USC Center on Public Diplomacy

Direct link to this article: http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newsroom/specialreports_detail/1873/

Published: AUG 3, 2006 - 4:28PM PST

Special Reports
Special reports are articles collecting the most relevant public diplomacy articles and information on topical issues, and are posted periodically by our research team at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

THE WORLD CUP: GLOBAL UNITY AND NATIONALISM
AUG 3, 2006 - 4:28PM PST
by Jade Miller

Peter Winter provided research support for this report. In the summer of 1969, El Salvador and Honduras, two nations with a history of animosity, met on the soccer pitch during the qualifying games of the World Cup. As heckling became increasingly vicious and violent, hostility between fans rose from a simmer to a boil. Less than 24 hours after the end of the match, this antipathy had translated into military operations; the two nations were engaged in a full-on war (later known as the "Football War"), which left over 6,000 dead and 15,000 injured. While most World Cup rivalries do not, thankfully, end in war, World Cup matches frequently involve more than just a match of skill and sportsmanship. The 2004 Asia Nations Cup final between China and Japan, for instance, sparked rioting in China and further 2004 Asia Nations Cup. On the other hand, the World Cup has also been credited with bringing nations together. Korea and Japan's joint hosting of the 2002 World Cup, for instance, is often credited with helping bilateral relations between the two countries. Soccer, arguably the world's most popular sport, has the power both to unite the people of the world in a shared passion, and to divide citizens of opposing countries in unfettered nationalist zeal. While the 2006 World Cup did not produce any political results as dramatic as the "Football War" of 1969, much has been written in the world press about both the positive and negative implications of the tournament in today's climate. The potential of the Cup to bring about global unity and peace have been extolled by many. Commentators, including Kofi Annan, have acclaimed the tournament's potential to unite citizens of different nations, so often at odds, in a shared passion. Some have suggested that the World Cup might even work towards peace in countries engaged in civil war, such as the Ivory Coast, by uniting warring parties under one shared flag. Others have suggested that the Cup can bring about increased liberties in authoritarian countries now forced to exist on world stage, as has been the case for Iranian female sport spectators. While the lack of interest in the sport among American citizens is famous in its own right, the failure of the U.S. to dominate in the World Cup has been highlighted as an opportunity for less powerful nations to have at least a symbolic victory over the world’s only superpower, as proxy for victories in other venues, while the appearance of Team USA in the Cup at all has been noted as an excellent opportunity for the State Department to engage in "soccer diplomacy" with soccer fans around the world. Of course, the flipside of this international shared passion for soccer is the nationalistic fervor that goes along with national team World Cup fandom. In the traditionally ethnically homogenous nations of Western Europe, the appearance of immigrant players on national teams has challenged conceptions of what constitutes national identity, and spawned some anti-immigration taunting and even…... FULL TEXT