A gay footballer?

The fight to combat discrimination in British football has made impressive inroads over the past twenty years. In the 1970s and 1980s, black footballers were ritually taunted by the crowds with malicious and demeaning attacks. The audible echoes of monkey chants and communal throwing of bananas on the pitch were common features of league matches. The former Crystal Palace manager Ron Noades once commented that black players were needed for their “skill and flair” but white players were needed as they brought “brains and common sense” to a team. Yet British football has moved on and the national side has done much to promote the anti-racism message. In fact, when England players have suffered abuse in Europe, it came to deem racism as unpatriotic and something we no longer did. British football is aware of its ugly history and cherishes how far the game has moved on. The high profile cases of Chelsea captain John Terry and Liverpool striker Luis Suarez, though shameful, highlights how infrequent these events are.

There are still instances of hate crime on the terraces, but many songs by fans are jovial. Welsh sides are besieged by chants of sodomising sheep, whilst Manchester United fans lionise their South Korean midfielder Ji-Sung Park with the song:

“Park, Park, wherever you may be, you eat dogs in your home country. You could be worse; you could be Scouse, eating rats in your council house!” – (Music – Lord of the Dance)

It does ask a question, that as the Premier League has become more cosmopolitan and diverse, both players and fans, why no footballer has yet to come out as gay.

There are believed to be around half a million professional footballers in the world and of them, only one has officially declared his homosexuality. Be it, Anton Hysen, an obscure Swedish player .Yet, the remainder stay quiet. Why?

In a recent study of fans, 90 per cent said that sexuality is irrelevant. What mattered to them was the performance on the pitch. There are examples of other sportsmen who have ‘come out’ and it appears not to have affected them. The England cricketer Steve Davies, Welsh rugby player Gareth Thomas and the former NBA player John Amaechi, all announced their sexuality. Similarly to football, basketball had no openly gay athletes so Amaechi, who decided to publish it through his autobiography, generated interest from the America media and from many of his fellow professionals.

Perhaps the legacy of England’s only gay footballer still haunts such players. Justin Fashanu, Britain’s first black £1 million player, voluntarily announced his homosexuality to The Sun in 1990; though many feel he was forced into it. It was apparently well known by his fellow professionals and his disapproving manager at Nottingham Forest, Brian Clough. Fashanu committed suicide in 1997 after allegations of sexual indecency in the US, though many believe the abuse he suffered during his playing days was a contributory factor.

Graeme Le Saux, the former Chelsea and England defender, endured years of homophobic taunting from fans and players, even though he wasn’t gay. On one occasion the Liverpool forward Robbie Fowler made a sexual suggestion to him on the pitch. Le Saux believed he got stick because he read The Guardian. From Le Saux’s account it emerges that ‘homophobic banter’ is widespread in the dressing rooms. Reaction to John Amaechi’s announcement was met with different responses in the NBA. Tim Hardaway said that he would want the player removed from his team. Charles Barkley didn’t see it as an issue. Whereas, Steven Hunter didn’t mind, as long as he didn’t make any advances.

The Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA) has launched a new campaign to highlight homosexuality in football, but it was only in 2010 when a similar scheme was withdrawn at the last minute. Agents and publicists have apparently advised footballers to refrain from outing themselves as it could have an adverse impact on their playing and marketing capabilities. To them football is still in the dark ages.

Historically, football evolved from the Victorian era as a tool for sexual restraint. Unlike rugby, where touching is part of the game, football represented a code of masculinity. Weakness was a sign of effeminacy. Hence, when footballers are called ‘poofs’ it is more subjective at a person’s weakness rather than their sexuality. Yet, this mentality has encroached throughout the whole sport. England defenders Ashley Cole and Sol Campbell are still ridiculed by opposition fans by stories that cannot be corroborated.

The fear from the terrace and the dressing room appear to be the stumbling block. Though, like the racism campaign, it will be interesting what happens on the day someone comes out.

Jacob's games.

It has been a busy summer of sport, yet notoriously quiet on the footballing front. Few high profile transfers and the only events taking place are the Women’s World Cup, which frankly does not draw the same audience as the men’s game and the Copa America, which is locked away on ESPN. A year has passed since the World Cup was played in South Africa, where Spain went on to become the champions after a fierce final against the Dutch. So, is this a good time to judge the legacy of Africa’s first finals and what will the consequences be for the Rainbow Nation?

