Non-Americans may not know the meaning of an executive order: It is an official directive issued by the President to federal agencies and departments and has the force of law. The ban on transgender athletes is US policy, but its effects will be felt everywhere. A number of sports organizations, including those that govern swimming, golf and even chess, have already banned transgender women from competing in female events if they have passed through male puberty. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the US’s governing body for collegiate sports, reacted immediately, banning transgender women from competing in women’s sports.

Inclusivity and the World Cup

But FIFA is sure to challenge Trump’s ruling. The National Women’s Soccer League () is the top-tier professional women’s soccer league in the US and operates under the jurisdiction of the United States Soccer Federation (USSF), which is a member of FIFA. As one of the world’s major sports governing bodies to have pledged themselves to inclusivity and against discrimination, FIFA will be deeply compromised by the transgender ban. The NWSL currently permits athletes to participate in accordance with their gender identity, provided their testosterone levels are within typical limits for female athletes. The guidelines will presumably be superseded by the new restrictive provisions.

That’s only one of FIFA’s difficulties: equally as vexing is its commitment to holding its quadrennial World Cup competition in the USA, Canada and Mexico. FIFA faced criticism for granting hosting rights to the 2034 World Cup to Saudi Arabia, where homosexual relations are outlawed and punishable by law. The criticism will seem mild compared to the condemnation that will surely follow if FIFA remains silent on Trump’s prohibition, which seems to undermine every feature of FIFA’s credo. Some will argue it is hypocritical to stage an event that symbolizes inclusivity in a territory where inclusivity is now sneered at.

Trump’s common sense

Since becoming president, Trump has ordered an end to federal government diversity efforts, including some dating back to Lyndon Johnson, and may expel transgender people from the US military. Trump diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies for the collision of a commercial jet and military helicopter that killed 67 people just outside Washington in January. It was his “common sense” assessment rather than an evidence-based evaluation. The same common sense informs much of Trump’s early initiatives. On his first day in office, he signed an order calling for the federal government to define sex as “only male or female” on reproductive cells. This should be reflected on all official documents, such as passports.

Even the title of the transgender order echoes Trump’s version of good sense and sound judgment: “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.” Anything other than Trump’s understanding is dismissed as dogma or fanaticism: an earlier Trump order the insistent title, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” and prescriptively instructs the federal government to remove “all radical gender ideology guidance, communication, policies, and forms.”

All this jars with global trends that have affected many parts of the world since the rise of the #MeToo movement. Common sense, at least as Trump defines it, is a kind of knowledge that seemed perfectly serviceable 40 or 50 years ago.

Women’s football — an LGBTQ+ platform

Over recent years, FIFA has positioned itself as a champion of inclusivity, drawing short of activism but relaxing its strictures of mixing the association football it governs with social, cultural and political affairs. For example, following the killing of George Floyd in 2020 and the ensuing protest, FIFA sanctioned football players to take a knee in shows of support for Black Lives Matter before games. Its effective elevation of the women’s game to the most popular female sport in the world has drawn admiration.

Women’s football is arguably the most effective crusader for LGBTQ+ rights in the world, perhaps eclipsing Stonewall, ILGA World and Outright International (remind yourself what the T in LGBTQ+ stands for). FIFA has symbolized its commitment by endorsing players and sometimes whole teams who wish to display their loyalties by wearing rainbow colors. Both female and male teams have worn rainbow armbands and shoe laces to exhibit their moral positions. Football as a sport stands squarely on the right side of history. It is barely imaginable that FIFA will stray to the other side.

What will FIFA do next?

World sport has no uniform policy on transgender athletes. The eligibility rules are different for different sports and in different countries. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has a laissez-faire framework that allows for sports-specific eligibility criteria. It, too, will be challenged to respond to Trump’s initiative, but not nearly as much as FIFA. Association football has managed to steer clear of major controversies. The organization’s existing gender verification regulations, established in 2011, simply that only men are eligible to play in men’s competitions, and the same applies to women. In 2022, following policy changes in other sports, FIFA announced it was reviewing its gender eligibility regulations in consultation with expert stakeholders. No updated policy has yet been published. In the absence of explicit guidance from FIFA, some leagues developed their own policies. Spain, for example, a team comprising only transgender players.  

Now, FIFA must confront Trump’s ban and decide whether or not to oppose it. It’s conceivable that American teams could face exclusion from international tournaments if US sports organizations are unable to field teams that comply with more inclusive international rules. But this is massively complicated by the fact that games at the 2026 FIFA World Cup are scheduled to take place in the USA, as well as Canada and Mexico. A robust response would be to threaten to rearrange games scheduled for New York, Dallas, Atlanta and elsewhere in the USA. But it would be a logistical nightmare and, in any case, media groups would protest. Ridiculous as it seems, FIFA could disqualify the US team from the competition. Trump himself would probably intervene and threaten FIFA.

FIFA can hardly avoid becoming involved in the furor. It will express misgivings about the ban and emphasize the organization’s continuing commitment to inclusivity. It may allow individual players or entire national teams to stage protests or articulate their disagreement with the order. It could even endorse some sort of protest at the World Cup, though this is unlikely. In 2022, England team captain Harry Kane was prevented from wearing a rainbow armband, presumably to avoid embarrassing Qatar, where the World Cup tournament was being held. FIFA clearly did not wish to upset the tournament hosts.

Monstrous dilemma

Yet, if FIFA needed to bare its teeth, now is the time: Transgenderism is likely to be the single most intensely debated issue in sports over the next decade or so. The arguments on both sides are persuasive: Women complain the hard-earned advances they have made in sports since the 1990s are under threat because athletes assigned male at birth are allowed to compete against natal females. Athletes who have experienced gender dysphoria and transitioned in a way they feel reflects them intellectually and emotionally complain they are excluded from competition or forced to compete in a hybrid class. For example, The New York City Marathon a non-binary division for runners who do not identify as either men or women. There are other variations in other sports.

FIFA faces a monstrous dilemma. It would probably love to reassert its position as sport’s most enlightened, progressive and reformist governor. But the first of 104 games that will comprise the next World Cup will take place on June 11, 2026, so any threats are bound to appear empty.

The next women’s World Cup is not until 2027. There is likely to be change between now and then, but if there isn’t and the ban remains in place, the USA will not have a team in Brazil: It will either withdraw voluntarily or be disqualified. Women’s football is more activist and a lot less conciliatory than its male counterpart and will use Trump’s ban to dramatize the transphobia it opposes, along with any other form of bigotry.

[Ellis Cashmore’s new book (with Kevin Dixon and Jamie Cleland) will be published in March.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post FIFA Under Fire: Trump’s Transgender Ban Sparks Dilemma appeared first on 51�Թ�.

For over 90 years, the World Cup has rivaled the summer Olympics for scope, grandeur and athletic excellence. It still does. But, from this point, it will also be an occasion for gathering forces of dissent. Many will despair at the wrangling that’s changed the character of the 2022 tournament in Qatar, while others will be excited by the way sport can force into world focus problems, affairs or just situations that might otherwise be ignored or dismissed as unworthy of international attention.

Cultural Changes

Twelve years ago, when football’s world governing organization FIFA agreed to let the sheikhdom on the coast of the Persian Gulf with a tiny population of 2,200,000 to host the tournament, the problems posed seemed logistical: weather, accommodation, timing and so on. No one could have known what was coming. The case came to the fore in 2017, and led to the subsequent surge of the MeToo movement. The comparably potent cultural movement of that grew after the killing of George Floyd by a police officer in 2020. Gender fluidity and the challenge to the traditional sexual binary., not only in sport but in every area of society. These were among the cultural shifts that changed … well, practically everything in society, including perceptions and expectations of sport.

The Greatest Show on Earth

READ MORE

The days when sports governors tried strenuously to prevent political or social issues fouling the onetime pursuit of amateur gentlemen are now gone. Sport is now fully weaponized and the majority of its fans not only accept but insist that it should be used as an instrument for exposing injustices and promoting causes (I have soon-to-be-published research that provides evidence of the rise of politicized fans).

Sports has a mixed record in promoting social change. While it’s hailed as partly responsible for bringing down South African apartheid, there is no persuasive evidence that boycotting South African sport was effective in any more than a symbolic way. The memorable at the Mexico Olympics of 1968 are now iconic reminders of the fight against racism in the USA, though many neglect how athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos, who gestured with their gloved fists, were actually punished and demonized at the time rather than vaunted. Muhammad Ali is often regarded as champion of civil rights as much as a boxer, though, in 1964, when he dropped his name Cassius Clay and converted to the Nation of Islam he was attacked for his

Criticism of Qatar or Islam?

