How Soccer Explains Globalization

Andrew Simpson

How soccer explains Globalization

            There has been lots of speculation on whether globalization is a good thing or a bad thing. I believe that there is a clear position that globalization will lead to improved quality of life for more people, access to more resources, and fewer reasons for global conflict. These are just a couple of the benefits that come from nations taking part in globalization. However there are those that believe that globalization will bring nothing but negative outcomes for most nations. It has been said that globalization can only be achieved in today’s world if it is under a national sovereignty. By looking at the ideas expressed in “How Soccer Explains the World” by Franklin Foer, I believe we can see how soccer shows us that it is possible to achieve globalization and still keep national identities.

            In the reading Foer uses the fact that soccer has recently become more popular world wide as a metaphor for globalization. However with all the changes that have come with global attention to soccer we see that national identity is still around and as strong as ever. Foer first talks about how we see many long-standing rivalries in soccer still around and still taken as seriously as ever. Also, while some teams popularity has grown immensely it is still very easy to locate the influence of the team’s original culture. While some people would say that globalization causes a loss of nationality, we see through soccer that with global attention nationalism can still be preserved. It seems that a lot of discern towards globalizations comes from a fear of conforming to a national sovereignty. If we use soccer as a model we can see that expanding globally could lead to better outcomes for everyone.

            I believe that globalization brings lots of benefits to many nations. We see things like countries gain access to resources they didn’t have before and we can see the end of conflicts through global cooperation. The biggest fear surrounding globalization is the loss of national identity. Using the ideas set in place by Foer and using soccer as a model we can argue that globalization will not take away from nationalism. Soccer’s popularity has gone up as of recently and we still see teams having a strong national identity. Using this as a metaphor for globalization we can see nations benefit from expanding globally and still keeping their national identity.

Co-existence of Globalization and Nationalism

One of the common themes in Franklin Foer’s novel, How Soccer Explains the World, is failure of globalization.  He explains how globalization was supposed to “erode ancient hatreds in the game’s great rivalries;” it was meant to tie us all together and essentially “smoosh” nationalism and tribalism.  He argues, though, that rather than eliminate this national passion and competitive emotions in people, the World Cup instead brings out nationalism.  The World Cup is a festival of globalization, filled with multinational capitalism and trade, where everyone comes together to speak the common language of soccer.  But this globalization does not erase nationalistic feelings, he says, but rather, the World Cup shows that the two can co-exist.  There is no tension between nationalism and globalization; in fact they might even feed off one another. 

The game of soccer is the single most globalized phenomenon on the planet (even more so than McDonalds).  It generates extreme levels of passion, emotion, and power in people- for their team, their country.  Foer stresses that soccer teams do not just represent players, but also social class, religion, and nationality.  And I think this is the brilliance in his idea.  He gives the comparison of how countries interact with each other in the international community to two teams meeting on the soccer field.  It is more than just a game- it’s basically international relations.  I agree with Foer’s “Unlikely Theory of Globalization.”  His main point is that nationalism does not diminish with the presence of globalization, and this is best shown through the game of soccer. 

He gives a few examples that I think are important.  One is the racism and prejudices that come from the Italians during the game, directed towards the African teams.  This behavior truly shows that we are not all one entity.  We still have these patriotic and nationalistic feelings for our own countries and homes. 

Foer uniquely and successfully gives readers’ insight to countries relationships and interactions.  Their rivalry and passion for competition in the game proves that globalization has not destroyed nationalism.  By “failure” of globalization, he does not mean that it does not exist and isn’t prevalent in the world, but rather that the original purpose of it- to make us one, instead of separates- failed to eliminate the passions people feel for their own country and their people.  This nationalism in people causes the different interactions of countries in the international community, interactions that are often displayed on the soccer field (interactions like racism).  This theory of Foer’s can be applied to so many other concepts and phenomena in IR, which is why I, personally, find it so interesting and brilliant. 

