123

The World Cup — A Political FootballJustin Wren-Lewis and Alan ClarkeThe International scene : the play’s the thing ....

The World Cup finals have, traditionally, been the stage for sporting encounters rather thanpolitical conflicts. While the Olympic games have increasingly become arenas for the scoring ofpolitical points (with the black African boycotts, American black power demonstrations, and, InMoscow, some of the larger Western Alliance nations withdrawing their teams from the

competition), the World Cup has remained politically innocent. The 1972 Munich games Is largelyremembered for the terrorist attack on the Israeli team by the Black September group, the 1974Munich World Cup will be recalled as a celebration of the halcyon days of Dutch football.

Obviously the Olympics, with so many more nations to accommodate, has more politicaldifferences to suppress. Perhaps more fundamentally, as Geoffrey Nowell Smith (1978-79)suggests, the Olympic games are fought out between the super powers of East and West,whereas the World Cup’s ’super powers’ are the continents of Europe and South America.Despite the extremely dubious and bloody regimes of many of the Central and South Americanstates, major political differences between the two footballing power blocs are rare. Rare, atleast, until the 1982 World Cup. (1).Preparations for the 1982 tournament in Spain were upset by an Olympic official’s nightmare -two of the six seeded teams were at war with one another. Football’s International ruling body,FIFA, must have expected more boycott problems than Yorkshire County Cricket Club -therewere, after all, three British teams in the tournament. Yet, incredible despite speculation to thecontrary, the World Cup finals began with the Argentinian, English, Scottish and Northern Irishteams all present and correct, while British and Argentine soldiers were still killing each other Inthe South Atlantic. Now was the time, if ever there was one, for the World Cup to lose its politicalvirginity. Further political spice was added by the presence of both Poland and the Soviet Union,while the team from El Salvador arrived with two of their squad members having been killed Incivil war.

We propose to examine the ways in which political discourses did and did not Intrude on to thefootballing world as seen on television in June/July 1982. The first week of the tournament saw aBritish victory in the Falklands, and victories by the English team (against the Czechs andFrench) in Bilbao. Would sporting partiality give way to nationalist fervour? How the political andfootballing discourses combine nationalism with traditional sporting fervour became a majorfocus for the viewing of the World Cup. In looking at the representation of England, Argentina andother key nations on TV, it is necessary to address the complexities giving voice to discourses ofnationalism and politics amongst the footballing cliches, but also the conspicuous absence ofsome of these discourses.

The languages of sport and politics are not always, of course, easily distinguishable. A footballteam may submit a defended goalmouth to an &dquo;aerial bombardment&dquo; of crosses from the wings,while a hard accurate shot may be described by a variety of militaristic metaphors - &dquo;acannonball shot&dquo;, &dquo;like a bullet&dquo; etc. Nevertheless, the use of sporting metaphors In war andnationalistic/militaristic metaphors in sport doesn’t imply a necessary conflation of the twodiscourses. The status of sporting and political languages are seen as distinct as fiction andfact. Sporting metaphors were rarely used during the Falklands conflict - to have done so would

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016tcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

124

have been to import connotations inappropriate to the seriousness of the event. Similarly, withinthe context of a football match, the &dquo;aerial bombardment&dquo; and &dquo;the cannonball shot&dquo; arerendered harmless. When political discourses genuinely permeate the sporting world, they bringwith them the consequences and meanings that force the sporting event to refer outside theparameters of its own world.To some extent, Spain 1982 saw the World Cup come out of its sporting isolation. What it alsodemonstrated, however, was the strength of football’s own International language, a languagewhose dominance was able to resist too great a politicisation of one of the world’s great sportingevents. We shall attempt to trace both these sets of discourses, as well as pinpointingcontradictory moments between them.Before doing so, we should briefly mention the nature of football’s International language - alanguage without its own internal contradictions - and the cultural framework it draws upon.Much has been made of the use by members of television’s footbal lIng fraternity of radallculturalstereo-types. Andrew Tudor (1975), writing in the British Film Institute monograph Football onTelevision, argues that: &dquo;the general ethnic/cultural stereo-type remains the interpretative tool ofInternational sports coverage, Inevitably reinforcing the nationalism already built into suchevents as the Olympic games and the World Cup.&dquo; Not only does this ignore the very differentbrands of nationalism appropriated by the World Cup and the Olympics, it falls to do justice tofootball’s own well developed system of national/culture identifications. Tudor (1975) Instanceshis point with reference to the &dquo;Latin Temperament&dquo; stereo-type - &dquo;an image well bolstered byother elements in our culture&dquo;. With reference to the 1974 World Cup finals, he continues :

