Zinedine Zidane’s headbutt of Marco Materazzi has become something of a Rorschach test. In the face of his rash and perhaps inexplicable act, we pass judgment and attempt to find meaning. But, in the end, our accounts of his behavior reveal more about ourselves than they do about the incident itself.
The snarky fan of pop culture greets the headbutt sarcastically, seeing it as an opportunity for cheap laughs.
The reserved soccer purist hails it as tragedy, and bemoans the disgraced end of Zidane’s career.
The French-leaning fan awaits explanation — one that will come, apparently, later today. [update: here it is]
Of all these reactions, I find the last one — made in this case by Lindsay Beyerstein of Majikthise (though she is certainly not alone in her assessment) — to be the most grating, because it abstracts the incident from the specific context in which it occurred.
Although one might be hard-pressed to get Americans to agree, soccer is a violent sport. As fans, we tend to see the shoves, pushes, elbows, and spikings that routinely occur during games as aberrant acts, distateful sidenotes to the “real” action on the field.
But much of the game, at least on the professional level, involves that kind of physical contact. There is a game within the game, and it is one that all soccer players play: how much physical contact can one get away with without being called for a foul or receiving a card? Like it or not, moments of brute violence are part of the fabric of the sport.
Was Zidane’s headbutt so different from other acts of violence in the sport that he should be singled out for failing as “a captain, a sportsman, and a human being”? Think of Wayne Rooney stepping on Renaldo’s groin. Or think of a subtler foul — Peter Crouch’s goal against Trinidad & Tobago. Take a look at the video. Was Crouch’s violent hair-pull categorically less violent than Zidane’s headbutt? Or was it only less visible, less dramatic?
The difference, I think, has more to do with the position of the spectator and the nature of the spectacle than it does with the moral worth of the players involved.
To condemn Zidane as a human being is to turn a blind eye to the true nature of the game as it is played, rather than as it should exist on some Platonic level of existence.
My own view is that verbal taunts come in different forms and of varying severity. The distinctions are ethically significant, but drawing an ethical boundary between what’s severe and what’s not is a very difficult matter. So is drawing an arbitrary line between verbal insults and physical response. In Just War Theory, we talk about the question of proportionality. Usually this refers to the severity by which an aggressive act is countered, and the moral requirement not to respond out of proportionality to the aggressive act. The Iraq War, for instance, is all out of whack in regard to proportionality and thus the political need to exaggerate the severity of the initial threat. In general, however, proportionality is difficult to gauge - if you hit me in the face and I kick you in the crotch, is my act proportional? They are different acts, for sure. If you say something heinously racist at me and I shove you, is that proportional? How about if a daughter or wife suffers years of terrible, degrading verbal abuse, suffering psychologically as a consequence, and finally reacts by killing the father or husband?
If we’re using a notion such as proportionality to think about the relation between verbal abuse and physical reaction, it’s simply unclear that there are not proportional degrees of verbal abuse and physical violence. Lindsay wants to draw a clearcut line there by abstracting from context. This move works only in the cool confines of the academic classroom.
I’m not live-blogging this one, but I hope you’re watching: this is, without a doubt, the best World Cup game I’ve seen so far. It’s everything that I thought Argentina/Germany would be, and more.
We’re tied 0-0. France has dominated so far. They have played extremely solid defense, and have built up their attacks through meticulous passing. If Brazil is all about the creative side of soccer, France is about defense and control. While the game has featured some rough play, it’s gratifying to see both teams spreading the field and opening up the game.
Those who laughed at me on Friday for picking France to win must be having second thoughts right about now. Brazil could pull out a victory, but it won’t be easy.
More after the game. Allez les bleus!
UPDATE: Wow. Wow, Wow, Wow. An amazing game. I hope you caught it.
The French goal was a thing of beauty — a visciously arcing free kick from Zidane that found Henry completely unmarked as he swooped in and swatted the ball straight up into the net.
The game was relatively rough throughout, but the refs handled it well. The few bad calls evened out in the the end.
Zidane played a sparkling game all around, centering the offense and holding the defense steady. Also notable on the French side were Henry, Thierry, and Ribery. The coach, Raymond Domenech, has to be commended for his substitutions. He took both Henry and Ribery out — bold moves, considering how well they had played — but the fresh legs turned out to be just what the French needed.
My guess is that the end of Brazil’s run, combined with the defeat of England today, will translate into a distinct loss of American interest in the World Cup. I hope that doesn’t happen, but there is no denying the fact that Brazil has fueled a great deal of the American passion for the Cup.
If you’re looking for a team to root for, you should consider jumping on the French bandwagon. The giant-killers, who have rebounded from a weak start to beat two of the strongest teams in the tournament (Spain and Brazil), have come under attack in their own country for the multi-cultural makeup of the team.
Jean-Marie Le Pen, the French nationalist, ideologue, and bigot who sought the French presidency in 2002 — and who recieved a frightening number of votes — complained recently [via] that France could take no pride in a team that had so many black guys on the roster (sixteen of their twenty-three players are non-white). He also complained that some members of the team weren’t singing the French national anthem before games (yes, this creep is the French version of Bill O’Reilly).
