It is impossible to separate football from politics. Power has been associated with football rather than other sports for more than a century due to its popular importance, because there is no such thing as a stadium to reflect, center, an entire social reality. Videla wanted to do the publicity for the ’78 World Cup, but Kempes’ goals ended up embracing jailers and opponents. Hessel’s hooligan drama was a frenzied display of intergenerational disappointment with the ultra-liberal reforms of the UK in the 1980s. Or, if women’s football caught the attention of sponsors and television sets, this is also due to the side effect of the conquests gained. On hand for a feminist on the street.
It is politics and anthropology. We witness in Copenhagen an example of this. Sentinels of an ancient and slow game in a world of hyper-stimulated rhythm, in the human barrier of Danish players around their partner Christian Eriksen, all the sins of our time have been dressed up: the outrageous parade of the new entertainment culture, live-from-mobile, likes, flicks, scrambling audios and sheer certainty delivered instantly. At 280 characters. There were the players, with 80 matches (which is a few) a year, exposed to the circus, in front of the black mirror, forming a barrier not to defend a foul, but to deflect every magnified shot towards the aching face of the fallen footballer. Team Denmark countered all visual hostility with humanity, with Jamil Khalid’s definition of the team concept. They played again. It doesn’t matter if the partner suffers from racial insults or has a heart attack. The offer is always resumed “by decision of the players”. It’s soccer, the least social-sports activity (feran torrent).
Football is a living history book, it is purely politics. One of the few events in which the national anthem refrain has maintained reliable consensus. Almost off the mark, his outdated words are the perfect stage to encapsulate Paul Auster’s metaphor that football is the invention with which we Europeans hate ourselves without having to kill ourselves.
Like any dominant institution, the Valencia Club is also a political artifact. Out of his notoriety, he defended the Republic and exploited the last two great sporting eras (1979-80 and 1999-04) with undisguised brazenness in favor of political positions, in the name of identity battles and major events. A club for everyone to cause some elites. The return of politics to haunt the Mestalla Club. If his glory matters, drama matters a lot more than that. For the first time, politics is not responding to the greedy temptation of vampires for nicknames, but rather a collapse that affects institutions in compliance with the law, re-fabricating the emotional fabric of hundreds of thousands of voters of all social types. .
Possibly for the first time, political interference will not interfere with the applause of the stands. But even evidence of the worst-known management of European football has not produced a common front. We are in the decisive hours, but some, looking at Valencia, continue to maintain incomprehensible alliances to protect the defenses of competence and out of profile, opening a gap in the barrier, in a picture 102-year-olds look at us. It is impossible to separate football from politics, but any wrong step can end up turning against whoever decides it, as happened in embracing Kempes’ goals in the 1978 World Cup.