the teams of Latin America and Southern Europe are invariably lumped into this oneperceptual class. Even the Brazilians have not so much escaped the stereo-type ashad a transmutation produced specifically for them. Their relaxed, extrovert,attacking football (more stereo-types) is construed as an unusual though Intelligiblechannel through which the Latin Temperament may manifest itself.

This would be to identify, for example, Italy and Brazil within &dquo;this one perceptual class&dquo;,different products of the same culture. Certainly the Italians and the Argentinians were linked toInstances where their similar styles of football were reflections of our culture’s ambivalentattitude towards the &dquo;Latin Temperament&dquo; - as David Coleman put it; &dquo;both sides have areputation for mixing the brutal and the cynical with the breathtakingly skilful&dquo;. Italian football,however, has a style and a history all its own - a footballing tradition that the pundits constantlymade reference to. This tradition is based upon Italy’s often &dquo;cynical&dquo; though &dquo;well organised&dquo;defence, and their tendency (and ability) to defend a one goal lead. This ability/tendency wasrepeatedly elaborated by both panellists and commentators, as a &dquo;typical&dquo; (lan St John) and&dquo;Inbred&dquo; (John Bond) part of their game, a footballing phenomenon that is neither Nordic norLatin.

Brazil, on the other hand, are endowed with a footballing culture all their own, a culture thatdraws upon South American cliches -- the team play football to samba rhythms - but isnevertheless seen «s unique. For the footballing fraternity, indeed, the Brazilain culture Is afootballing culture, the Brazilians &dquo;express themselves&dquo; on the football pitch (John Bond), a team&dquo;who regard the football pitch as a stage&dquo; (Archie Macpherson). Barry Davies described one ofthe players as &dquo;like a ballet dancer&dquo;, while for John Motson, the whole team’s style was &dquo;highlyartistic&dquo;. Brazil are located within the lexicon of South American culture, but their footballingstyle and traditions transcend this ethnic site to form its own &dquo;high&dquo; culture - football as an artform.

When Italy played Brazil, the differences between their footballing styles force commentators tocollapse the ’Latin’ link completely, BBC billing the game as an &dquo;explosive&dquo; clash between &dquo;thecontrasting styles of Europe and South America&dquo;. Styles of football are constantly related tocultural stereo-types, but they have their own distinct autonomy, that is always more than andnot reducible to an ethnic/cultural character. it is the distinguishable patterns of Internationalfootball that provide players, presenters and pundits with an extensive footballing language toidentify and locate nations as footballing nations within a footballing world.

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016tcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

125

Behind the Iron Curtain

It was not, oddly enough, the South Atlantic war that produced the most overtly political momentof the 1982 World Cup. The hard reality of the political world, with nation pitted against nation,made its most unambiguous appearance fairly late in the tournament, when Poland foundthemselves playing the Soviet Union for a place in the semi-finals. As Alan Roud, writing in TheObserver, (18.7.1982) commented : &dquo;Judging from the passions aroused in Spain and in the

studio, it might have been Solidarity versus the KGB.&dquo; David Coleman (2) Introduced BBC’scoverage of the game with the news of defections amongst the Polish supporters - &dquo;if ever therewas a football match with meaning .... &dquo; Poland &dquo;a country .... trying to free Itself from Sovietbacked communism&dquo; were given the opportunity to defeat their oppressors on the football pitch- there was &dquo;much more at stake than a football match&dquo;, the game was &dquo;a symbol&dquo;,crystallising political and footbaliing rivalries.The BBC team could not be accused of standing on the politicallfootballing fence. A Solidaritysupporter interviewed before the contest appealed to &dquo;all countries supporting human rights&dquo; toback the Polish cause: Coleman, Davies, etc., etc., as representatives of one such country, dulyrallied round the flag of freedom. The former, sensing a consensus, enthused that &dquo;there shouldbe a tremendous reception for the Polish national anthem&dquo;.

