The genius on the ball: Bergkamp and Cantona

When we watch football, do we watch it to satisfy a certain emotion? Is the game played to an audience that expects anxiety and yet minutes later rapture? Is football a metaphor for something deeper or metaphysical? Is it a re-enactment of military battles or does it represent something more conceptual? Is football art? Are certain sportsman bringing a more rugged, yet enduring piece of art to a mass market?

Football fans can breed an aura of ignorance or certainly blitheness to the comings and goings of their football team; and many of them are pigeon-holed as yobs or certainly trouble makers. However; if you compare the cost of following your football team over a season to going to the ballet or opera, then you would probably find that watching football comes at a higher premium. Football fans can be harangued as stupid people; why would someone want to follow something that often brings misery to your Saturday and where you have no control over the outcome? Football does not have the crescendo of an orchestra or the soliloquy of a play; yet its arbitrary and refreshing notions take it beyond the realms of higher art; it is safe to say that some footballers are artists themselves.

Two greats of the game, who transformed the way the English game is played and followed, are now curators to the game in another form. Dennis Bergkamp, the former Arsenal and Holland striker is now assistant manager at his boyhood club Ajax. Eric Cantona, the unforgettable Gallic king of Manchester United is now director of soccer of the reformed New York Cosmos. Both men, not necessarily the best players the Premiership has seen, but both brought an artistic deference that can never be murmured.

Anyone that saw Bergkamp control the ball and thread a pass could not mistake it for a work of a genius. His ability to think and play; intelligence is not necessarily an attribute that footballers are compensated with, yet his calmness and display on the pitch was a joy to watch for Arsenal and Holland. There isn’t a football fan who didn’t acknowledge the effortless brilliance of his goal in the quarter finals against Argentina.

Cantona’s mystique was something different. The arrogance of the upturned collar, he was a rebel; but not the teddy boy or punk rocker. He was thoughtful and delicate. His English appeared patchy (he is synonymous with strange adages), yet he was able to express his thoughts on the football pitch. His love of art and poetry from an early age may appear absurd to contrast with away matches against Coventry or Middlesbrough on a Saturday afternoon, yet Eric loved it all. This was his arena. He was a bullfighter and this was his show.

Neither of the two men were blessed with looks, nor the personalities to adore themselves to a family audience. However; art is fundamentally about expression of oneself and the environment around us. Both men employed their talents to define games, seasons and tournaments. Football may not have the prestige of La Scala or the Bolshoi but both men found their way to proclaim themselves and their history is etched on the backs of football shirts and club legend.

The Euro: A lot on their Plato.

As most of Britain watched Murdoch in the dock at the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, the Euro countries finally agreed to bail out Greece once again with an enormous 96 billion pound loan. Immediately markets across Europe were relieved, particularly across southern Europe where the Spanish and Italian economies were teetering from Greek contagion. However; the French president Nicolas Sarkozy has said that this bailout is purely to deal with Greece’s economy and other Euro countries will not move to assist the other ailing PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain). Yet as Britain strictly stays on the outside and European countries head towards fiscal union, where does the European project stand?

After centuries of war and bloodshed, it is remarkable to find that the European project has been so successful in turning military hostilities into economic partnerships. A continent ravaged by war became one of the world’s most important free markets. It appeared to be the correct decision to take as well. Europe, an economy of ideas and inventions would be an ideal competitor against the US and Japan. The decades after the Second World War saw great European statesman bridging differences and pushing beyond economic matrimony to a full-scale political partnership. This was a generation that had lived or emerged from two wars that had destroyed and killed millions, the plans that were unfolding before them seemed not only possible but the only option.

However, the increasing integration of the European project hit a brick wall, literally, when the Berlin Wall came down. For fifty years, Western Europe was a bulwark against the Communist East and now with democracy sweeping across Eastern boundaries, what was Europe and the EU supposed to stand for? Germany was always central to the project and unsurprisingly leaders were concerned about a reunified superpower in the middle of the continent.