Lilian Thuram, a defenseman on the French squad, responded:
“What can I say about Monsieur Le Pen?” said Thuram ruefully. “Clearly, he is unaware that there are Frenchmen who are black, Frenchmen who are white, Frenchmen who are brown. I think that reflects particularly badly on a man who has aspirations to be president of France but yet clearly doesn’t know anything about French history or society.
[. . .]
“When we take to the field, we do so as Frenchmen. All of us. When people were celebrating our win, they were celebrating us as Frenchmen, not black men or white men. It doesn’t matter if we’re black or not, because we’re French. I’ve just got one thing to say to Jean Marie Le Pen. The French team are all very, very proud to be French. If he’s got a problem with us, that’s down to him but we are proud to represent this country. So Vive la France, but the true France. Not the France that he wants.”
Would that we had similarly direct and moving reponses to such bigotry in America.
A victory for this French team would validate not only this particular group of players, but also the changing face of European countries such as France. I know that they have my vote of confidence for the rest of the tournament.
But that’s only part of the reason I’m rooting for them. They play the game solidly, with style and skill, and I admire them for not backing down in the face of the celebrated Brazil squad.
Besides, my French brother-in-law and his friends would kill me if I rooted for anyone else.
Today, the fun begins . . . and begins to come to an end.
With the World Cup quarterfinals on their way, I think that every game is up for grabs. Here are my thoughts about the matchups:
Friday, June 30, 11am: Germany vs. Argentina
I’m pulling for Argentina here. They’ve played some of the best ball of the cup, but Germany has the home-field advantage — something that can’t be discounted. Germany has a solid team; is it solid enough to stop Argentina’s magical passing game? I don’t think so, but it will be close. This may turn out to be the best match of the tournament.
My pick (holding my hands in the air): Argentina
Friday, June 30, 3pm: Italy vs. Ukraine
Italy will be weighed down by both injuries and emotional trauma, but they seem to make it through one way or another. I’m still angry about the Italian flop at the end of the Australia game, but it’s hard to see how the Ukrainians will be able to pull this one out; they’re up against the greatest thespians in the world.
My pick (holding my nose): Italy
Saturday July 1, 11am: England vs Portugal
If Portugal weren’t battered by injuries and red cards, I’d pick them to pick England apart. But Portugal could come out flat after their wild Round of 16 match against the Netherlands. England, meanwhile, has been utterly unimpressive throughout the tournament, but could get its act together. Tough call — this one could go either way.
My pick (holding my finger in the wind): Portugal EnglandPortugal
Saturday July 1, 3pm: Brazil vs. France
Now, this one is interesting. France put on an impressive show against Spain, while Brazil has improved in every game of the tournament. Brazil is favored strongly, but don’t count out the French.
My pick (holding my fifth glass of pastis): France
Wait — did I really just pick France to beat Brazil? Yes, yes, I did!
If you thought the officiating during Portugal/Netherlands was bad (and it was atrociously, horribly, comically bad), I hope you didn’t miss the coup-de-grace at the end of the Italy/Australia match. A veritable shiv to the heart, delivered only seconds away from the end of injury time.
Get ready for some well-deserved rioting in the streets of Melbourne.
Commenting on the previous post, former TC contributor Rod sums up the U.S. - Ghana match in priceless fashion:
I just watched this travesty masquerading as a soccer match at a local lunch establishment. Here’s the thing: if the game of soccer was about knocking the ball around the middle of the field for 90 minutes with no aspiration to go any further than that, then the U.S.A. would be champions of the world. But unfortunately, there are these things called goals at each end of the pitch and you’re kind of supposed to aim for one of them, at least once or twice.
All of this is aside from the Ghanaian theatrics, which were very tiresome. If soccer was a falling over and rolling around on the ground contest, they would be the champions of the world. Except that Italy might beat them at it.
But really, this has to be down to Bruce Arena at some point, don’t you think, on a tactical level? It looked to me that throughout this World Cup the U.S. team displayed a total lack of imagination or initiative with regard to the attacking phase of the game. My English people demonstrate week in and week out that the long ball game doesn’t work, so why you’d want to copy that is completely beyond me.
Among the many things that the Bush Administration has added to my life is a distinct uneasiness with unbridled expressions of American patriotism. I want to root for the national team, but end up feeling like I’m cheering for Jesus on a cruise-missile sandwich.
While I wait for Le Bérubé to comment upon last night’s thrilling conclusion to the Stanley Cup, I thought I’d share one of my favorite moments from yesterday’s Spain-Tunisia World Cup match.
With Tunisia up 1-0, a Spanish player drove a perfect corner-kick towards the center of the box. A waiting teammate headed the ball towards the net, past the outstretched arms of the keeper. Standing on the goal-line, Tunisia defender Anis Ayari preserved his team’s lead (momentarily, at least) by heading the ball away from the net at the last possible second.
To see the play, let this video load a little less than halfway through. Go to the 3:05 mark, and watch Ayari use his head in brilliant fashion.
Shopping at Amazon.com or iTunes? Support this site by clicking the links above to get there. It won't cost you a dime, and I'll get a 4% kickback of what you spend. Sweet!
AFP/afp.com
