Imagine you are from outer space, landing on earth, and (for example) by accident right on some pacific island. You would call Asia West and America East, and Europe maybe the bottom (presupposed you call North North and do not land with an downside up image contrasting to the European one).    The view and perception of the world, at least to the typical reader of this magazine, is probably quite eurocentric. And without any bad intentions this is considered as 'normal' and not reflected much. But to understand football as a world phenomen different view should be contemplated. What this has to do with the Asian perspectives at France? Well, read on.      Of all continents confederations the Asian probably has the lowest percentage of its players playing at professional European clubs. Any player from other continents will have to adapt the European mentality if he wants a place in the first eleven of an European professional club.

1. the European influence 2. 'Negroes' too stupid for the game? 3. Asia's role 4. the right to contribute different concepts back to top      This changes his style, his attitude. He has to accept the ethics of the game as well as the ethics of the business and in most cases he will reproduce those ethics as a key to success when he passes on his experiences at home. Asia, short of players gathering experiences in a European or South-American professional career, has tried to import such knowledge for example in Japan and China by hiring foreign coaches and foreign players to learn from. But Asia is big and Saudi Arabia or Iran cannot be compared to South Corea or Japan.   Europe=Mekka?

Football (like the world) is not the exclusive property of Europe (including Americans of European descent), although sometimes it seems thought to be. So, in the past, different styles of football and different interpretations had developed. The West-Africans once neglected the question of winning when they were celebrating the event, the magic and played a style that fit well with the weather conditions and the call&respond heritage of the African oral culture. When such a side came to Europe it got rolled over by teams who had developed a tempo that was possible in the Northern weather conditions, rolled over by the help of the organisation that resulted from the concentration on the score as the exclusive target, and by the help of the knowledge which was made possible by a better media infrastructure and a longer experience. A better experience not at last determined by the colonialistic structures and its consequences.   This all caused some bad results which in some European countries fitted well into racist images of  the stupid 'negroes' (still commonly used word for Africans 1974 in Germany when Zaire fulfilled all requests to satisfy the racists desires), not intelligent enough to play the game.

1. the European influence 2. 'Negroes' too stupid for the game? 3. Asia's role 4. the right to contribute different concepts back to top       Today Africans have conquered the European leagues and although it is known that they usually need some years to adapt the German football mentality, they have become strong even in the typical German attributes. But on the way those players have lost some of their typical African properties, they think 'professional' in a European sense now.     Africa has changed their style. At the African Cup Of Nations 1998 the only magicians left have been the exciting Côte d'Ivoire, all the others mixed their playing style with various European (or South American) interpretations. And the tempo of the matches in the Burkina Faso heat had become remarkably high. Some might be sad about a touch of magic got lost. But it is the right of Africa determine on their own what they want and not just satisfy the role, Europeans consider now for them to be the best one.  And Asia?

In Asia more nations yet seem to stick to their home styles. This is caused by several reasons: Only few have yet had the opportunity to compete at a World Cup final and only few players play at Europe. So you find for example the Iranians unwilling to accept a philosophy as was suggested by their destined World Cup coach Tomislav Ivic, who was sacked again short before the World Cup. It is obvious, Asian teams play less physical than the rest of the world. Japan, Corea try to adjust their game, but the players usually are smaller than Europeans or Africans and yet cannot curve around them with the experience and cleverness of South Americans. Chinas new national team is already feared for their new physical style. If they are allowed by refereeing they will be able to intimidate some opponents at future Asian tournaments while in the same time lining up technically quite good players because of the huge reservoir.

1. the European influence 2. 'Negroes' too stupid for the game? 3. Asia's role 4. the right to contribute different concepts back to top      In France 98 FIFA will again try to clamp down on all kinds of physical game that endangers the health of the players. Europeans and West- and South-Africans might see it as disatvantage as they prefer the sliding tackling, but for the elegant game of Iran and Saudi-Arabia and the running game of Japan or South Corea it might be a boost. Some Europeans complained about the effort (not the forwards of course) but: who determines what is the 'real' football? Money? (Then: who determines that money determines?) Who 'invented' football? Does it matter? And if, has it been England or China, where such a game has been played some thousand years ago? Or is it the past time World Cup winners who should rule? The ones who were 'there' first? Or the regions where the most registered players are? Or the parts of the world where the most (potential) players and fans are? And who decides what is a 'real' fan?     2 Billion fans locked out?

In Asia more than half of the world population is living, people in Thailand and India are as enthusiastic about the game as everywhere else. They have a right to take part at the process and to help develop the ethics of the game, a right to contribute to the discussions about what is the more important in football, how important are the national teams, what role play fun, result, whether money should rule or even what part the handful of potent European clubs play. If Iran wants to attack, their attitude is part of the world and their contribution should be part of the tournament even if they are in danger of getting punished by a higher number of goals against them as they might have allowed with a concrete wall style.     The World Cup should be also a fair of concepts of celebrating the game and not just a fair of whose football industry has prepared the best to beat the others.

1. the European influence 2. 'Negroes' too stupid for the game? 3. Asia's role 4. the right to contribute different concepts back to top      Nobody denies the Germans or Brasilians winning anyway, the love will be with the Jamaicas and Iranians, too. They carry the emotions the cold result and money ethics can not deliver alone. The Dow Jones index cannot create the feelings Khodad Azizi created by his goal at Sydney in the final 1998 World Cup qualifier Australia-Iran. The football money industry needs those different concepts and attitudes, too. There is already a considerable number of fans feeling inspired by the announced Jamaican party who might not have been adressed by the event otherwise. An argument for those business fetishists, too: A World Cup just made of Norways and Switzerlands would sell worse...  back to top

 

This is a component of	THE SHOT THAT PASSED RIGHT THROUGH THE NET
© by	**### INSTITUT FÜR UNIVERSELLE ZUSAMMENHÄNGE