Here’s an important message to CounterPunch readers from
Here at CounterPunch we love Barbara Ehrenreich for many reasons: her courage, her intelligence and her untarnished optimism. Ehrenreich knows what’s important in life; she knows how hard most Americans have to work just to get by, and she knows what it’s going to take to forge radical change in this country. We’re proud to fight along side her in this long struggle. We hope you agree with Barbara that CounterPunch plays a unique role on the Left. Our future is in your hands. Please donate.
Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.
Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.
CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.
The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.
Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683
Thank you for your support,
Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel
CounterPunch PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558
Handing It to France
It was not something to be proud of. I’m not going to party.
–Bixente Lizarazu on French qualification for South Africa 2010, TV Channel TF1, Nov 20, 2009
That much air time, and column space, is being given to this issue might be seen as worrying. But football matches have a habit of transfixing global audiences. No sport attracts more money or tribal interest. The largest sporting event on the planet is FIFA’s World Cup, which is set to take place again in South Africa next year.
Should France’s Thierry Henry have done the gentlemanly thing and repudiated his neurotic, basketball like act which led to the sinking of the Republic of Ireland in the 103rd minute? This was certainly no small incident, touching on qualification for World Cup qualification. Surely no incident since the ‘hand of God’ intervention of Argentina’s Diego Maradona against England in the 1986 World Cup could have proved so upsetting or controversial.
Discomforted football viewers may see Henry’s behaviour as blight requiring swift removal. Henry has now joined calls that a replay should take place, having initially been coy as to his role in the double handball. ‘Blame the incautious referee’, he seemed to be suggesting. Such a move, if anything, has attracted accusations of insincerity. Nor has the Swedish contingent refereeing the match been spared, attacked by the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet. Martin Hansson, and his linesmen, had ‘forfeited its right to continue to take charge of major international matches’ (LA Times, Nov 20).
Henry’s career risks being irreparably harmed by his imprudence on the field. The Irish are up in arms, flooding social networking sites and other media with indignant calls for replays. Protests are being planned against the French embassy in Ireland. Irish captain Robbie Keane quipped that Henry ‘almost caught [the ball] and walked into the net with it’ (LA Times, Nov 20). The French feel a sense of burning shame. Their manager is unpopular. The team is disliked, an under-performing, lack luster unit that has done much to lose fans. The crown of the glamorous 1998 team is not just tarnished but discarded in the mist of a distant past.
Some sports place moral obligations on players to own up, a point made strongly by former English footballer Gary Lineker. Snooker and golf fall into these categories. These sports are, however, individual pursuits, rather than collective enterprises. One can only really foul oneself in such instances. Henry’s confession would have erased the goal and jeopardized the team effort. Then again, in losing the match, he may well have edged himself into the pantheon of all-too-few fair-minded footballers.
Henry’s individual conduct has a broader dimension to it. Terms such as fairplay in a gigantic, moneyed sport have come to be seen as necessary nostrums for the fan base. Football organizations have a nasty habit of foiling the underdog, making pathways to qualification seem like mine-ridden obstacle courses. Keane was certainly left in no doubt that Sepp Blatter of FIFA and Michel Platini of UEFA were ‘texting each other, delighted with the result’. Fair play has been happily ditched by business interests.
The characterization by Keane, which gives one the impression that the football world is divided by brave proletarian strugglers in the face of arrogant toffs and aristocratic bullies, is a touch stretched. Incidents of bad sportsmanship do happen, even between the superpowers of football. Again, Maradona’s 1986 foray into football controversy should not be forgotten there.
Besides, international footballers tend to be cut from the same cloth these days. The modern breed of player is blooded in the same internationalized leagues, where second and third grade leagues matter little. The national flag is less important than the premier club insignia. Loyalty to purse, Mammon and the chairman of a major league club takes precedence. There are huge financial implications.
The argument for a replay is not as strong as it seems. Errors are the natural province of any sport, and punishing them in this manner might unsettle an already fallible game. Heartfelt apologies and regret may be better than a replay, and that should be left to the maligned Henry and the French team. Otherwise we might see the rather unpleasant spectacle of a mortal Maradona stepping up again to confront his English opponents in a ghastly rematch. No one surely wants that.
BINOY KAMPMARK was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org