Some believe revealing Qatar’s exploitative treatment of migrant workers and its admonition of homosexuality will hasten a change in both. In the first instance, this is possible. In the second, unimaginable. Islam decrees that homosexuality is sinful. No Islamic country on earth, nor any Muslim, whether in the middle east, Britain, USA or anywhere else will demur. Qatar is among at least eleven other countries that considerhomosexuality a , which may be punishable by death.

Macron Claims Islam Is in “Crisis.” Erdogan Disagrees

READ MORE

At this point, I should perhaps declare an interest: I am a white, cisgender heterosexual male, born in the UK, part-educated in Canada, having lived in Asia and the USA. In common with other sociologists, I understand the deep cultural significance of religion, but believe in the primacy of humanity, making me atheist. I am also reflexive, meaning that I don’t accept there is a neutral position from which to assess cultures: the very fact of my existence implicates me in culture and precludes objective analysis. I remain aware that I am steeped in the culture of my upbringing and mature development. So, while I’ve supported gay rights and opposed racism for my adult life and argue against others who do not, I try to resist privileging my own culture over all others. I include this detail because my interpretation of much of the recent condemnation of Qatar is that it is a disguised attack on Islam.

Close to a quarter of the world’s human population are Muslims. I find the Islamic code on homosexuality repugnant. I also acknowledge that its source is in faith and no amount of argument will change this. So, when Qatar is described by western journalists as “medieval,” it discloses a sneering, ignorant disrespect. And, when I hear western Europeans, who are not Muslims, describing their commitment to “cultural inclusiveness” or “inclusivity,” I suspect they mean excluding any party that disagrees with popular western principles, standards and values.

Intolerance is an old-fashioned word so maybe neo-intolerance is how we should describe the new form of western cultural pompousness. The affectedly — and usually self-congratulatory — manner with which west European liberals make pronouncements on practically anything that deviates from their own rules of thought and conduct is sure to be challenged. Possibly by the time of the next World Cup.

Politics and the 2026 World Cup

The 2026 World Cup will be shared by three hosts all from the same land mass and all predominantly Christian: Canada, USA and Mexico. Not all countries are equally worthy of opprobrium, of course. The USA will bear the heaviest burden, with laws on the possession of firearms framed in the nineteenth century (far from medieval) and laws on abortion that were reformed in 1973, but which may by the time of the World Cup, be retroceded to the 1820s. Mexico decriminalized abortion only last year. As for Canada, that perennially inoffensive territory in the north, consider: last year, Pope Francispublicly for the 150,000 indigenous children who were separated from their families and taken to residential Catholic schools where they were beaten, starved and sexually abused, between 1881-1996. This will be one of a number of concerns regarding indigenous people that will surface when the World Cup arrives. 

Cristiano Ronaldo Faces Sexual Assault Allegations

READ MORE

Once more, there will be sanctimonious critics offering their insight, resonance and misplaced sense of superiority. There will also be earnest interrogation that will lead to useful and possibly productive developments. Qatar is not going to abandon Islam, but its citizens live on planet earth, eat, work, catch buses and do many of the same things as the rest of the world. That includes examining their lives from time to time — as we all do. They have been made forcibly and, I am guessing, uncomfortably aware of what many others regard as their shortcomings and may choose to revise them accordingly in future. 

What is football for?

Football is ridiculous, isn’t it? Eleven grown men kicking a ball in one direction while another eleven grown men try to stop them and move the ball the other way. Can you think of anything more trivial and purposeless? The attention granted the World Cup might lead a friendly alien to assume the tournament takes us closer to world peace, or finding a cure for cancer, or maybe saving the planet from self-destruction. It does none of these things. But this sporting wasteland may yet produce some good: if, as I expect, World Cups from this point become cultural tinderboxes, then they might cease to be trivial and conjure larger, more meaningful campaigns that will bring genuine benefits.

Those who wish football and other sports to ablute themselves of politics will rue the day FIFA awarded the 2022 World Cup to what was once a British protectorate where they speak Arabic and which got rich through its oil. But the sustained fury the decision has engendered may yet be the greatest blessing, not to football, but to the world.

Ellis Cashmore’s latest book is “.”

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Qatar Will Change the World Cup Forever appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Is Football Still a Bastion of White Supremacy?

READ MORE

In the Gulf, the lucrative rights to World Cup packages are now being awarded. In Kuwait, ITL World has been appointed the sales agent. The company’s CEO, Siddeek Ahmed, could hardly his delight at being able to offer “fans a unique opportunity to purchase ticket-inclusive hospitality packages” for the World Cup. In addition to game tickets, the packages include flights, accommodation, transport and “leisure” programs. According to Arabian Business, the deals for the main venue, the 80,000-seat Lusail Stadium, will run from $14,350 to $74,200. That buys you all 10 matches hosted there, including the quarter-final, semi-final and final. If you are not short on cash, you can pick up a 40-seat suite at the stadium for just .

In Dubai, Expat Sport Tourism DMCC  the rights, with its website urging football fans to be a part of history to see the first World Cup held in the Arab world. “From the pinnacle in high end corporate experiences to individual hospitality solutions for football fans, we can cater for all those wishing to be part of FIFA World Cup 2022” is how the firm put it.

Not Everyone Is Happy

With an estimated 1.5 million fans heading to Qatar next year, Dubai, with its well-established tourism and entertainment sectors, sees itself as ideally placed to cash in on the World Cup bonanza. Yet others in the United Arab Emirates are less welcoming.

Mohammed al-Hammadi is the president of the Emirates Journalists Association and editor-in-chief of the newspaper  based in Abu Dhabi. Among the core values listed on the paper’s website are “apply best practice in line with the journalism codes” and “be an objective and trustworthy information tool.”

Hammadi is a strong proponent of normalization. He spoke at a  in October 2020, after the UAE and Bahrain had announced their plan to normalize relations with Israel. The event was organized by a pro-Israeli think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). Hammadi said he believed in both peace and advancing the rights of Palestinians, but people like him who “speak in favor of peace are stigmatized … and find themselves falling under attack.” He added that the word normalizing “has a very negative connotation in our region.”

In June, he drew the ire of African journalists with a ham-fisted attempt to have them join a coordinated media attack on the World Cup in Qatar. They adopted a  denouncing efforts to “use Africa and its institutions as political football in order to settle scores in a political dispute.” The statement said:

“While journalists in the East African region struggle to preserve their independence and freedom from rogue government and commercial interests that threaten the integrity of journalists, an outside actor is behind attempts to manipulate, divert and involve journalists in an issue completely outside the scope and powers of journalists and their unions.

In the same way that journalists and their unions in East Africa are calling, confronting and protesting against governments for their interference in the work of journalists and the curtailment of their freedoms, all foreign powers that have a negative and false agenda must be condemned and publicly challenged as a matter of principle and consistency.”

Twelve days later, the website Emirates Leaks, what it called “reliable sources,” alleged that Hammadi had attempted to pressure the heads of the journalism unions of Norway and Finland. According to the site, he wanted them to influence journalism unions in Asia and Africa to “coordinate attacks against Qatar and tarnish its image before hosting the World Cup.”

His efforts occasioned a  on June 23 in the European Parliament from Fulvio Martusciello. The Italian MEP accused the head of the Emirates Journalists Association of leading a smear campaign against Qatar: “Al Hammadi asked the Finnish and Norwegian Journalists Federations to exercise influence on journalists unions that he supports financially to engage in the Abu Dhabi campaign and offend Qatar. He also tried to offer them financial bribes and expensive gifts in return for achieving Abu Dhabi’s inflammatory goals.”

So, while Dubai can barely contain its World Cup excitement, Abu Dhabi appears set to continue its anti-Qatar campaign. Imagine for a moment that the UAE was a football side and its two big stars had separate agendas and were playing only for themselves. That is not a winning formula and it’s something a good manager, like England’s Gareth Southgate, would quickly sort out.

*[This article was originally published by , a partner organization of 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How Dubai and Abu Dhabi See the World Cup appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Pressured by human rights and trade union activists leveraging Qatar’s exposure as a World Cup host, and influenced by subtle changes sparked by popular Arab revolts in recent years, young Qataris are pushing the envelope, broaching publicly hitherto taboo subjects like homosexuality, women’s dress codes and citizenship.