However, as Nowell-Smith (1978-79) points out, there is &dquo;an ’arbitrariness of the sign’ in terms ofwhat football as signifier can be made to represent&dquo;, and if the Soviet side were representativesof the forces of communist oppression in this instance, they were not always so. Their position(and Poland’s) was located on the discursive level most appropriate to the narrative context.Futhermore, the presence of political, cultural and footballing contexts throughout the coveragemeant that the Polish and Soviet sides became different (and often incompatible) discursiveobjects at different points. We would agree with Nowell-Smith (1978-79) that although &dquo;it is oftenargued that .... ’real’ social divisions at the level of religion or race .... (are) reflected or expressedat the level of football .... it would be better to say that football is available for a whole variety ofpolitical or quasi-political Identifications&dquo;. When Poland played the USSR, the politicalconnotations of the clash made an already available political discourse an appropriate means ofInterpreting it.The Soviet Union i.s the centre of another cluster of discourses around the nature of theCommunist system. This construction of the unity of all countries behind the Iron Curtain assymbolic equivalents overlays the individual national discourses of difference. This ’Easternbloc’ neutralises the tensions and antagonisms of these discourses. Within this bloc, football ischaracterised by its dullness and uniformity - a reflection of the aridity of life under the heel ofCommunism. Thus when both Poland and Czechoslavakia opened with dour, uninspiredperformances, Mike Channon was able to link both nations by labelling the games asmanifestations of this style. (3) The following day Jimmy Greaves was able to collapse thedistinctions between footballing and political discourses with a comment that the &dquo;Iron Curtaincountries&dquo; were &dquo;going through a torrid time at the moment&dquo;. Although the referent of thiscomment is the recent football, the multi accentuality of the sentence is given emphasis by thecontinuing relevance of the political discourses. When on the other hand, the Soviet side playedBrazil in their opening match, Coleman billed the game as between the differing styles of Europeand South America - or &dquo;the favourites&dquo; versus &dquo;one of the best teams in Europe&dquo;. Here theappropriate lexicon for interpreting the game was not the geo-political opposition East/West butthe tradltonal geo-footballing opposition Europe/South America. The dominance of the

footballing discourse that Is revealed in this comment provides the context within which otherdiscourses must work. It is not an Immutable framework, but one which establishes parametersand constraints for other discourses called upon In the commentary.It is significant that political comments about the Soviet team were frequentlyappropriated into the (footballing) narrative through the joke form. The joke allows theteller to refer to two quite distinct discourses simultaneously, apparently unifyingthose discourses while actually relylng on recognisable differences/contradictionsbetween them In order to function. Thus Barry Davies was able to suggest, during thehalf-time interval of the USSR/Scotland match, that the Soviet manager, Beskov, mightencourage his players by showing them pictures of the salt mines, while Archie

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016tcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

126

Macpherson, reporting from a relaxed Soviet camp before the game, showed that the

players were &dquo;not up in their room reading Karl Marx&dquo;, but lounging in the Spanishsunshine surrounded by topless women. The political world becomes, in a humourous

paradox, appropriate precisely because (to the footballing world) it is inappropriate.This is significant for two reasons. Firstly, the existence of a well developed frame ofreference within the footballing world for understanding stylistic/cultural differencesbetween nations allows the commentator to go far beyond a discourse of politicalantagonism (&dquo;us&dquo; versus &dquo;them&dquo;, &dquo;goodies&dquo; versus &dquo;baddies&dquo;) to identify the nuancesand subtitles of each team (what &dquo;system&dquo; they play, which skills they exhibit, whichplayers are distinguishable). To reduce this complex play of significations to a single(and perhaps inappropriate) signified is to restrict the footballing fraternity and denythem their expertise. The importance of the panel discussions and post-matchanalyses in the coverage of football has increased precisely in order to tease out a

whole set of Interpretations - the football match is too complex an entity to simplyrepresent itself (when experts or panellists don’t do this they are deemed to have failedin their ’function’).Secondly, the use of the East/West opposition had already been extremely welldeveloped in a sporting context at the 1980 Moscow Olympics (David Coleman wasalso the BBC’s front man on that occasion). Sporting clashes between the USSR andthe ’free world’ (represented by Polish Solidarity) had already acquired a tradition and alexicon of their own, making them more ’appropriate’ to political discourse than anyother confrontation outside South Africa. (4) As we have already suggested, no suchlexicon existed for interpreting a political clash between a European and a SouthAmerican team. It is with this in mind that we turn to look at a nation’s image of Itself,and its political enemy.