The recent history of South Africa is fascinating to observe from the outside. After spending decades in the international wilderness through its racial Apartheid laws, it was under the leadership of Nelson Mandela who governed South Africa through a period of uncertainty and united a nation that had been living with the consequences of racial segregation laws since 1948. Mandela recognised the importance of sport in bringing people together and its significance in the public imagination. In Mandela’s memoirs there are plenty of references to sport whilst he was incarcerated on Robben Island, perhaps most famously his love affair for the great tennis rivalry of Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe. Mandela famously handed over the William Webb-Ellis trophy to Francois Pienaar after South Africa beat New Zealand in the 1995 Rugby Union World Cup final.

This was not the last tournament the country was to host; South Africa hosted the ICC Cricket World Cup in 2003 and also held the Indian Premier League in 2009 after security fears in India from the Mumbai bombings. South Africa has a proud history of cricket and rugby and inevitably, these tournaments do not expect hundreds of thousands of fans from around the world to visit. South Africa’s opportunity to host football’s biggest event was twofold. One, FIFA President Sepp Blatter is a fan of expanding the game into new areas of the world and the unifying qualities it brings, which a rebranded country like South Africa would love. Secondly, Blatter owed FIFA’s African delegation a favour as their bloc vote helped him become FIFA President.

Politically South Africa has changed since the early years of Mandela rule. Now under the Presidency of Jacob Zuma, South Africa’s African National Congress (ANC) party is struggling in the polls and has an identity crisis. No longer is it seen as the unifying party, but is swarming with a new breed of young black politicians, most notoriously Julius Malema, who are more interested in business and patronage, rather than welfare and equality. Last month saw the ANC lose control of Cape Town in regional elections. Many say it is no longer a party of the people and prefers to look after its own elite.

Football is very much a black person’s game in South Africa. The ranks of its cricket and rugby sides are swarming with white stars, despite the constitutional laws of positive discrimination that ensure that teams are not full of certain races. A World Cup in South Africa was a political statement not just to the world, but to black South Africans as well.

Yet, costs to host the tournament spiralled and supposedly reached $3.5 billion dollars, more than three times more than original predictions. Many cities such as Cape Town and Durban are left with stadia that remain empty. Port Elizabeth has yet to host another match since the ending of last year’s tournament. South African club teams are reluctant to relocate because of the extortionate rental fees (Ajax Cape Town were quoted $100,000 a game despite attendances reaching fewer than 8,000) and inevitably a weaker Rand has meant going to watch football is more expensive. It is true that in Portugal and South Korea, stadia were demolished after they held tournaments, but in a country where 50% of people live under the poverty line, where basic educational, health and welfare are every day issues, it does seem like a waste of money. Crime is a notorious issue in its cities, yet the federal Government struggled to pay the wages of its police force.

FIFA likes to acknowledge the good that football can bring, but it is at an exceptional cost. Legacy is an important thing to consider and many deemed the tournament to be a great success, but for the average black South African living in a township, how much did it cost their future?

What drives them?

I have written before about heroes and why people choose sporting icons as people they aspire to. Sportsmen and women command respect not only for their punishing training regimes and collection of silverware, but their determination and mental attitude. Their regimented and relentless struggle to push themselves not only inspires us, but also makes us question their resolve and will to compete. These people, from all backgrounds, have a purpose and drive that often shuns the normal plateaus of human endurance and takes them to the top of their profession and the podium.

The Olympic Games is nearly within a year and it is the sporting event that perhaps captures the public’s imagination the most. Though most of the athletes are now professional and sporting contracts have made athletic careers more lucrative, it is popular because there is something very organic and pure about the competition. Years of struggle, injury and scrutiny, culminate in the opportunity to reach the ultimate goal in sport. Why do they push themselves so far and often to the edge? And why do we admire these people so much? What is it that separates them from politicians or scientists?

Perhaps the first thing to reflect on is the result. Athletes yearn to the pinnacle of victory. Defeat is an obstacle that drives them further. A critic could suggest that in today’s wealth and sponsorship dominated market, athletes can comfortably survive, even if they do not always finish first. However, it would be naive to suggest that the top athletes enter competitions purely to fulfil branding and contractual obligations. They are there to win, there is no other alternative. The trials of Tim Henman at Wimbledon became of perennial interest to the British public because of the struggle and narrative. His story represented the ‘glorious loser’ as he struggled to contain Pete Sampras or failed to put down Goran Ivanisevic. Though fond in the British public’s eye, I’m certain Henman would prefer to be history’s victor rather than nearly man.

