The world cup openly has lots of controversy through proven situations and public gossip stating whether certain things are fair or not fair. Bowman goes into depth on the England world cup in 1966 and the 1978 world cup in Argentina. According to reporters and other recognised people both world cups had bad reputations.
In 1966 there was lots of political tension with African countries boycotting the competition due to the limit sport the continent had been allowed, lots of latin american countries believed there was a bias towards the europing nations from the referees. Not only latin america but germany who played England in the final felt that they had lost due to ‘shoddy refereeing’. The ‘political and cultural wangling’ led to changes within FIFA with the latin americans feeling aggrieved from the outcomes of the world cup. This ultimately led to Havelange (a Brazilian) becoming the head of FIFA to make latin america, africa and asia feel represented again.
The 1978 world cup also had political issues with the economic state of the country and the event being pushed on the country hiding violence within the people of Argentina. A long serving observer stated ‘Argentina was the worst. Won by the worst . . . in the worst and most unsatisfactory circumstances. Disfigured by negative football, ill temper, dreadful referee-ing, spiteful players, and the wanton surrender of Peru’.
Chapter 6 of Golazo! and Bowman’s readings focused on the connection between football, politics, and national identity. As the sport grew, governments realized it could help with unity and develop a strong sense of pride among the people. Global tournaments like the World Cup became opportunities for countries to showcase themselves on the world stage. The outcomes of matches and who hosted the cup carried political and emotional significance, shaping public mood and reputation abroad.
Leave a Reply