There’ll always be an EnglandThere has always been an element of patriotic fervour mixed in with the support of the nationalfootball team - the normal rules of balance and impartiality observed during coverage of thedomestic scene no longer apply. Commentators and experts must base theirfavourable/unfavourable comments about English League teams firmly on demonstrablefootballing merits. It is hardly suprising that the footballing fraternity no longer feel restrained bythis rubric when the issue concerned is &dquo;us&dquo; against &dquo;the other lot&dquo;.

What is more interesting Is the degree to which broadcasting ideologies of impartiality andfairness have, in the recent past, succeeded In pervading the British view of British footballteams abroad. Any attempt to adopt a discourse of cultural imperialism (’us’ teaching theforeigners how to play) after the 1966 World Cup, was rapidly deflated by the English teamsdismal performances thereafter. A key moment in this process was the England versus Hollandgame at Wembley In 1977, when Don Revie’s England team was defeated and outclassed by aDutch side whose technical and stylistic superiority was so marked that even the most ardentEnglish patriot must have felt distinctly humble. Television commentators were forced to admire&dquo;the other lot&dquo; as an entity in their own right, a footballing object that provided a far moreinteresting focal point for analysis than the crude ineptitude of the team with whom we weresupposed to identify. The Dutch game crystallised feelings that the English game had becomeparochial, failing way behind the high standards of other European teams.During the run-up to the 1982 World Cup the atmosphere undeniably changed. After the familiartraumas of losing to feeble teams like Norway and Switzerland in the qualifying stages, and lessfamiliar traumas that the English team, having qualified for the World Cup finals for the first timein twenty years, might be forced to withdraw because we were at war with the World Cup holders,a mood of patriotic optimism began to emerge. There can be no doubt that the news of Britishvictories in the South Atlantic created the conditions for this mood. What was also crucialhowever,,was a rapid accumulation of evidence that the English team were no longer there just forthe ride. In May, Aston Villa won the European Cup to keep it in British hands for the sixth year Insuccession. By the time the tournament began, England had managed to win six games in a row,confidently defeating the once great Dutch along the way. Bookmakers odds on England winningthe World Cup dropped dramatically to 10-1 (shorter odds than any of the eventual semi-finalists

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016tcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

127

except West Germany). Faith In the English team was obviously bolstered by geo-political events,but it was not entirely misplaced - England were a team on form.When the English team began their campaign by winning their opening two games moreImpressively than any of the pundits had hoped, the stage was set for a conflatlon of politico-nationalist and footballing discourses. The BBC team (once again) were especially keen toidentify &dquo;a new national pride in the English team and their supporters&dquo; (Coleman). With theEnglish team’s 3-1 victory over the French following two days after the first news of a Britishmilitary triumph In Port Stanley, Jimmy Hill was able to speak of it as &dquo;a time when pride andpatriotism in this country is just reawakening&dquo;. Rampant nationalism was affirmed most vividlyduring the moments of footballing ritual when its entry Is most appropriate - the playing of thenational anthem before kick-off. As most of the fans and some of the players joined in a heartyrendition of ’God Save the Queen’ before the second game (against the Czechs) David Colemanwas able to refer to both political and footballing discourses coming &dquo;through loud and clear&dquo; viathe unifying power of this symbolic act. (5)This conflation was also perpetuated during less appropriate moments on the football field. Evenfollowing a brief revival of their footballing fortunes, none of the footballing fraternity, havingspent years being disparaging about the English game, could seriously reassert British

supremacy in world football. All the pundits acknowledged the superiority of, for example, theBrazilians, and even, at later stages, the Italians and the Argentinians. The English were urged tostick to their ’natural’ style of play, &dquo;boring&dquo;, Jimmy Hill acknowledged, &dquo;as It might sometimesbe&dquo;. Contradictions between jingoistic fervour and footballing realities were negotiated by theintroduction of a discourse concentrating on national characteristics rather than footballingvalues. The two discourses interconnect in a set of cultural cliches extolling the ’natural’ Englishvirtues of honesty, decency and fair play. During the first game Jimmy Hill distingusishedbetween the French fouls which were unfair and the English fouls which were merely &dquo;over