The pushing of the envelope may be the most marked in Qatar because the prospect of the 2022 FIFA World Cup in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) state has focused attention on how it will deal with the large influx of soccer fans from less conservative and non-Muslim societies. It is, nonetheless, reflective of a wider trend in the region in which youth and women are seeking to broaden norms of public and social behavior.

The trend is further driven by the winds of change sweeping the GCC as the Middle East’s oil-rich nations—which are unable to continue offering cradle-to-grave security and guaranteed public sector employment—are forced to rewrite their social contracts that justified autocratic rule.

What’s Changed?

Formally and legally nothing has changed, yet individual attempts to push the envelope are indicative of a desire among various societal groups to have their issues publicly discussed and addressed, and a willingness to run greater risk of public attack and humiliation in achieving their goals.

Writing in , Alnood al-Thani boiled the various debates involving the criticism of women who fail to cover their hair while traveling abroad and those who engage in overseas charity activities in mixed gender groups—and a Qatari homosexual who described in an article what it means to be gay in a society that condemns sexual diversity, as well as discussions about who should be entitled to citizenship in a country where foreigners account for the overwhelming majority of the citizenry—down to their essence of what it means to be Qatari.

“There isn’t one definition of being a Qatari nor is there one characteristic that makes you Qatari. The majority of the population of Qatar is not from Qatar, and it’s hard to define what it means to be Qatari … There is not a single definition of being Qatari and forcing someone to cover their hair or hide who they are isn’t upholding the image of Qatari society … There is nothing benevolent or respectful in people shaming men and women into complying with their views,” al-Thani wrote.

Al-Thani’s article appeared days after  because another Qatari woman, writer and businesswoman Maryam al-Subaiey, appeared unveiled with make-up and her long, curly black hair flowing freely on French television to discuss how Qatari women perceive themselves.

Like al-Subaiey, 28-year-old Saudi pharmacy student Bashayer al-Shehri and other young women in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are challenging the country’s strict dress codes. Al-Shehri decided to shed the black face veil she wore in public throughout her adult life and to simply wear a headscarf.

“I just decided that society is changing and I’m going to just try to see, and it was so easy. I didn’t really notice any difference of treatment of people and how they perceive me,” al-Shehri told .

Curbs on Saudi Arabia’s notorious religious police as part of a bid to be more attentive to youth concerns and ease restrictions on women encourage those like al-Shehri. Similarly, 14,000 Saudi women have petitioned for King Salman to end male guardianship, which forces women to get a male relative’s permission to travel and, in many cases, study or work.

The women activists are beginning to get traction. A senior member of Saudi Arabia’s top Muslim clerical body, Sheikh Abdullah al-Manea, appeared to support the petition, saying the guardianship should apply only to marriage, while Saudi Arabia’s Shura or Advisory Council is expected to discuss “suitable conditions” under which women would be allowed to drive.

In early October, gender segregation was all but absent with men and women clapping side-by-side as New York-based theatrical group iLuminate took the stage in Riyadh as part of Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s effort to loosen restrictions on music, dance and theater.

Two years earlier, a trip by young Qatari men and women to the Amazon rainforest to build a school for the poor sparked protests because the women were not covered in abayas (robe), and they had traveled with men who were not relatives.

Homosexuality in the Arab World

Similarly, Majid al-Qatari, a pseudonym for a Qatari homosexual, sparked outrage by writing an  in which he described what it meant to be gay in the Gulf state. Al-Qatari noted that many had lauded the June 2016 attack on a gay bar in Orlando, Florida, describing homosexuals as “God’s cursed people.”

51�Թ� provides you deep and diverse insights for free. Remember that we still have to pay for servers, website maintenance and much more. So, to keep us free, fair and independent.

“It is very jarring living here, it is traumatizing to see that you are the cause of your parents’ anguish, that you are shaming your family. It is a constant onslaught, and it is killing me. It has caused irreparable damage to my mental health. I wouldn’t have chosen to have been born in a place where my life is tantamount to my death. There is no prospect or future for me here — no normalcy,” al-Qatari said.

In another challenging taboo, young Qataris asked on Twitter why professionals such as doctors and engineers who contribute to Qatar’s development are denied citizenship while athletes competing internationally for the GCC state are awarded nationality to be able to do so.

All these issues—women’s rights; lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights; and foreigners’ rights—are ones that were first publicly raised by international human rights and trade union activists after Qatar was awarded the World Cup in late 2010. The pressure from the activists appears to be now jellying with a greater willingness of Gulf youth to publicly question norms and the need of rulers to upgrade their autocracies as a way of ensuring survival.

Gulf youth may not want a repeat of the that, except for Tunisia, have largely been smoldered in blood. The revolts’ legacy is, nonetheless, one that has encouraged a willingness to pose questions, put issues on the table and challenge established norms. It is an environment to which debate about the 2022 World Cup in Qatar can only contribute.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:

The post The World Cup and Arab Uprisings Drive Change appeared first on 51�Թ�.

There’s money in women’s football, but not much of it, so you might need an extra job.

You have to be your own biggest fan because media coverage is minimal. And you’d have to listen to suggestions like wearing tighter shorts to attract a bigger audience.

You’ll be playing on artificial turf, suffering burns and bruises. The goals you score, even if they by far outnumber those of male strikers, will receive next to no recognition.

Women’s football is a game of resilience, perseverance and self-assurance. And that is what makes it a beautiful game.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your  is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a .

The post You Think Playing Like a Girl is Easy? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

While medieval girls and women played and were entertained by a variety of bat and ball games, the earliest specific association I know of comes from a mid-15^th century poem. This was a satire by the prolific East Anglian monk John Lydgate. In it the poet enlarged upon the attractions of “my fair lady.” She wore a green hood and had two small breasts squeezed together so they appeared like a large “camping ball” (East Anglian dialect for football).

Spectators

By the 16^th century, women’s involvement in football had moved beyond associations between their breasts and the ball, to a spectator scene. The most famous 16^th century female football spectator was Mary, Queen of Scots.

In the 1970s, a ball made of leather and inflated with a pig’s bladder was discovered in the rafters of the Queen’s Chamber, Stirling Castle (Mary’s residence). It is now proudly displayed in the Stirling Smith Art Gallery and Museum. It is to be “the Oldest Football in the World,” although archaeologists at Winchester have dug up two leather balls (roughly the size of modern tennis balls) that are about 500 years older.

In June 1568, having abdicated and fled to England, Mary watched a football match on a “playing-green” somewhere between Carlisle Castle and the Scottish border. The game involved about 20 of her retinue, who played for two hours “very strongly, nimbly and skilfully, without any foul play offered, the smallness of their balls occasioning fair play.”

Unsuitable players

The 16^th century English physician John Caius (pronounced “Keys”) recommended a number of vigorous sports and pastimes to improve health—but not football. Although he discouraged men from playing football because they were likely to get their legs broken, it’s interesting that Caius suggested women take up bowls as suitable exercise. Football, he appeared to have thought, was not suitable for women.

The playwright James Shirley had one of his comic characters express a similar sentiment: Women were unsuited to football because they were too light and knocked down too easily. At first glance, this seems to contradict other evidence. For in a pastoral “dialogue between two shepherds” the Elizabeth courtier and poet Sir Philip Sidney has a mother recall a time “when she, with skirts tucked very high, with girls at stool-ball plays.” (According to some sources, however, this was written by Sidney’s sister, Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke.)

This, however, was not the “violent” men’s game of that name, but perhaps what was sometimes called “balloon ball”—batting a large inflated ball back and forth, much like modern volleyball. Alternatively, Sidney may have meant a bat and ball game popular with young women of the period. A diarist even recorded that at Oxford on Shrove Tuesday 1633 women played stool-ball and men football.

© Shutterstock

The 18^th century

So we come to the earliest indisputable reference I’ve found to a woman participating in a football match. It comes from a contemporary newspaper account of a match played on Shrove Tuesday, February 23, 1773.

The game involved married gentlemen playing against bachelors in Walton, a village in Yorkshire. After more than an hour’s struggle, with much pushing to the ground and several broken shins, the married men were in trouble. Until, that is, a bold woman “seeing her husband hard press’d, entered the field to his assistance.” Instead of being intimidated by the “superior strength” of her opponent she, “like a true Amazon … pursued the ball, and soon determined the victory.”

Just over 20 years later, a doctor from Inveresk in Midlothian noted some peculiarities about the women of his parish: “their manners are masculine.” Nor did this surprise him, since these “fishwives” did the same work as the men. Besides playing golf frequently, there was an annual Shrove Tuesday football match between the married and unmarried women.