European institutions, whether in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg have fundamental issues: a weak mandate, they lack transparency and accountability, further bureaucracy and perhaps most importantly to ordinary Europeans, they don’t know what it stands for. Perhaps this was the trouble with the European project; there was an original idea and as things kept on moving along, no one questioned where it was going. Monetary union was purely a facade to continue the project and did not encompass any financial instruments to ensure its success. Politicians and cultural commentators have speculated that a single currency would ultimate fail because the EU had no fiscal powers to monitor and penalise countries. As we have learnt over the past few weeks, there was no mechanism in place to leave the Euro.

The recent financial crises occurred because of a political impasse against the European project. Each country had its own interests to bear against an increasingly frustrated national electorate. It is unsurprising; billions of Euros are being spent on bailouts, particularly Greece, when its economic affairs were in a ruinous state before it joined the currency. Why should billions be spent in on the Greek economy when they should never have been allowed in from the start. This is not a victory to the little Englanders of the right-wing press who claimed it would all end in tears from the start; their grievances were aimed at bendy cucumbers and the inability for town halls to parade the flag of St George. This was a rose-tinted view that economic union would endure culminating in further political union.

So does a two-tier Europe have a chance? That is Euro countries forming a political bloc with countries such as Denmark, Sweden and the UK on the outside. It certainly retains the status-quo, France and Germany dominating the internal politics and directing its future. Tighter regulation of finances would bring control of taxation and other macroeconomic measures in house. That would be a massive repeal of sovereignty. Yet is there a political or cultural demand for such changes? Do European people seem content to move in a closer direction? The rejection of the Lisbon treaty or European constitution would suggest no and after the recent bailouts Northern European countries would demand checklists to ensure tighter controls on the PIGS, not to mention new entrants. Yet for the Euro to survive, as it stands now, this is the safest solution.

And Britain. Although it is not part of the bailout plan, it is yet to hear the last of Europe.

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?

Printing the presses

The week’s dominating story surrounding the phone hacking allegations made by News of the World (NOTW) journalists is becoming an ever increasing business and publicity nightmare for News Corporation and Rupert Murdoch. This afternoon’s announcement that Britain’s biggest selling newspaper will stop printing after 168 years is a serious blow to the revenue stream of the world’s most famous media mogul. With probable criminal investigations and multiple public inquires into the scandal much scrutiny is being placed on News International’s Chief Executive Rebekah Wade (former editor of the NOTW) and her successor Andy Coulson (and deputy at the time) who later went on to become David Cameron’s press secretary. Yet how much scrutiny should also be focussed on the Prime Minister? Many commentators believe politicians kowtow to easily the media, especially the printing presses, but is Mr Cameron’s slow response subject to what some may say is an unhealthy relationship.

According to sales figures from March the newspapers (The Sun, The Times, The Sunday Times and NOTW) from News Corp sell well over 23 million copies each week. Even in a medium where circulation is dropping year on year) the power of newspapers to drive opinion is still an extremely important vehicle for politicians to maintain. Under Mrs Thatcher, Rupert Murdoch enjoyed an extremely healthy relationship and used his friendship to acquire the Times, without it being referred to the Monopoly Commission. He in turn used his power to back Maggie in her fights against the Miners and in Brussels. Later on, during the New Labour years, armed with two fierce media men, former political editor of the Daily Mirror Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson, Tony Blair was able to contrive most editors into plugging his vision of a new Britain. It became extremely insidious and some of the press had sympathies with the government after the Iraq War and the Hutton Inquiry into the death of the weapons inspector Dr David Kelly.

So is Cameron really at fault? Is it not part of the political game? He courted the Murdoch press during his time in opposition and they forcibly backed him against the dithering Gordon Brown in the 2010 election. Does he not owe them a favour in return? There are plenty of examples from overseas, particularly America, that show what problems Presidents can face when they get on to the wrong side of the press. The Watergate scandal saw the downfall of Richard Nixon and many saw the end of Lyndon B Johnson’s presidency down to the press coverage of the Vietnam War. The CBS anchor Walter Cronkite famously reported that the conflict was “mired in stalemate” to which LBJ was reported to have said “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” Since these times politicians have seen it as a duty to court the press. As Enoch Powell said “Politicians criticising journalists is like sailors criticising the weather”. They are in affect part of the game.