How Soccer Challenges US immunity to Globalization

     In the book How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization by Franklin Foer, he offers a non-technical analysis of the effects of globalization by examining soccer in different countries. The United States upholds a position of global dominance, which involves great influence over other states; however, it has been unable to exert that degree of influence in the sporting world. Nonetheless, foreign sports such as soccer have found a place in American culture. While soccer is becoming a part of American culture, there is some resistance toward it. In the world of sports, the United States is not the global hegemon it has become in other aspects of the global sphere. I believe that the United States’ dislike of soccer is a clear indication of a cultural war in which the US attempts to separate itself from European culture while preserving its global dominance in other areas of social life. 

      As a result of globalization and events such as, the FIFA World Cup, Soccer has gained some popularity in the United States. In contrast, sports native to the United States, such as baseball have failed to appeal to global audiences. The lack of appeal to American sports like baseball has not only failed abroad, but also began to decline domestically as soccer’s popularity increased. Foer indicates “the number of teens playing baseball fell 47 percent between 1987 and 2000.” Additionally, during that same time involvement in soccer among youth increased, so much so that “by 2002, 1.3 million more kids played soccer than Little League.” Although soccer is beginning to become more prevalent among young children and adolescents, there is a general dislike toward the sport in the United States. Soccer is strongly associated with European culture. This association explains Americans prolonged resistance toward the sport, as Jack Kemp stated on the floor of Congress in the late 80s, “ a distinction should be made that football is democratic, capitalism, whereas soccer is a European socialist [sport].” (Foer, 241) Nonetheless soccer, like all other sports, incites passion, competitiveness, and camaraderie. However, in relation to global dominance of sports, the US is losing the battle in this cultural war and is not happy about it.

       In the chapter “How Soccer Explains the American Culture Wars” of Foer’s book, he draws similarities between the divide over soccer and the divide over globalization in the United States. The meaning of globalization varies among different people. For those in favor of it, globalization represents the opportunity for international interaction and integration, economically and culturally, which can limit reasons for armed conflict among states. On the other hand, those who oppose globalization might assert that it implicates the elimination of regional cultures and the fortifying of Multinational Corporation that ruin local economies. Foer presents similar dichotomies that include individuals that form “part of a cosmopolitan culture that transcends national boundaries” or the believers in  “American execptionalism.”  Those who believe in “American exceptionalism” are more likely to dislike soccer. As Foer point out, to them soccer is a representation of foreign culture devaluing national traditions in order to keep up with the global community.

Although the US is trying to maintain its global individuality, it is clearly not immune to globalization. While the US may believe itself an exception to global influence, it is mistaken. Although globalization, may have not affected the US to the same degree as westernization in other states, it has occurred. Soccer is a small, but pivotal representation of that.

How Soccer Explains Terrorism

Globalization is often lauded as a bringer of widespread peace, going hand in hand with the spread of democracy, capitalism, and interstate dependency. While minority religions, cultures, and belief systems are often swept away by this tide of liberal democracy, it is believed that this loss of cultural diversity, while regrettable, is a welcome price to pay for world peace. Indeed, some would argue that many of these more “primitive” belief systems lead to tribalism and conflict, and therefore globalization is doing a service to humanity by stamping out these barbaric belief systems. However, as Franklin Foer explains in his book “How Soccer Explains the World”, globalization has not necessarily led to less tribalism and conflict. Rather, global homogeny has channeled tribalism into new forms outside of the state, the institution it was previously bound to, and has caused individuals to act out tribalism in the form of terrorism.

            As Franklin Foer explains in his book, globalization has failed to erode ancient hatreds and rivalries. Foer explains this position through the lens of soccer, using the rivalry between Celtic F.C. and Rangers F.C., two Scottish football teams, as an example. Members and supporters of Rangers F.C. tend to be Protestant and Scottish, while members and supporters of Celtic F.C. are usually Catholic and Scots-Irish, meaning that two relatively archaic “tribal” identifiers: religion and ethnicity, divide the supporters of these teams. Tribalism, therefore, continues to exist in the modern globalized world, but merely exists in a different, admittedly less destructive, form. Foer asserts that globalization has failed to diminish the tribal rivalry between these two teams and their supporters, and at times globalization actually exacerbates nationalism and tribalism. As Foer explains, global companies like Nike capitalize on the huge profits of rivalries, and will sell paraphernalia that accentuate tribal identity. For instance, Nike will sell orange shirts, which allude to King William of Orange, a British king who re-conquered the monarchy from the Catholics, to the Protestant fans. These orange shirts are bought up in massive amounts by the Protestant fans, which incites the Catholic fans and fans the flames of the rivalry. Globalization, therefore does not diminish tribalism and nationalism, but rather forces it down other avenues. As Foer observes, the rivalries between and inside many European states are alive today and thriving in the form of vehement commercial football rivalries. Globalization, and the democracy and interstate peace it has brought on, has ensured that when it comes to “de jure” policies, many western countries encourage integration and deplore discrimination. However, the desire of multinational corporations and other institutions to make profits has given rivalry and tribalism a new commercial form in many countries, as exemplified in these soccer rivalries.

            In areas where globalization still stifles official political rivalries but does not provide this commercial avenue, tribalism takes a different and much more terrifying form. Following along with Foer’s assertion that globalizations causes tribalism to be acted out in other forms, one could see how globalization encourages the development of terrorism and other forms of non-state tribalism. As globalization promotes peace and homogeny between and within states, those who disagree with this hegemonic norm have had to find other avenues for dissent. In developing countries, countries without commercial avenues for dissent, like the Middle East, concentrate these tribalism and conflict in other non-state institutions, namely terrorist cells. Through this lens, one could say that football, specifically the commercial aspect of football, explains terrorism and other forms of tribalism in an age of globalization.

            In his book “How Soccer Explains the World” one of the primary conclusions that Foer draws is that globalization has not diminished rivalries and tribal antagonism, but rather changed the locus of these rivalries from the state level to the corporate level. However, in some areas of the world, tribalism is still discouraged at the state level, but a corporate outlet is not provided for tribal release and tribalism has taken a new form: terrorist cells.

How Pele Represents a Globalizing Post WWII World

In Franklin Foer’s book “How Soccer explains the world”, Foer makes discusses the example of the Brazilian soccer star Pele and comments on how he represents the rise of Brazil as a world power in the time period following World War II. In addition to representing the rise of Brazil, I also believe that Pele’s experience also exemplifies globalization in the Post World War II period.  

To begin, an aspect of Pele’s career that exemplifies increasing globalization is that Pele was initially considered “A non-exportable international treasure” early in his career. However, later in his career increasing globalization changed this idea. The state was no longer the focus, but rather Pele was able to expand his possibilities for his future to include the possibility of playing abroad. The state no longer had the control to prevent him from going abroad because the state was not as powerful nor regarded as much as the focal point of his soccer career. Rather, Pele was able to take his talents to a more international focus and play soccer in the United States.  

                Another aspect of Pele’s career that emphasized the increasing effect of globalization was that after Pele’s domestic career in Brazil ended, he came to the U.S. and began playing for the New York Cosmos. This represents the shift that globalization brought about because international borders were no longer as important. In the past, it would not have been as easy for someone to do this, but the lack of emphasis on domestic borders that was brought about by globalization allowed Pele to easily move from one state to another. Pele was able to move across international borders easily and still be successful.

An additional way in which the example of Pele shows an aspect of globalization was how his time spent in America “made him a capitalist” according to Foer. After Pele spent time in the United States playing soccer, he began to illustrate American ideas of capitalism. For example, he played for a much larger salary and began singing endorsement deals with many international corporations. This illustrates the way norms and ideas, as well as economic practices, can be spread across borders with rising globalization, because Pele shifted his norms and values as he was exposed to more capitalist ideas.

                Another way Pele exemplified globalization was his relationship with international corporations. Pele signed many endorsement deals with large corporations toward the end of his career, such as Nokia, Samsung, and Coca-Cola. The amount of money Pele was able to make shows the influence of these transnational corporations that rose with the accelerating globalization during this time period. In a previous era, it would have been unlikely for someone who spent the majority of their time in one country to have such an international presence, but due to increasing globalization, these companies understood that Pele could have a large presence in many other countries as well.  This also represents the increased economic and financial flows across borders that accompanied increasing globalization, as Pele was able to make money across borders and from companies that were based in different states.

               

An Unconventional Reason Against Iranian Nuclear Weapons

         The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, one of the most important political documents of the 20^th century, made explicit that countries with nuclear arms would not tolerate the spread of those arms around the world. It is no wonder then that the United States constantly voices its condemnation of Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, citing the Non-Proliferation Treaty as well as a fear of irrational Islamic actors. While these fears may have some basis in reality, I would argue that the true danger of Iranian nuclear proliferation lies in the possibility of Iranian nuclear weapons weakening and destroying the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction itself.

            Despite widespread opposition to the idea of Iranian nuclear weapons, many individuals currently assert that nuclear weapons in Iran would create a bipolar power system, one that promotes stability, and therefore should be allowed in Iran. Highlighting the, albeit tenuous, peace accords struck between the United States and the USSR during the Cold War and the recent peace between Pakistan and India, these advocates believe nuclear weapons will lead to a much more stable system of power in the Middle East. Put simply, they argue, “once Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, deterrence will apply… and the current crisis will finally dissipate, leading to a Middle East that is more stable than it is today” (Sokolski 203). However, many activists and politicians on the other side argue that Iranian nuclear proliferation would not lead to stability in the Middle East, but destruction. These activists assert that Iran is an irrational actor in an area fraught with extremists, and so nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran would likely end up being used on innocent civilians in the West. Furthermore, these individuals argue that Iran occupies a position on top of oil reserves, and as such could pose an economic as well as a military threat to the United States if their nuclear weapons were allowed to develop. Essentially, these more realist actors argue that being permissive towards Iranian Nuclear weapons will lead to “More Nuclear Proliferation” (Sokolski 203), “Higher Oil Prices” (Sokolski 204), and “Increased Terrorism Designed to Diminished U.S. Influence” (Sokolski 204).   

            I would agree that Iran should not possess nuclear weapons, but for radically different reasons. I believe the danger in Iranian weapons is not the danger that Iran itself would pose to the West with them, but rather the danger of destroying the tenets of mutually assured destruction. It is generally agreed that mutually assured destruction (MAD) exists on the principle that if large-scale conflict ensures between two nuclear powers, nuclear weapons will soon be used. For instance, during the Cuban Missile crisis, the possibility of the destruction of Florida and other Southern States nearly escalated to the possible nuclear destruction of the world. Under MAD, totally world destruction will follow under any kind of invasion or military action between two nuclear powers. Thanks, in part, to this principle, direct war between superpowers is a thing of the past, as no superpower is willing to risk utter destruction in such a manner. While this principle may seem sound on the surface, upon further investigation it is revealed to be fallacious. Take the current NATO situation in Eastern Europe, where Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are raising serious questions about the ability of NATO to protect them. According to NATO treaties, countries like the United States and United Kingdom, nuclear powers, would be required to counter any Russian aggression in these countries, an action that would doubtlessly risk nuclear destruction. This begs the question: If Russia attacks an eastern NATO country, will the United States really intervene, destroying the entire world in the name of a piece of paper? The clear answer appears to be no, no one in the United States would or should be willing to destroy themselves and the 7 billion citizens of the Earth in the name of preserving the autonomy of roughly 2 million Latvians. I would venture to say that the same could be true of roughly any military engagement across the world. Even if Florida, California, or Massachusetts were invaded, I would not want to invite the destruction of the entire world to spite such an invasion. Such an action would be equivalent akin to nuking one’s nose to spite the face. Ultimately, the more nuclear deterrent situations there are, the greater the probability that one country will eventually call what I will say is the MAD bluff. For instance, the hatred between Iran and Israel may grow to such a point where they are out for blood, but not total destruction, and the two states may simply agree to engage in large-scale war and not use nuclear weapons. Neither side would have a reason to use nuclear weapons until the other’s government and people were almost destroyed, and so huge swathes of destruction could ensue up to this point. Ultimately, this could cause the system of nuclear deterrence to break down and warfare to continue as it did before nuclear weapons. States could act ignorant of nuclear weapons, and, in the words of Schelling, a world without nuclear weapons “would be a nervous world”  (Schelling 4). The world could fall back to a state when World Wars between superpowers raged rampant and the world once again was bathed in blood and anarchy.

            Due to this possibility, nuclear weapons in Iran should be avoided; not due to Iran’s particular politics, religion, or economics, but rather because any nuclear proliferation at all risks the collapse of MAD, a system which has prevented World War and protected the lives of world citizens for the last decades.