Because the married women were said to have always emerged victorious, a few modern commentators have speculated—when it was fashionable—that the game’s origin was a fertility rite. But there’s no evidence to confirm this.

Victorian Lady Footballers

Finally we come to the British Ladies’ Football Club, formed in 1894. This was the brainchild of Nettie Honeyball and Lady Florence Dixie. Nettie saw it as a business opportunity and was keen on turning young middle-class women into professional footballers. Florence, on the other hand, used her privileged background to speak out on a range of topical political and social issues, including family planning and suitable women’s attire.

Following an advertisement to recruit teams, a match was played between the North and South in north London on March 23, 1895. A crowd of more than 10,000 saw the North win convincingly 7-1. But press coverage was largely negative. There was “tut-tutting” about the supposedly unfeminine kit, while the North’s tricky left-winger, Miss Gilbert, was unkindly nicknamed “Little Tommy.”

Further exhibition matches were played around the country, yet the novelty soon wore off. In the long-term, this initiative failed to establish an officially sanctioned league. The Football Association (FA) actually banned women’s football for a time.

So it’s clear that women’s football has a long and often repressed history. Thankfully we’ve since moved on. Women’s football is encouraged in schools up and down the United Kingdom, and this World Cup in Canada promises to be the biggest ever.

Yes, the women’s game is still regarded with less interest than men’s football. But that’s largely for historical reasons. With the ball finally rolling in the right direction, however, all eyes are now on the women equalizing with the men.

*[This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:  / 

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your  is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a .

The post A Brief History of Women’s Football appeared first on 51�Թ�.

After four years of engagement with its critics in a bid to turn its hosting of the FIFA into a successful soft power tool, appears to have decided that the Middle East’s tendency to intimidate those who don’t fall into line may be a more effective strategy. In doing so, Qatar appears to be backtracking on its record of being the one Gulf state that, instead of barring critics from entry or incarcerating them, worked with human rights and trade union activists to address concerns about the working and living conditions of migrant workers.

The cooperation resulted in key Qatari institutions adopting forward-looking standards that would improve conditions and modernize, but not abolish, Qatar’s controversial kafala (sponsorship) system, which puts workers at the mercy of their employers.

Qatar’s engagement sparked understanding among major segments of the international human rights community, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, of the existential issues involved in labor reform in a country where citizens only account for 12% of the population. Many Qataris fear that tinkering with the labor system would open a Pandora’s Box that could lead to them losing control of their society and culture.

Labor has emerged as the major distraction from Qatar’s success in winning the right to host the 2022 World Cup, against the backdrop of a relatively high migrant workers’ death rate and criticism of their living and working conditions. Qatar has conceded that it needs to reform its labor system in a bid to fend off calls that it be deprived of its World Cup hosting rights, but it has been slow in implementing reform.

Theo Zwanziger, the outgoing member of the executive committee of FIFA, who is also in charge of monitoring Qatari progress on labor reform, has warned that the Gulf state’s snail pace approach could result in a resolution being tabled at the group’s congress in late May, demanding that the World Cup be moved away from Qatar.

Zwanziger’s warning rings hollow against the backdrop of guarantees given to FIFA by , the host of the 2018 World Cup, that it would suspend labor laws with regard to World Cup-related projects. FIFA has said the German television report had taken the agreement with Russia out of context.

Qatar’s backtracking with the detention of foreign journalists who investigate workers’ living and working conditions — and warnings to those in Qatar who have worked with Qatari institutions, human rights groups and trade unions — comes as Gulf states adopt more assertive regional and foreign policies. In doing so, Qatar joins the conservative Gulf mainstream.

© Shutterstock

The GCC

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has in recent weeks barred entry to a New York University professor, who was scheduled to attend a conference at the university’s Abu Dhabi campus, and two prominent artists because of their criticism of the country’s labor regime.

Gulf states distrust US policy in the Middle East, particularly the Obama administration’s handling of nuclear negotiations with Iran, which could return the Islamic Republic to the international fold. They also feel that Iran is projecting its power in the region through proxies that are encircling the Gulf. In response, Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, have become militarily and politically more assertive as in Yemen, where they have waged a destructive bombing campaign, and in Syria, with stepped-up support for rebels fighting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Gulf assertiveness began with Saudi troops helping in brutally suppressing a popular revolt in Bahrain in 2011, and the kingdom, together with the UAE and Kuwait, backed a military coup in Egypt in 2013. Qatar, with its close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, appeared at the time of the coup to be the one Gulf state charting an independent course.

With Qatar falling more in line with the more hard-line mainstream Gulf approach, Oman is replacing Doha as the odd man out in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the regional group that brings together Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, the UAE and Kuwait. Oman has refused to join the bombing campaign in Yemen; it has mediated US contacts with Iran; and it has rejected militarization of the GCC.

In the latest evidence of a reversal in Qatar’s approach, security forces detained a BBC television team that had been invited by the government to report on the labor issue. “We were invited to Qatar by the prime minister’s office to see new flagship accommodation for low-paid migrant workers — but while gathering additional material for our report, we ended up being thrown into prison for doing our jobs,” wrote Mark Lobel on the BBC’s website.

The 13-hour detention of the BBC journalists followed the arrest earlier this year of a German television crew. Both teams had their equipment confiscated, which in the case of the Germans was returned only after all data had been deleted. In a meek defense, the Qatar Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy, which is responsible for the 2022 World Cup, said the German crew had failed to obtain permission to film. It is an argument that doesn’t hold up in the case of the BBC.

FIFA’s rejection of the German documentary’s findings, and particularly the fact that it expressed surprise that one of its media partners would report independently and critically about the group, raises questions about the sincerity of its pledge to investigate the detention of the BBC journalists. “Any instance relating to an apparent restriction of press freedom is of concern to FIFA and will be looked into with the seriousness it deserves,” the group said in reference to the BBC case. It did not issue a similar statement when the German team was detained.

It is unclear as to whether the hardening attitude of Qatar, which is also reflected by sources in Qatar being hesitant to speak out, is simply security forces taking a tougher position as they forge closer security and intelligence ties to other GCC states, or whether it reflects an overall change in the country’s approach.

Qatar’s changed stance could signal a partial shift away from seeing soft power as the main pillar of its security and defense architecture, in the absence of the manpower or strategic depth to project hard power in adherence to a Saudi-led projection of military force. In 2014, Qatar stepped up its arms purchases with an $11 billion deal to acquire US Patriot missiles.

Yet given that it is sandwiched between Iran across the Gulf and Saudi Arabia, Qatar sees Riyadh as both an ally and a threat. Qatar is likely to walk a fine line, even if it adopts some of its big brother’s more repressive tactics.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter in an autocratic state in which decision-making is highly centralized. But at risk is Qatar’s potential of becoming a rare example of a mega-sporting event that leaves a legacy of social if not political change, rather than white elephants and financial loss. The World Cup offers Qatar an opportunity to put its best foot forward and emerge as a forward-looking 21^st century regional model. The question is whether Qatari backtracking will squander the Gulf state’s unique opportunity.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: ��/��

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your  is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a .

The post Qatar Backtracks on Engagement With Critics appeared first on 51�Թ�.

This June has been characterized by sweltering heat in many parts of the world. Yet nothing has heated the global landscape more than the rise of the (ISIS), a jihadist offshoot of al-Qaeda. It has captured Sunni areas of that were once the stronghold of Saddam Hussein and announced the formation of a new caliphate. The have moved to secure their territory and are fighting ISIS to keep hold of their land. The writ of the Iraqi government runs only in Shi’a-dominated areas. Iraq is no longer a united country. The arbitrary lines drawn up by Mr. Sykes and Monsieur Picot to dismember the dying Ottoman Empire are now being ripped apart. Humpty Dumpty has fallen and no one can put it back together again.

One of the most interesting developments in the Middle East is that alliances are changing even more than the shifting sands of the Sahara desert. Curiously, the US finds itself on the same side as the Russians, the Iranians and the Syrian regime in opposing ISIS. Politics makes strange bedfellows and international politics only takes this further to an exponential degree. The chickens of the Iraq misadventure are finally coming to . Clearly, those in the White House, Capitol Hill and the State Department need a lesson or two in history.