The determination of most sportspeople is something different that we cannot contemplate. For many it is the only life they have ever known. Boxing is an avenue for them to harness something out of life, away from the traumas of poverty and crime. There are of course plenty of rags to riches stories within the world of politics and business but they do not encapsulate the same setbacks as sportspeople. The candour can often be lost in Hollywood films but it represents a dogma that both children and adults aspire too.

Contrast that to the lives of politicians. They possess that drive and vigour to achieve something and create ‘change’ for the better. However, the fog and cloudy toxicity in politics is something that does not represent something pure or clean. We do not see the negotiations and compromises. We see politicians as shady and self-serving; determination is a thirst for power not success.

Compare and contrast two men of time: Steve Redgrave and Gordon Brown, both highly determined and motivated people. Brown, a custodian of power for the past 15 years is seen as spiteful and insolent, his insipid relationship with Tony Blair fragmented the heart of New Labour and tarnished the portrayal of government. Redgrave, the five-time Gold Olympian rower, was diagnosed with diabetes three years before the Sydney Games in 2000. The media wrote him off and said that someone with condition would not be able to compete. Redgrave, 35 at this point, used this as a thrust to win. Three years later he was picking up his fifth and final gold medal. Perhaps it is unfair to contrast the two but it represents the difference between drive and selfishness in these two fields.

Politicians’ legacies are often judged by history, politicians like President Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon had obvious personal flaws; cold, ignorant and opportunistic, but their history is written in legislation and its evolution in society. Whereas sport captures in real time the first person over the line, the goal in the final minute and the shot that beats the clock. We recognise the training and the punishment, but we remember ‘the moment’. That is what drives sports people over the edge. That is why we understand the rage and the adulation. The goal is to win and that is final.

It is often why people take extra measures to ensure success. The likes of Ben Johnson and Marion Jones were under pressure to perform and they knew drugs were an easy option to achieve that. Just like politics the necessity to smear and stain rivals is often an easier, yet dirty road to journey.

Politics and sport define eras, and define the way we organise our lives. It is just that sport conveys emotions in a much more visceral and raw manner. Being a part of that as a fan is an inspiration, but being the athlete that everyone wants to cheer and recognises is the spur that pushes them over the line. Sport answers easy questions, politics does not.

True greatness - Ronaldo.

Sporting greatness is an aspect of society that still holds reverence to talent and natural skill. Sport scientists and sociologists have pointed out that in today’s world it is possible to succeed to the top with a balance of determination, fitness and in some cases a bit of luck. Sporting historians and fans alike will point out that sporting greats are the people who didn’t just amaze us with their ability; but endeared us to their personality. It is why people would rather watch Usain Bolt to Tiger Woods (at his best), or why Shane Warne is considered the best spinner, above Muttiah Muralitharan. They say that India comes to a standstill when Sachin Tendulkar comes to the crease and the world watched and listened when Muhammed Ali entered the ring.

Football is difficult to contend with nowadays, with its vast wealth of coverage and scrutiny. People deem it an insult that David Beckham is the most capped outfield player for England, yet they do not seem to take into consideration the nature of football that he played in. People may reflect on the statistics and the appearances; but they must consider the joy and gratification of the audience.

Ronaldo Luís Nazário de Lima, one of the greatest footballers of the modern era retired from professional football today. We knew him as Ronaldo and though later as ‘Fat Ronaldo’. His legacy will be recorded as the top goal scorer in FIFA World Cup history (15), with a trophy cabinet as wide as his belly.

Ronaldo should be recognised beyond his success. He represented the idea of what a star should be. He possessed pace, positioning and above all else his lethal finishing. He had a penchant for beautiful ladies and indulging in late night outings before matches, but it didn’t seemed to affect him on the day.

There are two questions that will always be asked in years to come. Firstly, what would have happened if a fit Ronaldo had played in the 1998 World Cup Final in 1against France? (he apparently suffered a fit earlier in the day and was only included in the final XI with minutes to spare). Secondly, if he hadn’t succumbed to crippling knee injuries, how many more records could he have broken?

Ronaldo wasn’t a brand, he was a religion. He had every schoolboy performing step overs in the playground and mystifying defences with his innate genius, all with that childlike smile. Perhaps the beauty of sport, unlike politics, is that the audience remembers their true greatness. Ronaldo’s destruction of the Compostela defence that left Sir Bobby Robson speechless and the Champions’ League hat-trick that left Man United fans on their feet applauding. It is hard to underestimate the bewildering talents of the man.

