Monday, June 30, 2014

Culture Bites

Luis Suarez is down and out of the great American game of soccer and must endure a four months suspension. Headbutts and punches incur shorter suspensions, smaller fines, and less general ire. Why does biting incite widespread anger and derision (and long suspensions) everywhere (except, perhaps, in Uruguay)?

Maybe because it involves saliva, an internal part of the body, germs, the unclean? Is it because it is a childish act? Is it because it involves teeth and conjures up images of vampirism? And speaking of vampirism, is biting so offensive in futból because it is sexual and soccer must remain a bastion of heterosexual masculine purity?

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Ban Luis Suarez For Life: Not For Biting but Because He's a Cheat

Another incident involving Luis Suarez's teeth and an opponent's body has thrown the entire soccer establishment into turmoil.

Many, including Roberto Martinez and Alexi Lalas, say it's sad and that Luis Suarez needs help. True. Others, such as ESPN's Taylor Twellman, argues that biting is a disgrace and Suarez merits a lifetime ban.

In my opinion, the biting is comical, sad, and unfortunate. And Suarez deserves some sort of sanction for going McGruff The Crime Dog on Chiellini yesterday.

But if he deserves a lifetime ban it is for his consistent, willful attempts to undermine the integrity of the game by cheating. His intentional handball on the goal line during the last World Cup is only one example. His constant diving and embellishment, scoring by handling the ball, whining and complaining to the referee, racially insult opponents are all behaviors that unfairly and deceptively do harm to the credibility of the sport. What he does on a regular basis is no better than what Armstrong did to cycling or what Charles Van Doren did to TV quiz shows.

So if Suarez is kicked out of soccer, I won't shed a tear. But I'd prefer FIFA do it because of the way he has consistently behaved over his entire career instead of for occasionally mistaking an opponent's arm or neck for the buffet at Chuck-A-Rama.

Monday, June 23, 2014

FIFA Corruption? Well, It Is a Business….

John Oliver's send up of FIFA and the World Cup has made the rounds on Internet and even led some of my relatives to conclude that it's not ethical to watch the tournament (you can watch it online here). Oliver's bit is funny and clever--especially the religion comparison. I used to get worked up about this kind of thing in a similar way with the IOC. And yes, it's deplorable. But it's small potatoes. Other huge multinationals make so much more money and exercise so much more influence than FIFA. See this list, for example: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andersonantunes/2014/01/23/the-20-companies-that-own-brazil/

Kuper and Szymanskanski's book Soccernomics begins by comparing Real Madrid, the richest club in the world, with a small cement company in Texas that no one has ever heard of but that is worth more than RM. The soccer team is more visible and so an easy target for both praise and criticism. But I am fairly certain all these big corporations have deals with Brazil (tax breaks, deals on exploitation of natural resources, or wage agreements for employees, etc.). The smart thing to do would be to show FIFA as a window into the way other corporations likely exploit Brazil, the rain forests, the state, etc. And how Brazil uses the World Cup for its own political purposes

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Most Juiced Sport?

Before I answer the question, let me rephrase it with a bit less pith: Athletes from which French sport tested positive for performance enhancing drugs at the highest percentage?

Let me give you a few seconds to hazard a guess.

The AFLD (France's anti-doping agency) conducted thousands of tests in 2012. In eight sports they collected over 400 samples. Here are those eight sports in alphabetical order: basketball, cycling, handball, rugby, soccer, swimming, track and field, triathlon.

According to Françoise Lasne, director of AFLD's analysis department who testified before the French Senate today, one sport stood above the rest in terms of percentage of samples that tested positive for PEDs. You guessed cycling? Wrong. Thought cycling was second? Wrong again. Cycling is in sixth. Here's the list: rugby, soccer, track and field, triathlon, basketball, cycling, handball, swimming.

Excluding positive tests for marijuana (28% of the total), the list changes some, but cycling is still down in fourth. Here are the results without counting pot: rugby, track and field, triathlon, cycling, swimming, soccer, basketball, handball.

Apparently, basketball does not break from the stereotype and appears to be the most pot-laden sport in France...

But rugby wins the gold medal in both categories. Congratulations rugby. Thank you for making even cycling look good.

In terms of raw numbers, cyclist are by far the most tested athletes, followed by rugby then soccer.

(source: Le Monde Sport http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/2013/03/27/dopage-le-rugby-premier-sport-touche-en-france_3148959_3242.html)

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Down Goes Armstrong, Out Come the Hypocrites

The inevitable has happened. Armstrong finally copped to doping.

And immediately he has become the butt of jokes from SNL to Los Angeles alleyways.

Mr. Tour de France probably deserves the criticism.

But I can't help being a bit perturbed by how quickly so many who wore yellow bracelets for years have now switched to bashing him. Especially since it would have taken very  little searching for these same bracelet-wearing sheep to learn Armstrong had been juicing from the beginning.

And corporations, those bastions of morality, have dropped him and are threatening to sue. They rode his EPO charged carcass up the Alpe d'Huez for years and made money hand over fist but now they get to come across as prudish defenders of public health?

Monday, November 19, 2012

Cultural Differences and Coaching: Language, Register and Hierarchy between the US and France














Still basking in the glorious afterglow of UCLA thrashing u$c Saturday, I’ve been thinking of the successes of the Bruins’ first-year head coach Jim Mora, Jr., who despite a reputation as an authoritarian and disciplinarian is widely regarded as a “player’s coach.” His players both like and respect him – and he has established a rapport with them where they can easily relate to him and share in his vision. While this has been a successful model for Mora (9-2), the perennial player’s coach in the NFL, Kansas City’s Romeo Crennel, for whom his players have great affection, has the worst record and team (1-9) in the League. This has led me to recently reflect on player-coach relationships and team success.