Cameron is known to dine regularly with the likes of Matthew Freud, a PR man who is married to one Elisabeth Murdoch and he also attended the wedding of Brookes two years ago. So far, the Murdoch press has been very loyal to the coalition Government, yet the resignation of Andy Coulson was when many questioned started to question Mr Cameron’s own integrity.

This is particularly why the Prime Minister needs to be careful, people will think the delay and dithering of his response come down to the fact that he does not want to decapitate a Government-endorsing newspaper. When questions are now being raised that the PM knew that Coulson was complicit in signing off cheques to bribe policemen then the pernicious details do not look favourably on Mr Cameron or the Murdochs. The reputation of the British press is notoriously sensationalist and scandal based, but the public fury and ethical questions being asked are not good all round, Mr Cameron should be aware of this and know when issues are in the interest of the people rather than himself.

A Greek tragedy via Moscow - Operation Barbarossa

As politicians from around Europe try to work out how to sort out the Greek financial crisis and the potential domino-effect across Southern European nations, the prospects for a generation of young Europeans does not look prosperous in terms of employment or financial stability. One of the main issues that economists and political commentators have pointed out was the fact that the creation of the Euro was built on a premise of political union and advancement, without the framework of a single European economic policy. However, politicians and people from across mainland Europe, despite the uncertainty, have been pursuing such a goal for the past 60 years. The rebuilding of Europe after World War 2 was both cosmetic and political. It provided a framework to pursue peace and a bulwark against Soviet Russia in the East. Even after the Berlin Wall came down twenty years ago, politicians including British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the French President Francois Mitterrand believed a reunited Germany could spell danger for the future of Europe. The whole purpose of European unity was to keep Germany down and central to its future, something it was battling against seventy years ago to this day.

If one battle is to define World War Two then it must be Operation Barbarossa. Launched with five of Hitler’s armies across the Eastern European frontier it set out to destroy Bolshevik Russia and to expand Germany into the distant East. Eventually five million German soldiers would die to fighting, the cruel Russian winter or disappear in to the work camps in the Arctic North. Russia’s gamble saw it lose over 27 million of its population, two thirds of them being civilians. Yet, despite the tremendous human loss, it is defined by historians as a battle won and lost through the eyes of Hitler and Stalin. These men were caustic and murderously driven to victory, yet they saw the battle as a chance to amend the wrongs of history and to place themselves within the annals of military legend.

Hitler’s hate and scorn for communists and the Slavic race is well documented yet during the infamous pact signed by von Ribbentrop and Molotov that sliced up the Poland and Lithuania between Russia and Germany, Stalin believed Hitler would keep his word and refrain from invasion. Yet Operation Barbarossa, named after King Frederick I of the Holy Roman Empire who set out to conquer the Holy Land in the twelfth century was deemed by Hitler to be a befitting name. On 22 June 1941 when Hitler’s tanks and troops crossed the Russian border, Stalin could not believe it. Despite intelligence from Soviet spies within Germany and on the border he chose to ignore it. Stalin was more sceptical of the British, who were relaying the same information, than his German counterparts (Britain had been Russia’s long term rival in the nineteenth century and had intervened against the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War). In the first day two thirds of the Russian air force was destroyed.

Hitler’s Blitzkrieg, the lightning war that walked over Western Europe, captured Minsk, Kiev, encircled Leningrad and came within 18 miles of Moscow was flawed from the start and any essence of military history could have told Hitler this. Napoleon’s epic battles against the Russia in 1812 are best captured in Tolstoy’s ‘War and Peace’ where the French are eventually pushed out by a disorganised Russian force. Hitler was obsessed with postcard captures rather than strategic victories. He was blinded by the fog of war and the abstractions of history that had eluded German and Prussians in the past. Like Napoleon, Hitler’s lines were stretched to the limit across a continental front. He ignored the cries from his Generals and believed he knew best. Blitzkrieg had worked but the front line still needed to be supplied.