enthusiastic&dquo;. (6) Considerable emphasis was given to the tendency of rival teams to

dramatically over emphasise minor injuries by writhing in mock agony - behaviour that wasneither legal, decent or honest. When the West Germans were condemned for such apparentlyfraudulent displays against England, Bryan Robson’s keenness to get up off his backside and geton with the game confirmed his position as both hero and gentleman. For the BBC commentator,John Motson, this simple act was the embodiment of all that was good about British football.It Is a virtue clearly seen in the qualities of the true British professional. Professional here Is notused in a perjorative sense as in the professionalism of the &dquo;professional foul&dquo; but In a morepositive vein. To endow a sportsperson with the status of &dquo;a professional&dquo; gives him or her morethan just a living wage, it carries with it formal codes of behaviour, a lifestyle, and a series ofconnotations that can be understood as good, bad or ugly. Professionalism refers to the loyalservant of one club, the player who Is willing to die for his team. He may not have a great deal ofskill but he Is strong and courageous, he may be clumsy but never cynical. These players evenappear in the England team - Mick Mills captained England when there were few people whowould think of him amongst the top quality International full backs. In League soccer, this senseof virtue is epitomised by the big centre forward, who is willing to put his head in dangeroussituations although he may have no Idea of where the ball is going to go should he manage tomake contact, or the stopper, the solid centre half whose idea of constructive distribution is to hitthe ball as far as possible into the other half of the field (if possible, simultaneously shoutingencouragement to the centre forward to &dquo;chase it&dquo;).The often tedious and uninspired English footballing style was endowed with moral virtue. Such amoral discourse may not have always been appropriate, but it was a way of mediating the neo-political and footballing worlds in the same breath without reducing the footballing discourse toa single meaning (&dquo;us&dquo; against &dquo;them&dquo;).England’s success in the early stages of the World Cup drew to a gradual, but inevitable andundistinguished close. Having beaten a skilful French side and the former champions of Europe(Czechoslovakia), England entered their final first round game against unfancled Kuwait

expecting to win handsomely. When they scraped home 1-0 with a performance described byJohn Bond as &dquo;diabolical&dquo;, the ’time when pride and patriotism In this country is justreawakening&dquo; seemed set for a rapid ending. Commentators and panellists had been brought

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016tcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

128

back to the harsh footballing realities the footballing fraternity had grown used to. The discourseof nationalism seemed suddenly inappropriate.In the following two games against West Germany and Spain, England failed to score, and weresubsequently eliminated. The panelllsts and experts returned to the more familiar routine ofanalysing England’s weaknesses, and suggesting ways the English game might be improved atnational level. The conflation of sport and politics inspired by’the Falklands factor’ proved shortlived - because It depended upon a footbaliing narrative that was no longer capable ofsustaining It. Discourses rooted in the footballing world became the most appropriate form ofinterpretation. If, towards the end of the tournament, a commentator had coined the epitaph’there’)) always be an England’, it would have been with a sigh and a significant shrug of theshoulders, an epitaph to familiar footballing failure rather than a nation’s success.We would also suggest that the four week World Cup narrative, as it moves towards a finalresolution of the enigma providing its raison d’etre (who will win?), and, by a process ofrepetition, inevitably constructs footballing objects as its focal points. We shall examine thisfurther by looking at the way in which the ’enemy’, Argentina, were represented.

