The other world cup
View Image Details]" style="color: rgb(51, 102, 153); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; ">
Richard Giulionatti, professor of sociology at Durham University, believes that FIFA status “[strengthens] the ideological hand of ‘nationless states’ while placing ‘stateless nations’ in problematic positions,GRAPHIC JULIA WOLFE
The eyes of the world will be on Africa this summer as 32 teams from across the world arrive in South Africa to compete for soccer’s ultimate prize: the FIFA World Cup.
With over two million tickets already sold, the month-long tournament will undoubtedly be the biggest and most expensive sporting event ever staged on African soil.
Media have been abuzz with tales of forced expropriations, vast amounts of money spent on capital projects and “renewal” projects meant to impress foreign tourists.
While the World Cup is largely heralded as an arena to advance cultural tolerance, it also serves as a theatre for smaller nations to present themselves to the world. It allows for newly-created nation-states with a cultural sphere to develop strong nationalist rituals. During Croatia’s 1998 semi-final run, the players literally wore the nation’s crest on their shirts.
Shutting out the stateless
In a sense, FIFA is instrumental in maintaining the Western nation-state structure of international relations. It counts 208 members, 16 more than the 192 affiliated to the United Nations. FIFA status as an international organization, and as supreme overseer of the world’s most popular sport, places it in a unique position.
Richard Giulionatti, professor of sociology at Durham University in England, believes that FIFA status “[strengthens] the ideological hand of ‘nationless states’ while placing ‘stateless nations’ in problematic positions, as most stateless nations are routinely denied FIFA membership.”
FIFA routinely stops semi-autonomous regions such as Greenland, Zanzibar and Tibet—as well as peoples without settled territories such as the Roma—from competing. They have all the characteristics of a nation except for an actual state. For some of those nations that think of their governments as apolitical, entering into FIFA is just too political an act to swallow.
The national teams of Tibet, Northern Cyprus and Gibraltar have seen their progress toward being recognized by FIFA hampered by larger countries with political interests in their territories. However, FIFA has made very political statements in the past, from recognizing the Palestinian national football team in 1998 to allowing Argentina to host the 1978 World Cup while under a violent American-backed military junta.
Steve Menary, author of Outcasts!: The Lands That FIFA Forgot, explains how membership in the UN and the International Olympic Committee does not guarantee FIFA membership. The decisions on who to include and exclude, he argues, often come down to expected financial returns. Not to mention FIFA’s special relationship with certain money-making football federations like Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, which all claim special status as being the “birthplace” of modern football.
Even the Faroe Islands enjoy special status within FIFA, yet the other Danish territory of Greenland is excluded. These kinds of decisions defy logic.
A new alternative
Luc Misson was a lawyer involved in the famous Bosman ruling of 1995, which established a free agency system for professional European soccer players. Its result was the Nouvelle Fédération-Board, also known as the “Non-FIFA Board.” The board consists of teams that represent nations, dependencies, unrecognized states, minorities, stateless peoples, regions and micro-nations left out of FIFA.
The Non-FIFA Board organizes matches between its member teams, stating a belief in the “right to play competitive football.” Under this theme, Misson created the VIVA World Cup. Largely made up of recreational and semi-professional soccer players, the Cup—hosted by Malta’s Gozo region this summer—will be overshadowed by the more esteemed World Cup in South Africa.
This year’s VIVA games, from May 31 to June 6, mark four years of alternative national football. A sampling of prospective nation-states competing include: the Padania and Occitania regions in Italy; the Iraqi Kurdistan region; Provence, located in southern France; and the northern Scandinavian territory of Lapland. The winner gets to take home the Nelson Mandela trophy.
This year’s FIFA World Cup is expected to net the organization over US$3.5 billion in advertising and sponsorship contracts and endorsements. In comparison, VIVA World Cup’s players often have to fundraise or pay out-of-pocket to attend. Big-name multinationals are all but absent from the sponsor roster.
FIFA’s stadium capacities are also a testament to mass participation and funding. All 10 football stadiums that host the World Cup can house at least 44,000 people. Four of them can host over 66,000—a world event of monstrous proportions compared to the VIVA games’ single stadium of 4,000 capacity.
While the smaller Cup might not garner much media attention or draw swarms of tourists to Gozo, it’s a bright light for the sports world. Mainstream sports are plagued by excessive commercialization, doping scandals and endless rambling about injuries, trades and useless stats. It’s refreshing to see players and teams who aren’t playing just to win—nor just to qualify—but rather want to play the sport in an officially-sanctioned match.
Stateless people have an opportunity to create a sense of shared fates and communities beyond just the borders they live in. This is what sporting competitions should be about.