Stalin too was also blinded by foolishness. His ignorance over intelligence and disastrous attempts to advance was an opportunity to replicate the successes of the 1812 General Kutuzov. At one stage, Stalin believed that his costly decisions would see him ousted, yet the reality as Professor Robert Service points out; he had imprisoned and killed all potential rivals – he was the only one left. He was asked to take the battle to the Nazis

While Hitler continuously gambled, Stalin used history to prevail. Like 1812, he saw this as the ‘Great Patriotic War’. He stayed in Moscow, unlike in 1812 and coordinated the battle from the Politburo in the Kremlin. He allowed generals to make decisions and employed effective propaganda to cede attempts to capture Stalingrad. Leningrad survived the Nazi siege for over 900 days. Armed by the allies, Russia was able to push back the Nazis, war weary and frozen (like Napoleon’s men) to his new prize, Berlin. After years of struggle, this was an opportunity to recapture and to take revenge, through any circumstance necessary.

During those three and half years, Eastern Europe became the blood lands of a violent and ideological war. It was rape, genocide and conflagration on an enormous scale, destroying and poisoning Europe for the following fifty years. Over 2.5 million people died in Stalingrad alone. It is easy to say that times are tough, but Europe has seen much worse.

Tweeting in a war zone.

As the world adapts to new technologies and new communications, it is changing the way we interact with each other socially and is changing the way the world operates politically. Propaganda is nothing new and its proliferation has been used to amass armies and turn nations against each other. Repressed people are now able to voice their subversions through Twitter and broadcast the acts of violence by governments through YouTube. The internet has emancipated the voices to the West and to pressurise the governments of secretive and cruel regimes. Yet, how effective is it and are governments now catching up with this technological proliferation?

The ‘Green Revolution’ during the 2009 elections Iran was the inaugural example of a digital rebellion. After questionable results were returned and the incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed electoral victory, young Iranians poured onto the streets of Tehran to protest at the result. With hundreds of thousands of opposition supporters amassing across the capital and the world’s attention heaping pressure on the Iranian Government, the Ministry of Information banned all foreign journalists. Their expulsion saw the Revolutionary Guard turn violent against its own people, without the world’s gaze scrutinising its every move. Yet, they didn’t account for mobile phones recording every move and the use of Twitter to organise public rallies. Although it did not force the government out, it highlighted their ability to turn violent on its own people and the disharmony among the Iranian population.

The recent uncertainty in Syria has been difficult to report due to the government in Damascus closing the borders to foreigners. Despite regime change in the region, with the help of new communications, the Syrian government has been effective in curbing the use of the internet. Not only has it switched off the network to prevent protests but more concerning it has forced protestors to deny unrest and promote the regime’s values online. What is also concerning is the inability of Western organisations to discern what is true and what might not be true. This week saw the press duped into the abduction of a lesbian Syrian blogger, it turned out it was a man from Scotland. Wars are now fought with public relations teams; the recent conflicts in Israel and Libya have been notorious through the role of government spokesmen. Journalists are driven around warzones like city tour buses and press releases are issued as prolifically as canon fire.

We may be unable to understand the truth fully and unfortunately more people may lose their lives before anything changes. The ability of the Chinese Government to control its firewall shows how effective these measures can be implemented. However, leaders can no longer prevent news of uprisings from escaping their borders. Long gone are the days of Glasnost and State TV monopolising the news channels, the BBC and CNN are simply a click away. Assassins come in the form of the sniper and blogosphere.

It's the economy, dumbass!

The political change taking place across the Middle East and North Africa has surprised most commentators and politicians in terms of its success and speed. Many of the countries that have changed during the ‘Arab Spring’ had been controlled by strongmen who had been in charge for decades. Hosni Mubarak, who stood down from Egypt after thirty years, was only the third president since the 1952 revolution. What has interested me most besides the timing, has been the reaction of the world’s major countries, particularly America. The US has been a major player in the region in the past sixty years, providing aid (and arming) Israel, placing sanctions on Iran and removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. The US has a varying record across the world but it is always unanimous when it comes to promoting and pushing values of democracy and liberty.

These values are mentioned dozens of times in any presidential speech and evolve ultimately from America’s Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. American troops are deployed all around the world to protect the love of their country and the values it evokes. Yet despite the vivid portrayals of flags and parades adjoined to the rhetoric from the likes of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, I wonder whether America is perhaps over-democratised and whether its ‘brand’ of politics is tarnishing the way the system works?

