrey Hare, the author of "Football in France."
In this year's tournament, watch for Ivory Coast,
perhaps Africa's strongest contender, but one with a wretched recent
history of civil war. A successful run for the West African side may do
wonders for reconciliation, analysts say. Soccer has a certain power to
unify in Africa: Fighting in Liberia ceased when their star player,
George Weah, was on the pitch; and Nigeria's civil war halted for two
days in 1967 so both sides could watch visiting Pele play in a match.
[snip]
Defeat, however, can have a deleterious effect:
Britain's Labour government in 1970 blamed electoral defeat partly on
England's sudden exit from the World Cup a few days earlier. Andrés
Escobar, a Colombian defender who scored on his own goal in the 1994
World Cup, was shot dead upon returning home.
Economies, too, may not escape unscathed. Academics from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology contend that a World Cup defeat
has, on average, led to sizeable stock market falls in the country
concerned. Winning the Cup, on the other hand, normally adds around 0.7
percentage points to the victor's economic growth, according to
economists at Dutch Bank ABN AMRO.
Ultimately, it's just a game - isn't it?
Legendary English coach Bill Shankly came to a different conclusion.
"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death," he once remarked. "I'm very disappointed with that attitude."
"I can assure you it is much, much more important than that."
It's a strange, weird world. 
Recent Comments