England's Cricketing Industrial Revolution

It appears that English cricket has not even reached its zenith. After years of being shackled by our own colonial ancestors we have liberated ourselves from historical dogmas, in what can only be called a thrashing. Perhaps the most famous series of them all, Bodyline, was not remembered for England’s resounding 3-1 series victory, but for the perceived ‘ungentlemanly’ behaviour of the English fast-bowlers. The 2010 series will be remembered for the simple reason that England were a fantastic all round cricket team, but are there any particular reasons why and if anything could be learnt?

Let us not forget this series win was not purely founded on one win in Australia. It is the culmination of reform from the top down of English cricket over the past ten years, in a period that was not easy. The series defeat to New Zealand in 1999 was the summer when the whole system imploded as England officially became the world’s worst Test side. Through the 1990s, England were a decent team, they had good players e.g. Stewart, Thorpe, Gough and certainly, but as a force in test and one day internationals they were moving nowhere. The initiation of central-contracts was part of the first steps to re-professionalise cricket and change the relationship between the county and national system. The contracts were given to the country’s best players, whilst future talent joined the England Academy in winter camps. It made the players full-time England internationals rather than county players that represent England.

The results spoke for themselves with away wins in West Indies, Pakistan and South Africa, culminating in the 2005 Ashes victory. Much of England’s success came through the television contracts with Sky Television. The most recent deal in 2008 saw Sky pay £300 million for a four-year contract, with full coverage of England plus the domestic season too. The other success is the adoption of foreign coaches and importantly their ideas. The appointment of the head coaches Duncan Fletcher and then Andy Flower, both Zimbabweans, have improved the management and training practises.

In some ways this mini-cricketing revolution could be compared to the Industrial Revolution throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth century. The money from Sky is a sore point for traditionalists because matches can only be watched through a monthly subscription, but this money has allowed England to progress. It pays for the coaches, the contracts and the money hitting grassroots cricket. In the industrial revolution it was the money of entrepreneurs that built the canals and the factories, not the government of the day. Watching a programme on Sky the other day called ‘How England won the Ashes’ showed how the money has helped design bowling technologies that reproduce the deliveries of potential opponents. It reminded me of the investment in the British Army during this period that helped produce new weapons like shrapnel shells. There is no irony that in an environment where there is entrepreneurialism it produces more ideas and subsequently inventions, think of America in the twentieth century.

Historically, it is argued that the Britain began to decline in the late nineteenth century. As rivals began to catch up e.g. Germany and America, they were educating their youngsters in science, engineering and maths, whilst Britain failed to adapt its education policy to the likes of its rivals. Many of these countries adopted policies of economic protectionism. Britain and its Empire boosting other growing world economies, whilst they prevented overseas investment. The English cricket team have learnt from this lesson to become the World's best Test team. However, they must continue to revolutionise their methods and ensure to employ the best coaches and innovate their training, like the British cycling team. They must understand the consequences of history and build on this success.

Andre Agassi: Sport in print.

Over the past few years the internet and increasingly tablets/kindles are revolutionising the way we read books and the choice on the market. The sports book genre has expanded hugely. Twenty years ago, one could only find annuals like Match or the Wisden Almanack, but now it can dominate a whole section. There are books on sporting philosophy, history, theory and of course the autobiography.

Sporting books have launched the literary careers of authors like Nick Hornby, whilstothers have sprawled massive charitable campaigns. Anyone who has read Lance Armstrong’s ‘It’s not about the bike’ would find it hard not to commend the inexorable determination of the man and his route to success.

The genre's evolution over the past twenty years even saw a dedicated prize established. So why else would be people want to read their stories and prose? There is a stereotype to suggest that sportsmen and women aren’t intellectual and therefore, why would we want to read their musings? The drivel delivered during press conferences or post-match interviews would highlight such drollness. Some athletes have signed multi-book deals worth millions of pound, even though they are still in their early twenties! Yet people still buy them.

Perhaps it is the fact that sport is about real life, the highs and lows. The lives of actors is purely fictional and doesn’t have the human drama that we can associate in sporting events. Athletes are mortals. They can tell their stories about overcoming failures.How triumph and defeat become blurred.

Reading the autobiography of Andre Agassi, it is surreal to see the life of a high profile name in such perspective. The pressure from parents and school, the fear of losing and the inability to succeed. The honesty and realities is often lost on the spectator and we only learn of the inner most thoughts after such battles have been fought. Life could be compared to a tennis match or an athletics race. It is often only through these athletes, who have dedicated their lives to one dream or target, that their outlook can teach us what events mean and we can take from them. The best books tell us about life itself.