This does not seem to be the case with Tony Blair. The former British prime minister suffers from an imperial hangover. Discredited over his fantabulous speech about weapons of mass destruction to the British parliament and over his record as a lackey of George W. Bush, Blair has emerged from his political grave to exhort intervention in Syria and elsewhere. He forgets that the Americans and the British do not have the appetite to spend blood and treasure on conflict in the midst of a continuing economic crisis. Boris Johnson, the charismatic mayor of London who once voted for the Iraq War but now calls it “a tragic mistake,” has Blair “to put a sock in it — or at least to accept the reality of the disaster he helped to engender.”

Conflict has also broken out in Europe, although so far no one is wielding pitchforks or guns. The European Commission has a new president. Jean-Claude Juncker, the former prime minister of Luxembourg, was chosen for the position by leaders of the (EU). Juncker is a highly controversial choice who purportedly likes cognac for breakfast. He is a wheeler dealer of an ancient era and British Prime Minister David Cameron opposed him strongly. As the recession deepens, the clash between different ideas of Europe is intensifying.

A hundred years ago, 19-year-old Gavrilo Princip shot dead Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand on June 28, 1914, triggering World War I. As Europe remembers the Great War, Bosnian Serbs are building a to Princip, stirring fresh debates. Identities are back in focus in Europe and the far-right is increasing its power even in France, the country on which the bureaucracy in Brussels is modeled. By appointing Juncker, the EU has demonstrated that it is run by incestuous elites that are stuck in a time warp.

This does not seem to be the case with Tony Blair. The former British prime minister suffers from an imperial hangover.

Much of the planet is glued to their televisions, laptops, tablets or cell phones watching the in . Even the US is falling in love with the sport that the world calls football but the Yanks incongruously call soccer. This World Cup is witnessing attacking football with goals galore, some of which have been a sight to behold. Most of the usual suspects such as Lionel Messi, Neymar and Thomas Müller are driving their teams forward but there is a new man in town. James Rodriguez, a Colombian youngster, has scored in every match so far, including a beauty that set the legendary stadium of Maracana alight.

Whilst the game is captivating audiences worldwide, it is important to remember that FIFA and Brazil have played footloose with the wallets of Brazilian taxpayers. Stadiums have cost too much, promises about public infrastructure have not been kept, and crime continues to blight daily life in Brazil. Yet for the next few weeks the land of the “jogo bonito” — Portuguese for the beautiful game — is going to enthrall the planet and provide joy to billions.

Remember, we welcome your comments, suggestions and articles. We live in what the Chinese would call interesting times and want you to join us in creating a truly global discourse. Please find below some of our best articles for this historic month.

[seperator style=”style1″]1: Social Inequality in Brazil: The People, Politics and the World Cup[/seperator]

Copyright © Shutterstock. All Rights Reserved

Brazilians are unified in their frustration with the government before the World Cup.

On May 20, bus drivers in São Paulo, Brazil’s biggest city, went on strike, closing 11 major terminals and leaving many people stranded. The newspaper A Folha ran a headline that stated: “Protest Hurts the People and Not the Big Shots.” After all, the people take the bus, while the political class and the rich do not.

[seperator style=”style1″]2: The United States, ISIS and the Destruction of Iraq[/seperator]

Creative Commons

Washington’s systematic destruction of Iraq is the root cause of the current crisis, not sectarianism.

Barely a month after US President Barack Obama hailed Iraq’s election as heralding a “peaceful, unified and prosperous future,” the country again verges on civil war. As the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) sweeps toward Baghdad, calls for military action gather momentum. In one commentator’s words: “We have a responsibility to those whose democracy we created.”

[seperator style=”style1″]3: Iraq: Collapse and Chaos in the Cradle of Civilization[/seperator]

Copyright © Shutterstock. All Rights Reserved

Iraq is collapsing and the government has to rely on its own political will and security capabilities.

Iraq, a country where nearly 4,500 American lives were lost and more than $1 trillion spent in an eight-plus year effort to oust a dictator and rebuild a nation, is approaching chaos — perhaps even a “failed state” status. The deterioration in Syria and the commensurate invasion and spread of extremism… 

[seperator style=”style1″]4: Comeback of the Woolly Mammoth: Bringing Back an Extinct Species [/seperator]

Copyright © Shutterstock. All Rights Reserved

What are the pros and cons of de-extinction?

For many years, the icy tundra of northern Siberia has been hiding mysteries of glorious creatures that once walked the Earth. As you travel back in time to the Late Pleistocene age, visualize a magnificent mammal with 15-foot long tusks that intimidate those saber-tooth tigers and plough snow for food. This royal beast was covered in a coat of shaggy hair… 

[seperator style=”style1″]5: A Dereliction of Duty: Homeless Veterans in America [/seperator]

Copyright © Shutterstock. All Rights Reserved

US government efforts to help homeless veterans in America are not enough.

When I first began grappling with homelessness issues in my local community quite a number of years ago, Dave, then-director of the local homeless shelter in our small town, told me a story that illustrates some of the special circumstances faced by homeless veterans in America.

��/ ��/ / / ��/��

The post 51�Թ�: Best of the Month appeared first on 51�Թ�.

I confess that I didn’t want to write this, but the circumstances and some personal angst force me to do so. Seeing all the buzz surrounding the FIFA World Cup as Brazil head into the last 16, I couldn’t help but remember the finals in South Africa in 2010, an event I had the pleasure to cover.

I went to several games, traveled around the country and saw much of the new infrastructure. Despite many problems, I came to realize that South Africa understood the importance of hosting a mega sports event and took the opportunity in several areas with enough professionalism. Was there corruption? Of course. But South Africa, famous in recent history for being the birthplace of apartheid and the country of Nelson Mandela, became the first African nation to hold the World Cup. And that slightly improved their position amid international public opinion.

Fast-forward to 2014 and we see failure after failure by the Rousseff government. The World Cup in Brazil was announced in 2007. Yes, seven years ago. What have we done during this period? A few overpriced stadiums here. A shameless airport renovation there.

What was announced as the “World Cup paid by companies” soon became the World Cup paid by the government. That’s right: Brazilian citizens are paying billions in tax so that FIFA bosses are satisfied. And the worst thing is the ghost of white elephants: What is Brazil going to do with those “FIFA standard” stadiums in cities where there’s not even a popular football team like Manaus or Cuiabá? “Yes, but that happened in South Africa too.” But are we so foolish that we can’t learn from the mistakes of others?

Despite the goals flying in, the truth is Brazil has already lost the World Cup. Brazilians have thrown in the trash the opportunity to invest in infrastructure, public transportation and decent services. The Brazilian government didn’t plan anything in advance and then tried to rush things at the eleventh hour — or in stoppage time, if you prefer. I am ashamed for the incompetence of our government, who don’t even know the meaning of “planning ahead.” Improvements in infrastructure are not only for foreigners or internal tourists. The World Cup could have been a legacy for Brazilians, if only it had been done correctly.

I wonder why we didn’t do it properly? Is it enough for us to be the “country of football”? Really? Is that enough for a nation? We proudly say that we are the only country to win the World Cup five times — possibly a sixth on July 13. We are proud that Brazil is the only national team that has participated in every World Cup. This is all said and done but, the way things are going, the only ones who will profit from the World Cup will be taxi drivers and English schools due to inflated prices.

In July 2010, then-President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva was asked about one of his promises: the bullet train between São Paulo and Rio. He said:

“The World Cup in Africa hasn’t even ended and you are already asking ‘where are the Brazilian airports? Where are Brazilian stadiums? Where are the Brazilian bullet trains? Where are Brazilian subways?’ As if we are a bunch of idiots who don’t know how to do things and set our priorities.”

Well, nearly two weeks into the World Cup, I’m still asking these questions but I don’t get an answer. So I guess, I must be an idiot. We, Brazilians, are millions and millions of idiots, according to Lula. Because I certainly can’t find the bullet trains, the new airports or the private stadiums.

And I feel sorry for tourists who have come to Brazil and want to rent a car. If one has a GPS, maybe he can get to a hotel — of course, that is if he doesn’t get robbed amid the country’s spiraling crime or if the car doesn’t sink into a pothole on the atrocious roads. Yes, we can’t even construct proper streets, so how can we build bullet trains?

Many nations use events like the World Cup to grow economically. If Brazil was an intelligent and honest country, we would have invested properly to improve the lives of Brazilians. Instead, the Rousseff government has spent over $11 billion on a World Cup. Unfortunately, we are too used to the “Brazilian way.” Who knows? Maybe we’ll do a better job in the 2054 World Cup.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

/

The post Brazil Has Lost the World Cup appeared first on 51�Թ�.

