FIFA World Cup 2010-Who suffers when a football team is punished?
Nigeria’s national football team will not take part in any international competition for two years after the country’s president suspended the team for its poor performance in the World Cup.
Nick-named the Super Eagles, the African powerhouse were eliminated at the group stage after defeats to Argentina and Greece, getting a solitary point courtesy of a draw with South Korea.
However, there have been reports that the footballers and the Nigerian Football Federation are not being punished over the disappointing performance, but due to allegations of corruption against the team in the run-up to South Africa 2010.
FIFA is likely to take further action against the Nigerian FA, as it does not take too kindly interference by politicians in the functioning of the FA.
FIFA President Sepp Blatter has already issued a warning to the French, who are also under political scrutiny after their disastrous first-round exit from the World Cup. The French premier has already heard an explanation from striker Thierry Henry, who was surprisingly not used in the tournament.
Such incidents are by no means limited to this event or even the World Cup.
After a surprising exit from the 2000 African Cup of Nations, the Ivory Coast national team was held for three days in a military camp as a punishment meted out by the country’s military dictator. The team included Chelsea’s star striker Didier Drogba, who was seen, along with his team-mates, on national television as they participated in military parades and had lectures on team unity and discipline.
There have been worse stories of intimidation and threat. Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussain’s son Uday, who was head of the Iraqi FA, reportedly had a torture chamber near the team’s training ground. Players were threatened with dire consequences for missing training; while there were allegations of violence as well.
Similar stories come to light from time to time. Often, the reason for such an action (mostly taken by autocratic rulers) is either to assert authority or/and mollify or sway public opinion. In such a scenario, punishing footballers can be like punishing dissidents.
For this reason, FIFA is correct in censuring its member countries whose politicians meddle in politics. FIFA cannot stop a country’s governing head or politicians from taking action against the footballers or the FA. However, by banning the country and its club sides from participating in any FIFA country or club event, it makes football unavailable for the people.
Such a scenario is anathema to the common people – whether they are African or European. Passions do run high after high-profile defeats, as in the case of France and Nigeria, but public opinion does mellow down after the passage of time.
Moreover, one fine performance by the team can be enough to re-establish the connection with the fans and the support base. In popularity, politicians, particularly dictators, can never compete with sportsmen. That is why they should not meddle in sports.
There might be some quick popularity, but the long-term impact will be harmful for the supporters, for football as well as the politicians.
In this entire scenario, the plight of footballers has not even been considered. Having already suffered the humiliation of defeat and the knowledge of letting their country and supporters down, these men are further humiliated by being treated like criminals.
For African countries in particular, this could result in a massive talent-drain. Future footballers might consider opting for a European country rather than their own home-country to ensure they have a safe career.
Considering the above-mentioned points, one can safely say that such meddling can only be detrimental to all those who are in love with the beautiful game.
Tags: