The benefits of politics, married as they are to big business, are incidental. They are certainly not exclusively intended for the gain of the majority. Political changes are great movements that people throw themselves behind or latch onto depending on how it will benefit their individual circumstances.
Take the impending Scottish referendum on independence for example. If I was a purely objective pundit looking from the outside, I might think that voting 'aye' would be a slightly better alternative route for the population at large. Yet if I was a hard-nosed businessman who made his living from trading goods exclusively with England, and might risk incurring cross-border tariffs – in the event that an independent Scotland is not granted automatic EU accession - then of course I'd be front of the 'naw thanks' bandwagon.
But how the outcome of a political decision affects the majority for the better is often purely incidental, and irrelevant to the handful of powerbrokers causing the great political headwinds in the first place.
But how the outcome of a political decision affects the majority for the better is often purely incidental, and irrelevant to the handful of powerbrokers causing the great political headwinds in the first place.
And speaking of Scotland, a political decision was recently taken that might incidentally also lift the country’s profile, as well as other nations who have been lurking in the football wilderness for a while now. The Tartan Army's darlings were once a mainstay in international soccer tournaments, when their fans cheered all and sundry with their bagpipes and kilts, before being sent home early by one rubbish side after another.
Yet dire as Scotland were on the pitch, their colourful and peaceful fans were always missed when they were gone, and proof of the wonderful diversity that exists within the United Kingdom itself, let alone the entire continent of Europe. After all football is a celebration and not just a sport, a means to break down the barriers between us, leaving us to revel in our differences before and after the game is played out.
Yet dire as Scotland were on the pitch, their colourful and peaceful fans were always missed when they were gone, and proof of the wonderful diversity that exists within the United Kingdom itself, let alone the entire continent of Europe. After all football is a celebration and not just a sport, a means to break down the barriers between us, leaving us to revel in our differences before and after the game is played out.
I guess it doesn't take much to raise your game against the current world champions, but I think there was more to their performance than just that. Because psychology is everything in sport, and nothing gives a player a greater spring in his step than the genuine belief that a prize is in sight. And what greater prize could the Scottish football team give its long-suffering army of fans, than automatic qualification for Euro 2016.
Which has all been made possible, of course, by UEFA President Michel Platini's decision to expand the Euros from 16 to 24 teams. This decision has gone on to divide the football world like the independence campaign has divided Scottish voters. And whenever faced by a polarising issue, I like to strain my ear towards all arguments both for and against. And my final conclusion is that Platini's decision has not been a good one. It has been EFFING AWESOME! Why on earth didn't UEFA think about this before?!
The naysayers are falling over themselves to shout that the decision was taken in favour of greater political expediency, in that Platini expanded the tournament to endear himself to a larger number of national associations. Of course it was taken for greater political expediency! Politics is what UEFA does right?
The only problem with political expediency is if a decision is taken which manifestly benefits the few to the detriment of the many. 'But this is also the case!' argue the 'no movement' because now the quality of the football at the Euros will be 'watered down'!
The only problem with political expediency is if a decision is taken which manifestly benefits the few to the detriment of the many. 'But this is also the case!' argue the 'no movement' because now the quality of the football at the Euros will be 'watered down'!
Watered down?
Since when did bloody football turn into a fine Chardonnay?
How readily do people forget that Europe is the cradle of football, and deserves a bigger tournament. What’s wrong with throwing in another eight sides? More national associations will take some money home from the bonanza, and who loses out of all this?
Some pundits have gone on to whinge that the best third placed sides in the group stage will now qualify for the knock-out stages of the finals tournament, but why is this an issue? This used to happen all the time at the world cup until the number of qualifying nations were expanded in 1998. Third placed sides like Argentina went on to reach the final in 1990, as did third placed Italy in 1994!
Some pundits have gone on to whinge that the best third placed sides in the group stage will now qualify for the knock-out stages of the finals tournament, but why is this an issue? This used to happen all the time at the world cup until the number of qualifying nations were expanded in 1998. Third placed sides like Argentina went on to reach the final in 1990, as did third placed Italy in 1994!
Football is in a state of constant flux, and giving a side every possible opportunity to survive in a tournament is a cracking idea. Can you seriously say that the present England team boasting a more experienced Raheem Sterling and young John Stones are the exact same side that foundered at the last world cup? Not to mention Italy with Conte at the helm and the likes of Immobile and Zaza firing up its attack? A week can be a long time in football, just like it can be in politics. You never know when a young player might appear out of nowhere to give his national side a new dimension.
Which is not to mention that traditional ‘big sides’ are also known to have sudden dips in form. Take Brazil, who went from being Confederations Cup champions and dead-certs to win the last world-cup to no-hopers in the space of a few months. And what of Spain, whose ‘European favourites’ tag got shredded to ribbons after just a couple of group games against Holland and Chile? Sudden peaks in form are also possible, and if Ribery returned to the French side, could you seriously take them to be the same toothless proposition when faced with top-level opposition?
And how patronising an argument is it to say that only a small elite of 'big sides' should be represented, and that other national teams are just window dressing?! Has everyone forgotten Denmark in Euro ‘92, who were pulled off the beaches to replace a war-torn Yugoslavia and ended up winning the bloody tournament against world champions Germany? And that, I remind you, was achieved without the phenomenal Michael Laudrup in their number, who was bent on boycotting the team!
An achievement which was incredibly overshadowed Greece at Portugal '04, a team that never won a game at a major football tournament? Roundly expected to be the whipping boys in their group, they went on to beat Figo and Cristiano Ronaldo's Portugal both in their opening game and in the final, whilst also knocking out Zidane's France and Nedved's Czech Rep in between.
An achievement which was incredibly overshadowed Greece at Portugal '04, a team that never won a game at a major football tournament? Roundly expected to be the whipping boys in their group, they went on to beat Figo and Cristiano Ronaldo's Portugal both in their opening game and in the final, whilst also knocking out Zidane's France and Nedved's Czech Rep in between.
The whole history of the tournament is littered with these Cinderella stories, which people all too easily forget. Just like they forget that the Euros is a massive sporting event, second only to the World Cup and even bigger than the Olympics! The reason? Football is insanely popular in Europe, and almost every national side except Gibraltar can give you a run for your money. You only have to look at the recent upset achieved by minnows Albania in Portugal this week to know that everything is up for grabs in a competitive fixture.
But if the purists really think that the inclusion of more sides in the Euros is going to somehow 'weaken' the tournament, then why don’t they just ignore the competition until it reaches the quarter final stages. Who's stopping them? It’s true that if they turn their sights back on the tournament at the later knock-out stages, they might see an unexpected British side in there, or a plucky little Balkan nation.
I wonder what they'd think then? They'll probably view these sides as some sort of aberration or gate-crasher, who should not have a seat at the last eight table, before turning their attentions to other 'bigger' teams instead.
I wonder what they'd think then? They'll probably view these sides as some sort of aberration or gate-crasher, who should not have a seat at the last eight table, before turning their attentions to other 'bigger' teams instead.
Yet others like me shall revel in cheering on the plucky underdog, in the forlorn hope that another ‘smaller side’ might follow in the footsteps of previous Cinderella men.
No comments:
Post a Comment