An article appearing in this morning’s French daily sports paper L’Equipe, written in conjunction with the announced release of former French national soccer manager Raymond Domanech’s memoirs of his beleaguered tenure at the helm of the darkest chapter in the history of the international side, led me to reflect on the impressive cultural differences between players and coaches in France and the US. In an excerpt about the infamous exchange with Nicolas Anelka before halftime of the fateful France/Mexico World Cup 2010 tilt (link, in French, here), Domanech writes the following account (my translation):

     - “(Anelka, to Franck Ribéry, after I told him he wasn’t pressing forward far enough) He’s pissing me off. What the hell is that? Always me!
     - (Patrice Evra intervenes) Alright, guys, let’s calm down; we have another half to play. Everything is alright…
     - (Anelka did not clam down) Motherf***er, why don’t you [tu, the familiar register, ed./ndlr] do it all yourself then, with your shit team! Me, I quit….
   I didn’t hear everything. The rest of his sentence was lost in the chaos of the moment. Oddly, I was less shocked by the swearing/verbal abuse than I was by the use of the familiar register, which broke a barrier – that of duty, of age, of hierarchy.”

A similar story emerged in the Rugby World Cup of 2011. France had beaten Wales in the semi-finals and was preparing to meet host and international colossus New Zealand in the finals. Their manager Marc Lièvremont, who was only 42 at the time of the match and had played with a few of the French internationals as a teammate in the 1999 World Cup, requested that his players rest up and not hit the bars and be seen smoking, drinking or enjoying night scene in Auckland (which, as a cultural side note, is a favorite point of mockery for Anglophone journalists belittling the loose French brand of “champagne rugby”). When papers began publishing paparazzi photos of players doing just that, Lièvremont lost his cool, verbally abusing players in a recorded team meeting and saying to the press (link): “What am I supposed to do? […] They’re a bunch of spoiled brats (sales gosses) – undisciplined, disobedient, selfish at times. They’re always groaning, complaining and have been constant ball-breakers for four years now.” French Number 8 Imanol Harinordoquy took particular offense to this and has said many times that in taking this internal affair out of the locker room, he broke with code and, due to this, Lièvremont effectively lost the respect his team - which, nonetheless, still almost pulled off the unthinkable and heroically played the All Blacks to an narrow 8-7 defeat.

Reflecting on my own brief athletic career, even with the established hierarchy, it was not too uncommon to cuss with or at coaches. And, whether it’s Jerry Jones coming down on coaches or players, Rex Ryan griping about his QB play or Kobe Bryant discussing a teammates fitness level with the press, the hierarchies are certainly not as engrained and the codes much more in flux than in France. This stands as evidence, I believe, of the social function of sport, which remains in France, culturally speaking, a very formative, even aristocratic realm of human exchange; where as, in the States, it is much more about camaraderie and interaction.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Lance Armstrong as Scapegoat?

In an article published in LeMonde.fr on Oct. 26, fashion mogul Paul Smith wrote: "I never could get very excited about Armstrong because he always seemed too calculating: too much in the image of these last fifteen years, characterized by the excesses of the financial sector, where greed and ego were all that mattered. Armstrong come from that universe" (1).

I think this is probably a fair assessment of Armstrong as a mirror for society (though we generally place far too much meaning on athletes). Martha Stewart was not enough. Society needed to find a better scapegoat in order to publicly purge itself of that win-at-all-costs era of greed, sponsorship, fraudulent morality, institutional complicity, and hero worship.

Americans may be more willing than Europeans to defend or forgive Armstrong because Americans are more tolerant of vitamins, supplements, and drugs; or because Americans are more accepting of changing one's body; or simply because Armstrong is one of us. But maybe Americans are more willing to forgive because we have been more complicit in the calculating era of corporate excess. Our retirement funds rose with Armstrong's fortunes. And they have collapsed as he fell.

Judging by the current state my 401K, I should begin sharpening my pitchfork.


(1) "Je n'ai jamais pu m'enthousiasmer à son propos, car il m'a toujours semblé trop calculateur. Trop à l'image de ces quinze dernières années ravagées par les dérives du secteur de la finance, où tout n'était que cupidité et ego. Armstrong appartenait à cet univers-là."

Monday, September 17, 2012

The French v. the American Take on Armstrong's Doping

The general response in American academic circles to the Lance Armstrong doping denouement has been to criticize the US Anti-Doping Agency for too doggedly pursuing one man, making him their primary target (he began winning about the time USADA came into existence), and for violating his right to privacy. (1) In France, the articles have tended to be exposés of how he went about beating the tests and have featured testimony from his most ardent detractors.

In other words, in the US the response is to keep Armstrong on a pedestal and condemn USADA for overreaching, in France the response has been a cynical, "We knew this all along."

Given that Armstrong still has the benefit of the doubt in the US, it is not at all surprising that he gave up the fight when he did. A protracted legal battle would have definitively turned even his most faithful fans into doubters as testimony of his doping would have become a regular feature in the press. By bowing out now, Armstrong can still deny testing positive and cast dispersions on USADA while maintaining a good reputation with US fans who see the good he has done in the fight against cancer.

As with all Armstrong's decisions, this one makes good economic sense.

(1) I am speaking specifically about the Sports Literature Association here but have seen similar comments in other American news venues.