To many, 20 January 2009 was a historical day across the world, but particularly in America. Barack Obama was sworn in as the first black US President. It was a magical moment to watch and the banners for change were painted across cities and small towns in America through the ubiquitous ‘Hope’ posters that will come to define a generation. Yet since that day the obvious stalling of the American economy has defined Obama’s first term as President and with that an infectious antagonism has developed between the President’s Democrats and the Grand Old Party (GOP), the Republicans.

The passage of Obama’s healthcare bill that in essence extended insurance provision to the poorest in society caused fractions between both parties. Obama’s Presidential opponent, Senator John McCain called the bill ‘unconstitutional’ and the President was called a liar by Republican Joe Wilson during a joint session of Congress, a major disrespect in American conventions and in most democracies. The issues of late has been the nation’s high unemployment rate, around 9%, and the inability to agree on America’s deficit (currently America’s total debt stands at $14 trillion (and increasing)). The Democrats, who suffered defeats during the midterms, struggled to pass through the President’s budget until the last minute. Yet, the belligerent GOP who block every bill proposed by Mr Obama, have struggled to formulate their own deficit reduction plan. Congressman Paul Ryan who put forward a much tougher plan, compared to the Democrats, called the ‘Path to Prosperity’ wanted tighter reforms to healthcare and federal spending. This too was voted down. Politicians are embattled over the Treasury’s ceiling limit of American federal debt and the unrest is visible as states such as New Jersey, California and New York struggle to tackle their public spending, even the NFL nearly went on strike. Yet amongst all this, it appears we are yet again in election season.

Despite the US elections being over 18 months away, we have already descended into the hubbub of caucuses and campaigning. The Republicans candidates are still deciding whether 2014 is the best opportunity for them to run. Most headlines nationally and internationally focus on the glamorous, relentless yet fallible Sarah Palin. An ambassador of the Tea Party and a saviour to America’s right, Palin has taken herself on a tour of the US but has yet to confirm whether she will stand. The flamboyant property tycoon Donald Trump also ruled himself out after questioning Obama’s citizenship. Another unhealthy idea evolving from America’s Right is the re-emergence of Reagonomics, in honour of the Republican’s ideological God – Ronald Reagan. Yet Reagan’s policy of cutting taxes yet maintaining a large military capability through borrowing seems idiotic but plays with the patriots’ hearts, despite a horrendous deficit. There appears to be plenty of choice of candidates but no one outstanding.

American electioneering has revolutionised the way democracy and politics works and moves. From the advent of Presidential debates that saw the rookie John F, Kennedy defeat the experienced Richard Nixon to the sophisticated internet campaign that saw Obama steamroll Hilary Clinton as nominee then John McCain. Presidential campaigning is a billion dollar industry and has been used over the years to the Philippines, Venezuela, even the Scottish National Party (SNP) adopted the technology in the recent local elections in the UK.

Now here is the problem, expect utterances of ‘American exceptionalism’ and the usual musings of freedom, hope etc. Yet, it appears to deflect from the big elephant in the room. Bill Clinton’s infamous election phrase, ‘It’s the economy stupid!’ America is in a safer position compared to Britain because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency and developing nations are still prepared to buy US Treasury bonds. Yet the dynamics of American electioneering deflect from the intrinsic importance of policy making and sorting out the economy. The current UK coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats could of course collapse at any time, coalitions do, but the five year plan to wipe out the deficit, despite its critics, is backed and understood by most members of the British public. The British economy is of course entirely different to the American, but the flexibility of the Parliamentary system, which does have its flaws, has shown that the benefits over a codified and rigorous constitutional system. America’s love of democracy isn’t helping any recovery.

America should be proud of its values and persistence to promote and enhance the lives of others across the world. Its labour markets are flexible enough to create new jobs and adapt to the global economy, yet it the constant dogmatism and disorder, perhaps over-democratisation, mixed with the professional electioneers, has caused it to stall and lose focus on important matters. By no means, would any American lust for the Chinese political system or the over bureaucratic system of India but it would aspire for year on year high economic growth and end site to potential financial meltdown. The world could not afford the American economy to default, but you wish someone would stop talking about flags and just say ‘it’s the economy stupid!’