With the FIFA World Cup underway, there are many out there who have no idea about the history of this long-loved sport. If you love football, you’re probably only aware of its history from recent times. But football has a long, gruesomely violent and hugely interesting past. And so begins a tale of how a violent peasant pastime became a multi-million pound industry.

Traces of football’s history go way, way back. The Greeks had a game called , which seems to have involved athletes hurling and catching a ball (there is a marble relief of this in the National Museum in Athens). This game may have been a precursor of the Roman game , where a small, hard ball was thrown among a throng of players divided into teams.

In the 9^th century in Britain, a monk recorded how every year on Shrove Tuesday the youth of London “would go into the fields to play at the famous game of ball.”

Unlike expensive courtly pursuits such as jousting, these games required no specialized equipment and were thus open to all social classes. The innovation of a goal (usually a prominent local landmark) may have derived from the chivalric “passage of arms,” a military exercise in which a group of knights attempted to defend the gate of a castle or town from attack.

Mob Football

The first unambiguous reference to football in England is a writ for preserving the peace in London (dated April 13, 1314), which notes the “great uproar in the City, through certain tumults arising from the striking of large footballs in the public fields.” That football could lead to serious injury or death is borne out by the records. In 1321, for example, one player died from wound sustained after accidentally running onto a sheathed knife.

Yet despite a succession of royal proclamations promoting archery and a statute of 1409-10 forbidding laborers and servants from “playing at the Balls,” this “common, undignified, and worthless” game remained ever popular.

So what now? No salary caps and unlimited transfer fees mean that in England there’s nothing to prevent the richest clubs from buying not only the best established players, but also many unproven kids — stars in the making who aren’t yet old enough to vote. 

Football was also entertaining; a spectator sport in the making. The dangers of the game, however, remained. Civic authorities in 17^th century London, Manchester, Grimsby and Clitheroe banned football playing in the streets, fearing broken windows and tumults.

They were not being alarmist, as a riot instigated by football players in the fens only a few months before the outbreak of the First English Civil War demonstrated. Another disturbance became a prelude to the Second Civil War: unhappy that Christmas had been abolished, rioters at Canterbury used a football match to attract an unruly crowd to their cause.

In the 18^th century, the rules we now recognize on the pitch today began to emerge. At one match, it was determined that “two men will not be allowed to engage one only.” Similarly, at a game played at Ditchingham in 1741, there were judges whose job was to settle “all differences that may arise.” By the late 18^th century, members of the aristocracy, keen to have a healthy work force, began organizing matches — often in concert with local publicans. Prizes in the form of hats were provided for the winners (losers tended to receive stockings).

Public School Rules

From the late 18^th century and through into the 19^th century, increased concern for public order, tighter labor discipline, the enclosure of land and migration to the cities led to an erosion of popular customs. Football was not immune from these changes.

Though the game continued to be played in highly publicized contests, traditional football was in decline. At the same time, public schools, where hitherto football had been regarded as ungentlemanly and “fit only for butcher boys,” began to codify the rules of their ball games.

Copyright © Shutterstock. All Rights Reserved

At Rugby,  rules that permitted players to carry a ball were set down in 1845. Eton followed suit in 1849 with  that, in deliberate contrast to Rugby, forbade Etonians from handling the ball. At the universities, undergraduates brought with them the rules favored by their public schools.

After some attempts to reconcile the various codes, Cambridge produced a  code in 1863, which made no mention of handling the ball. These Cambridge rules were to form the basis of the code eventually adopted by the Football Association established later that year.

Passion and Professionalism

The growth of Association Football in the late 19^th century was remarkable. Amateur clubs sometimes linked to firms or churches, but more often reflecting neighborhood loyalties, mushroomed in the industrial towns and cities of the north (in the 1880s, Liverpool alone had more than 100).

Many teams built their grounds among factories and the worker’s houses, cementing the support of their local communities. By the early 20^th century, many of the largest cities had two major teams and the often intense local rivalry between these clubs was regularly played out before hordes of excited, partisan spectators that represented the largest regular gatherings in peace-time.

The sectarian-fueled passions of the 50,000 or more who regularly witnessed the New Year’s Day clashes between Celtic and Rangers found an outlet in 1909, when 6,000 fans following a draw between the two teams; 54 policemen were injured, the ground damaged and virtually every street-lamp in the vicinity of the stadium destroyed.

The fierce competitiveness that drove teams toward league and cup glory accelerated the professionalization of football. Hungry for success on the pitch, teams began to recruit players from far and wide to realize their ambitions. Victorious teams, like the side that won the cup for Tottenham Hotspur in 1901, often contained no local players. Yet supporters continued to identify with the individuals that wore their team colors.

Copyright © Shutterstock. All Rights Reserved

Professional football players were perceived as working-class heroes and were paid accordingly: In 1931, the maximum annual salary of a professional footballer, including unofficial bonuses, was probably nearly £400; a figure far higher than the average industrial wage. Transfer fees were also forever on the increase.

In the 1930s, football was still seen as cheap entertainment, but it was also big business, providing growing employment opportunities. Demand for news had created sports papers like the Saturday afternoon �����Ի� Green’Un. Demand for food and drink benefited the catering trade. Demand for cigarettes led to the cult of the cigarette card made famous by John Player and Son. And the demand for gambling spawned pools companies like Littlewoods and Vernons.

There was also advertising; the FA Cup finalists of 1934 promoted flannel trousers, Shredded Wheat and shoe-polish. By the eve of World War II, The Times could describe football as “something like a national industry.”

The Golden Age?

In the post-war era, we have witnessed an ever-widening gulf between rich and poor clubs, where success for the elite is no longer measured by performance on the pitch but by  on the stock exchange.

Clubs now recruit managers from outside the United Kingdom and buy players of every nationality. In their wake have come team doctors, dieticians, sports psychologists and publicists. Players are now celebrities with agents and personal assistants. The best earn more in a week than the prime minister does in a year — and more in six weeks than a nurse will make in a lifetime of service with the National Health Service (NHS).

The spectacle we watch and read about daily is sold to us with an ever-increasing sophistication that maximizes a brand loyalty unparalleled on the high street.

Football has never had it so good, but questions remain as to the game’s future direction. Will, as some predict, the industry’s bubble burst? Will fans tire of a handful of clubs cleaning up domestically and sharing the European prizes between them? Financial Fair Play has to be toothless. Hardly a surprise, perhaps, given the high-stakes nature of the game.

So what now? No salary caps and unlimited transfer fees mean that in England there’s nothing to prevent the richest clubs from buying not only the best established players, but also many unproven kids — stars in the making who aren’t yet old enough to vote. And if the best indicator of where a team will finish is its annual wage bill — occasional managerial brilliance and incompetence excepted — things might get a little too predictable for fans already forced to shell out more to watch a game than they ever have before.

*[Ariel Hessayon does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations. This article was originally published on . Read the original .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

/ / /

The post From Violent Peasants to Megastars: The History of Football appeared first on 51�Թ�.

As temperatures start rising in the northern hemisphere, the US has just raised them further by calling China a “destabilizing” force. To say that May 2014 has been eventful would be an understatement. China already has strained ties with Japan over islands near Taiwan in the East China Sea. Now, it is embroiled in a dispute with the Philippines and Vietnam over islands in the South China Sea. China’s installation of an oil rig set off protests in Vietnam. Now, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan and the US have forged a united front against China. It is most likely that tensions will abate shortly, but the cycle of provocation and retaliation in Asia is acquiring a worrying pattern.

This month, two Asian countries have demonstrated two models of government. After months of opposition, the Thai elite have dropped all pretence and the military has conducted a coup. Yingluck Shinawatra, the former prime minister, has been deposed. Divisions will increase further in a country that is already deeply divided. Some question whether can remain united for much longer.

Elsewhere in Asia, after a protracted election and a grueling campaign, India Narendra Modi as prime minister. He is the leader of the center-right Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) that won on its promise to increase economic growth and generate jobs. The Congress party that has been in power for much of India’s independence lost badly. The Nehru dynasty that leads the party has suffered a big blow and some claim that the Nehruvian model itself is in question.

In Europe, there has been a political earthquake. There was a surge in votes for far-right parties across the continent. In the UK and France, they won the maximum vote share. This has shaken Europe. For far too long, the European project was an elite enterprise. It suffered from a democratic deficit that everyone talked about ad nauseam whilst doing little to address it. David Cameron, the British prime minister and a leader for the television era, announced that Brussels had become “too big, too bossy and too interfering.” Cameron has already promised a referendum in the UK on leaving the European Union (EU). Britain has long had a tradition of skepticism vis-à-vis Europe. Now, other countries are questioning their membership of the EU as well. As high unemployment buffets the continent, the European project is suffering in popularity even in hitherto impregnable bastions such as Spain.

