FIFA is God at the World Cup

Much has already been written about the controversial call made by a referee in yesterday’s World Cup match between Slovenia and the United States. It is generally considered that the goal was improperly disallowed. Had the referee not blown his whistle, a United States second-half comeback which had already tied the match would have been historic instead of merely impressive.

In this interesting post at the NYT soccer blog Jeff Klein suggests that the referee, Koman Coulibaly from Mali – who just for spice’s sake was born on July 4th, America’s independence day – was making up for the call that led to the free kick in the first place. Jozy Altidore embellished some contact that the referee called a foul. Perhaps the referee blew his whistle, quickly came to regret his decision and then determined to reverse it. He therefore blew down the free kick very quickly and was counting on the likely result that no goal would be scored. Uh-oh.

If you make this tempest about the referee you are missing the point. Talking about the referee would be like Voltaire blaming the local priest for the Lisbon earthquake. First of all,  the idea of a referee being able to make two wrongs a right is appealing, especially in a game that is already more about guidelines than rules. Of course, no referee would say this.

In this case, the referee isn’t saying anything. According to the American players he wouldn’t explain his decision on the field. Perhaps his English wasn’t good enough. He hasn’t explained his decision afterward, nor is FIFA going to require him to do so, nor explain it themselves in his stead.

Basically, they are pretending that it didn’t happen. Here is an article about FIFA censoring all comments on its website about the decision. If there is a video of the play on FIFA’s it is hidden – the game highlights video skips over the event. Some are saying that FIFA is trying to pull down every unauthorized video of the play, displaying an aggressive protection of its copyright that has been otherwise absent during the World Cup.

FIFA clearly believes it must answer to no one. Fortunately ESPN isn’t joining FIFA’s censorship so you can keep up with the reactions there. Elsewhere, here is a fun post imagining a FIFA-like response by the IAEA, the organization responsible for monitoring Iran’s nuclear program. And this  is from the NYT game story by Jere Longman, who has been covering soccer for decades:

“In perhaps every other sport, an explanation of such a decisive play would have been provided. But Sepp Blatter, the president of FIFA, has ignored calls for video replay and has decided against putting additional referees on the end line. He has said that he likes the debate that follows matches, believing that uncertainty and subjectivity boost the sport.”

In a different context that perspective is interesting. It gives the impression that soccer is not really about a clear winner or loser, but is about the play itself, the discussion, the narrative of the game. This is an aspect of soccer that goes against American ideas about sport but it’s analogous to the difference between the U.S. idea of quantifiable results, especially money, before all else, including time, in contrast with a model in which the pleasures of  experience and time itself savored make for a better life. It is very cool that these differences can be demonstrated in how the sports are played.

The problem is that while Mr. Blatter’s explanation fits nicely within the ethics and aesthetics of world football it is not at all what motivates FIFA. For example, what you will find at FIFA  is a story about their rejection of Cristiano Ronaldo’s request to overturn a yellow card. Aparently FIFA isn’t averse to discussing its decisions when its infallibility can’t be seriously questioned.

All of this is a long prelude to an argument for why soccer will probably not adhere in the United States.  The international game is controlled by a political organization that is most interested in serving itself and preserving power, not in acting as agent or steward for the players, for the fans, or for the competition and integrity of the matches themselves.

A lot of yahoos here in the States say they don’t watch soccer because it’s a Communist sport, the most recent being a professional baseball player. Whether these individual comments are thoughtful or reactive, the yahoos are right. What they’re attacking is the monolithic, unquestionable authority of a central body. (I’m talking about international soccer, which is what we are exposed to in America. This is not about the various professional leagues in Europe and elsewhere). This attack is central to the American myth. It’s why we have a federal republic and a Constitution that provides for relatively strong states. It is why we have separation of powers.

Our powerful organizations tend to be corporations. In the world of sport these are owners, who are engaged in a constant struggle with the labor force. We’re used to that in this country – the battle between capital and labor has been long and often brutal. All American professional sports have had bitter labor disputes and work stoppages. We take sides based on a combination of a sense of what is fair as well as our own biases towards ownership or labor.

The leagues themselves certainly side with the owners but there are checks – they have to satsify the players and the fan base to some extent. They also feel obligated to explain themselves to the press and the public. Contrast this controversy with the recent baseball umpiring disaster by Tim Joyce, who destroyed a pitcher’s perfect game (a truly historic occasion in baseball) with a missed call on the last out.

The league said, admirably, that it could not reverse the decision on the field because it would destroy the integrity and authority of the officials, but expressed regret, acknowledged the error, and Joyce himself came out in the next game and stepped up, taking responsibility, apologizing and doing so in front of an appreciative audience, including the forgiving pitcher himself. What he did and what the game allowed or encouraged was a beautiful thing to see, sport living up to its highest obligation, which is to teach us lessons about life.

You can argue that the average fan doesn’t care about any of this. He doesn’t have to. He doesn’t have to be a Constitutional scholar or a student of labor relations. The values bleed down into the everyday life of the game and people can tell when something smells bad even if they don’t know why. It’s like when people who know nothing about music composition still have a sense when an orchestra is not having a good night.

There is another consequence of FIFA’s totalitarianism. The first thing about world football that was confusing  when I began watching it in 1990 was the apparent lack of urgency near the end of a match when a team was trailing. Arms would be upturned, faces beeseching the heavens. Quotes after the matches were inevitably about fate.

This is another reason why soccer will not become America’s sport. We don’t believe in fate. We believe in destiny that we manifest for ourselves. Sport reminds us that it is up to each of us to overcome all obstacles – on the field it might be  injury, fatigue, superior opposition, the home crowd, or an unfair referee; and in life any disadvantages of birth, upbringing, education; financial distress, a stupid or venal boss, an uncaring employer, teenage children who will hate you for a few years, dying parents, wayward or indifferent spouses, the ravages of disease, the prospect of failure, the consequences of a horrible decision, the temptation of vices, the prospect of death.

American mythology teaches us that we must bust through all of this to achieve victory. We do not cede to fate. Sport reinforces this. Apparently it is not so with soccer. The story is foretold and the players and fans are merely actors who for the most part cannot re-write the script. Obviously this is an oversimplification and there is real competition and struggle on the pitch. But this relationship between individual will and what has been dictated from higher power is fundamentally different between American team sports and soccer.

Here’s another indication of how power resides in the FIFA office. There is a scenario in which the United States and England will finish group play tied in points and still ranked even after all tiebreakers. (Here is a NYT post on the history of the draw at the World Cup.) Can FIFA really not come up with another set of tiebreakers based on what happens on the field? Can a sixth-grade class not come up with an alternative? Award offensive effort by counting shots on goal. Award sportsmanship by referring to yellow/red cards and fouls. Anything, no matter how arbitrary, so long as it comes from the pitch, not from some absurd, unjustifiable ceremony in an office that reminds everyone who really has the power.

Emails and comments from the rest of the world in the last few days basically come down to this. “Stop complaining. Welcome to soccer.” That is a capitulation to authority which runs against American blood. Another worthy value, and American when it is at its best, is grace under adversity. I thought the reaction of the players and coach after the match was inspiring, as opposed to the reaction of all the people in the pub where I was watching.

For 20 years watching all these players look up at the sky, fall to their knees in prayer and supplication, mutter and beg….I thought they were talking to God. What is revealing about this controversy over the Slovenian – United States match is that the highest authority is actually FIFA.