As World Cup fever is breaking out across Brazil and the entire world, the Brazilian economy has slowed down in the first quarter of 2014. 

In Turkey, an explosion in a coal mine left more than 200 people dead and many more injured. Those trapped were two kilometers (1.2 miles) below the surface and about four kilometers (2.4 miles) from the entrance. The mine was privately owned and lacked basic safety features. This raises questions about the economic development model that Turkey has been following under Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. International Labor Organization statistics reveal approximately 1,200 deaths in Turkey because of unregulated and unsafe working conditions, the third highest rate in the world for fatal occupational accidents. Erdogan has reacted callously, unions are protesting and Turkey is in mourning. Workers’ safety will come under scrutiny in the days to come.

In South Africa, President Jacob Zuma took charge with a jumbo cabinet. It seems that Zuma is shoring up support within his party that has shifted significantly to the left. Even so, seven members of parliament have since Zuma announced his cabinet. It is clear that the African National Congress is becoming a party of patronage, with members working less for their stated ideals and more for their personal interests. Meanwhile, South Africa’s economy is ailing as platinum workers continue to be on strike.

As World Cup fever is breaking out across Brazil and the entire world, the Brazilian economy has slowed down in the first quarter of 2014. It grew by a measly 0.2% as inflation and low business investment took their toll. The central bank has raised interest rates to 11% to curb rising prices. The specter of protests during the FIFA World Cup has reappeared with gusto.

On a final note, this month we launched our new website.  Please give us feedback about how to improve it further. Meanwhile, please find below our best articles for May.

[seperator style=”style1″]1: Private Information and Online Security: How to Disappear From Big Brother[/seperator]

Copyright © Shutterstock. All Rights Reserved

As our online presence increases, so do the security risks to our private information.

In today’s world of mass surveillance and obsession with social media, Frank M. Ahearn’s job is to help people erase their digital footprint. Initially working undercover for private investigators, Ahearn discovered he had an amazing knack for tracking people. In the world before Internet, there was an underground of gray information, which he was an expert at navigating. But, as the laws changed, and personal information became easily available, Ahearn decided to turn the tables on his old job.

[seperator style=”style1″]2: Modi Wins Big as India Aspires for Prosperity[/seperator]

Copyright © Shutterstock; All Rights Reserved

Modi has been elected to ensure economic growth, increase employment, lower inflation and lift millions out of poverty.

India’s cacophonous and protracted elections have resulted in a clear winner. Narendra Modi will lead his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government without needing the support of any other party in parliament. This is the first time a non-Congress party has won a complete majority and signals the end of coalition politics, at least for now. A low caste tea-seller has risen to the premiership of the world’s largest democracy, defeating a powerful political dynasty. 

[seperator style=”style1″]3: Crimea and the State of Secessionism[/seperator]

Copyright © Shutterstock; All Rights Reserved

Recent events in Crimea are indicative of a larger phenomenon: the rise of independence movements by distinct identity groups across the globe.

No one has any illusions regarding Russia’s frequent intrusions into its neighbors’ affairs. The Kremlin considers all post-Soviet states — with the possible exception of NATO member Baltic states — to be within its sphere of influence.

Therefore, when first Georgia, and now Ukraine, began cozying up to the West, Moscow found it within its national interest to meddle, destabilize and weaken its neighbors enough to maintain its dominance.

[seperator style=”style1″]4: The Real Face of Thai Political Reform Today[/seperator]

Copyright © Shutterstock; All Rights Reserved

Democracy in Thailand cannot be realized until the elite favor rule of law over rule by law.

Thailand is a political mess. For the fourth time since 2006, against the will of the majority electorate, an elected prime minister has been forcibly removed from office. The “Thai political crisis,” as it is often labeled, is nevertheless a misnomer. A political crisis, by definition, is when conflicting parties must make consequential decisions in a short period of time with limited information. Thailand’s conflicting parties are indeed making consequential decisions but not within a short period of time, and not with limited information. 

[seperator style=”style1″]5: Kejriwal and the Changing Fortunes of the Aam Aadmi Party[/seperator]

Copyright © Shutterstock. All Rights Reserved

Despite Kejriwal’s loss of public support, the AAP brings new ideas and fresh energy to Indian politics.

It is said that good things come to those who wait. In the case of Arvind Kejriwal and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), this was true till December 2013. The party won 28 seats, surprising everyone to form the government in Delhi.

The AAP has suffered some serious setbacks since. Kejriwal resigned from the chief minister’s post in 49 days over the Lokpal Bill. The party contested elections to the Lok Sabha, India’s lower house of parliament, but won a mere four seats in Punjab.

/�� / / / /

The post 51�Թ�: Best of the Month appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In the early morning hours on January 7, Brazilian city officials arrived in the favela slum of in Rio de Janeiro to forcibly evict the families living there. In total, 12 homes, some of which still had their residents’ belongings inside, were demolished, sending tremors throughout the neighborhood. When the outraged residents took to the streets in protest, police fired pepper spray, tear gas and rubber bullets as protesters returned fire with rocks and bottles.

This particular favela is located less than half a mile from Macarana Stadium, where the final FIFA World Cup match will be played this summer.

So far, thousands of people have been forcibly removed from their homes in Rio de Janeiro. , victims of forced evictions must be relocated close to their previous homes.

But many are being relocated to the outskirts of the city, far away from their previous residences. And the compensation packages of $22,000 for families forced to relocate have been for a country where real estate prices are rising rapidly.

Unfortunately, these evictions are not limited to just Rio de Janeiro. Forced evictions are happening throughout the country, and they are only one of the myriad problems facing Brazil’s poor in the midst of its World Cup and Olympic preparations.

Who Benefits?

As the 12 Brazilian cities that will host events prepare for an influx of foreign visitors, they have launched a host of construction projects to build stadiums and improve roads, public transportation and airports.

By August 2013, after years of efforts, only half the stadiums were ready, and an estimated $3.2 billion had already been spent — a figure three times more than the original budget. The majority of that money came from the public treasury, despite from the sports minister that no taxpayer money would be used to build or rehabilitate stadiums.

To add insult to injury, after the stadiums are built, they to private firms to operate. These firms, not the Brazilian people, will reap the benefits of this enormous taxpayer expense.

The that building and rehabilitating stadiums will spur development in the surrounding neighborhoods. Even as their taxpayer dollars are forked over to private developers, officials assure the public they will benefit from upgrades to roads, hospitals and other infrastructure.

These same claims were made in South Africa during its preparations for the World Cup in 2010, and they proved to be illusory. South Africa spent $6 billion on its stadiums for the World Cup, which FIFA and South Africa’s Local Organizing Committee promised the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) by around 3%.

However, shortly after the games ended, the South African Finance Ministry revealed there was only a 0.4% boost. Out of the ten stadiums that were built or rehabilitated, nine became what are called “white elephants” — venues that are too large for local use and essentially become a waste of space and money. The Brazilian government’s audit courts found that of Brazil’s 12 stadiums were likely to become white elephants.

The controversy surrounding the stadiums just compounds Brazil’s problem of inequality.

Last summer, when the Brazilian government proposed a fare hike for public transportation in Rio de Janiero and Sao Paulo, it was met with resounding protest. Thousands took to the streets in demonstrations against the 20-cent increase in fares, soon to include the country’s failing public sector and ballooning inequality.

As always, the poor are the hardest hit: Brazilians making minimum wage earn just $313 a month, while dealing with a staggering of 6.5%. Thousands of Brazilians living in favelas have to hospitals.

But the protests showed that middle-class Brazilians are growing increasingly restive as well. At 36% of GDP, Brazil ranked 12th out of the 30 countries with the in 2011.

Yet despite exorbitantly high taxes and a booming economy, the public sector still has ample room for improvement. Brazil’s education system, for example, is performing poorly: In 2009, the literacy and math skills of Brazilian 15-year-olds ranked .

The extravagant expense of the World Cup, of course, did not go unmentioned by protesters. How could the Brazilian government spend billions on an international mega-event, while the basic needs of so many go unmet?

An Insult to Soccer

Played by 250 million people in virtually every corner of the map, soccer is the most popular sport in the world. For one month this summer, soccer fans all over the planet will don their jerseys, crowd their bars, and cheer their teams on to victory. The atmosphere will be electric in Brazil and around the world.

The host country should strive to make sure its whole population benefits from the World Cup. It is an important event and a rare opportunity for our world to come together, despite our differences to celebrate hard work and (mostly) friendly competition. However, the blatant discrimination against the poor puts the World Cup in a negative light.

Using public money to build shiny new stadiums while not investing in education or public health is morally bankrupt. Evicting people from their homes and leaving them with little to live on is a gross injustice to the people of Brazil and fans of soccer worldwide.

It is time for the Brazilian government to reevaluate its policies and priorities. Surely, government officials and FIFA officials can come together to figure out a way to have an economically sound and socially responsible event.

Home to world-class footballer Pele and the winner of five World Cups (more than any other nation), Brazil is no stranger to soccer. Die-hard Brazilian fans are known for being among the most loyal supporters in international soccer, but even they have limits. Their intense love of soccer is now overshadowed by their need for economic and social justice.

For those who love sports and justice, it may be difficult to enjoy the World Cup this summer.

*[This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Image: Copyright © . All Rights Reserved

The post Brazil’s World Cup Evictions: An Insult to Soccer appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Genevieve Zingg: Why have protests broken out in Brazil?

Felipe Machado: The protests were originally against the 20 cent rise in bus fare. The increase caused one or two smaller protests to break out on Paulista Avenue in São Paulo. The protests were initially organized and carried out by the free-fare movement known as the MPL (Movimento Passe Livre), a Brazilian social movement that advocates the adoption of free fares in mass transit. It’s a very young group, made up of university students, 19- and 20-year-olds, who used social media – Facebook, Twitter, and so on – to organize the protests.

The protests closed down the avenue but started to get violent. At the third protest, police started to shoot rubber bullets into the crowd. Older people, people who weren’t even part of the protest, were shot with rubber bullets. The protests were strongly repressed but instead of frightening the demonstrators, this brought more people out. People were seeing the violence and police repression on YouTube and other social media sites; seeing police blaming everything on the protestors when they were partly responsible for the damage and violence. People came out in droves, rioting against the police, and the movement spread all over Brazil.

It became something really interesting. Something curious happened. Suddenly, it became a movement not just about the 20 cent bus fare increase, but about everything that is wrong in Brazil. The government has money to invest in World Cup stadiums, but no money for healthcare, education, transportation, and public infrastructure. The protests spread very quickly because of social media and the Internet, but the MPL lost control of it. The movement has no head. The head is the Internet. It’s a very organic protest, a mix of many different groups with many different demands, a reaction to the World Cup expenditures, to the broken education and healthcare systems.

Amidst all this, amidst all the chaos, there are criminals making it even more complicated by taking advantage of it. Breaking things, setting fire to things, looting, stealing, just making everything more chaotic and difficult to control.

Zingg: Who is protesting?

Machado: It’s really interesting. There are no parties involved in this; the Workers Party tried to go into the streets and be part of the movement but they were thrown out, rejected. There is no single party involved in the Brazilian protests, and the protestors and independent citizens fight every party who tries to claim it.

Zingg: Do you think the protest will peter out or continue and leave a lasting impact?

Machado: What kind of impact is really hard to say, but there has already been one. The president, Dilma Rousseff, went on TV and invited protestors into the head of the government to talk about what’s going on. There is already an impact because she met with the MPL, the free-fare group of university students, and ceded the 20 cent bus fare rise. Kids, young kids, talking to the president. But nothing serious came of it; no fare at all is not believable; it’s too much to ask, and they left saying bad things about the president, about how she’s not prepared, not good. It’s difficult. If you don’t know who is protesting how can you talk to them?

The president had another meeting — really a symbolic meeting — with 27 governors of states and mayors of the capitals. Rousseff said she wants to hear what they want and their opinions, and proposed a pact to get together and discuss. But what can come out of a meeting? It’s 60 people in a room, really just a speech from her to them. Nothing has really come out of it yet. There is no short-term solution. She’s proposing political reform, but that will take six months to a year and next year are the elections. It’s really messy. July 1 is supposed to be a general strike, and on July 11 there will be another one. Everyone is trying to do something but no one is doing anything connected to each other. It’s hard to draw anything from it. This can weaken the country — having events, strikes, and weekly protests. It could continue until 2014, the year of the World Cup and the next presidential election. And FIFA has already said if Brazil can’t keep the players safe, they will cancel or relocate the World Cup. It’s a dark scene.

Zingg: People ascribe the failure of governance as a reason for the protests. Do you think that is true?

Machado: No party has emerged as the opposition. They are all pushed back. People who go and say they are a part of it are pushed out. But how can you transform the political system if you are not a part of it? If you are not in a party, how can you change the system? It’s hard to think of a solution without the political players. But society — the demonstrators, the protestors — they don’t want the political players involved at all. Que se vayan todos – it’s an expression from Argentina that means “Let’s get rid of them all.” And the opposition doesn’t want to push too hard in case of kick-back. Everyone is waiting to see what will happen but no one is taking any action. The government doesn’t know what to do. They can’t propose anything because there are so many demands and everything is pushed back by the people. The answer should come from society, but society is not organized enough to do anything. The MPL had the fare increase cancelled and said they are out of the protest because they got what they wanted. But then they came back in with new demands. It’s not only the young people now, it’s everyone: parents with kids are marching, old people are marching. It’s chaotic but optimistic and a little bit violent; but the majority are facing it in a positive way.

Zingg: Brazil faces a huge corruption problem. It has spent twice the amount as Germany and South Africa on the World Cup. The people have been left with the bill while contractors prosper. Do you think this issue has reached a tipping point?

Machado: The Confederations Cup is smaller than the World Cup, with only eight teams. But it created a window of opportunity for the movement. Many international journalists are here — other countries are here too, Spain, Italy, Japan and so on – and it created a window.

The World Cup didn’t start as an issue but it has become one. When Brazil was chosen as the country for the World Cup, everyone said it would be paid for by private companies, businesses, and sponsors. But then the Brazilian government lent money to build brand-new stadiums or paid for it themselves. They are spending billions of dollars on a private event which will be so expensive that it is only really for the rich, and will be very profitable for FIFA instead of Brazil. Everyone is angry that the government said at first they wouldn’t be spending public money, but then spent billions on it. It’s become a very strong issue. Brazil plays against Uruguay on Wednesday and big protests have been organized against the game and against the World Cup. It’s an important paradox that a football nation is against the Cups. Brazil is a symbol of football; football is symbolic for us. An event as big as the World Cup should be a good thing to stimulate the economy. But it has become the bad guy. Everyone is a villain and the World Cup has become one too.

Zingg: FIFA is projected to make a $1.1 billion profit from the 2014 World Cup, and has few plans to help develop Brazil’s infrastructure. What does this mean for the credibility of FIFA and Brazil’s enthusiasm for the World Cup?

Machado: The people expected spending on infrastructure, roads, better connections from airports to cities, and subways, but the government spent all the money on the stadiums and not infrastructure — FIFA demanded that. We have stadiums, good stadiums, but FIFA demanded better ones. There was no money from private companies and corporations; they invest in the stadiums, but not in infrastructure for Brazil.

Zingg: How much of a role has inequality played in triggering these protests?

Machado: Only economic inequality plays a role. I covered the World Cup in South Africa and there were hidden racial tensions, but in Brazil we don’t have that. It’s not about that. It’s only economic, against the government. They did such a bad job organizing the World Cup – the finals take place in one year and there are no new roads, just stadiums. We had good stadiums. Lasting infrastructure would have provided long-term benefits for Brazil. What will the stadiums do for us when the World Cup is finished?

Zingg: Protests have broken out in many parts of the world in recent times, the latest example being Turkey. Are the Brazilian protests part of a larger trend?

Machado: It has a connection. Every country has their own reasons, and most of them all started from very specific demands. In Turkey, the shopping mall in the square; in Brazil, the bus fare. But then everything that’s wrong comes out of the closet. You can establish a pattern in these protests — although they are very different. In Brazil, it’s very economic, similar to the Occupy Wall Street movement against the big bank systems. Brazilians like these protests because they can say what they want, but there are so many demands that it’s not as specific as other protests around the world. The unifying factor in the Brazilian protests is probably political reform. Everyone wants political reform, but that can mean so many different things to different people. Ultimately, it’s against the government’s bad investment of public money. It is a demand to rebuild Brazil.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Image: Copyright © . All Rights Reserved

The post Brazil: The Headless Revolt appeared first on 51�Թ�.