Argentina: A game of two halvesGiven the massive significance attributed to the war in the South Atlantic by both broadcastingnetworks, the decision not to offer live transmission of Argentina’s three first round games canhardly be seen as surprising. Indeed, what is perhaps more surprising was BBC and ITV’swillingness to show highlights of these games. When David Coleman announced the first news ofthe ceasefire on BBC’s run-up to the Brazil/Soviet Union match, the news must have come as agreat relief to television programmers. The subsequent decision to screen Argentina’s (far morecrucial) second round games against Italy and Brazil became - despite the continued presenceof film footage and news of casualties - something of a formality.Coleman’s announcement came at an awkward moment, a few minutes after the screening ofArgentina’s opening game against Belgium. BBC had in fact been more careful than ITV to avoidan overt conflation of Argentina the enemy nation with Argentina the rival football team - JimmyHill had been uncharacteristically cautious in describing Argentina’s 1-0 defeat as a &dquo;night(when) Europe came out on top against South America&dquo;, a statement that clearly locatesArgentina in the footballing opposition Europe/South America rather than the politicalopposition England (represented by Hill)/Argentina. Having just discussed whether the goalconceded by Argentina was offside or not, the news from Port Stanley seemed decidedlyinappropriate - like news from another world. The subsequent emergence of Argentina backinto the mainstream discourse of the month long World Cup narrative is worth considering insome detail, demonstrating as It does the comparative autonomy of the footballing world whoseresistance to political or quasi-polltlcal discourses Increases as the narrative develops.At the beginning of the tournament, both channels acknowledged the dominance of the politicalover the sporting. BBC attempted to exclude Argentina - the World Cup holders and one of thefavourites - from tne early stages of their World Cup story altogether, an exclusion facilitated byconstant celebration of the ITV, BBC and bookmakers’ favourites, Brazil. The ITV team on theother hand, began by unambiguously casting the Argentine football team as the enemy. Aftershowing highlights of the ArgentinalBelgium game, ITV carried an interview with the Belgium’scaptain, Eric Gerets, who obligingly expressed the view that England’s Kevin Keegan was just asgood as Argentina’s star player, Diego Maradona. Most serious football commentators wouldhave dismissed such a statement - it is a comment appropriate to a politicaUnatlonalisticdiscourse (jingoism), inappropriate in a footballing context. Subsequent condemnation ofArgentina’s opening performance by the panel (with accusations of Maradona &dquo;diving&dquo;, andKempes &dquo;cheating&dquo;), had equally little substance as a sporting judgement.Two days later, after the Argentinian military defeat, ITV sent a TV crew to the Argentine camp tosee how the team were reacting to their nation’s defeat, and to interview Osualdo Ardiles on thesubject. The team, like the nation, were reported to be &dquo;depressed&dquo;, a mood that, as reportedlater on BBC, would make It difficult for them in their game against Hungary. (7) At this point,polltical and footballing discourses are allowed to conflate - the team and the nation arereduced to a single entity, a conflatlon ITV attempted to prolong by interviewing a British soldier

19R

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016tcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

129

fresh from the Falklands to support England - we’ll fight them on the beaches, we’ll fight themon the football pitches.When the time came to analyse Argentina’s emphatic 4-1 win over Hungary and their subsequentqualification for the second phase of the competition, such a conflation was no longer possible.The time had come to analyse Argentina as a football team, and introduce them into the narrativeproper. This effort came, initially, as something of a shock to the ITV experts, when theunconventional Malcolm Allison - invited on to the panel for the first time - made the (at thetime, almost blasphemous) (8) statement that Argentina were the best team in the tournament.Having spent all week eulogising about Brazil and ignoring the footballing skills of Maradona,Kempes, Passarella et al, this came as a bolt out of the blue - &dquo;better than Brazil?&dquo; asked BrianMoore, Incredulously. Allison, albeit with an overstatement, had reintroduced the Argentinianteam back into the debate. When John Bond, later in the discussion, claimed, somewhatunoriginally, that Brazil were &dquo;in a different league to anybody else&dquo;, he added: &dquo;apart frommaybe, as Mal said, Argentina&dquo;. Argentina, by their footballing presence, had forced themselvesback into the reckoning. From this point on, with the return of footballing discourses to dominatethe narrative (aided by the more familar sight of a well-intentioned but ultimately unsophisticatedand unsuccessful English team), Spain took over the mantle of villains of the piece for theirbehaviour on the football field.

ITV were granted the privilege of transmitting the Argentina/Italy clash. This gave Brian Moorethe slightly awkward task of ’selling’ the game to the viewers on the evening before the game. Asone of the most skilful teams in the tournament, Argentina were obviously a crowd-puller,particularly for British viewers who had not had the benefit of seeing any of their previous gameslive. To have referred too ostentatiously to this ’first’ for ITV would have been an implicitreference to their absence thus far, a reference rooted in the realm of the political. In this context,any over-selling of the Argentinian team would have placed political and footballing judgementsin direct contradiction. Moore avoided this contradiction via the category of the celebratedindividual, this being the &dquo;first chance to watch Diego Maradona&dquo;. The football star can beinterpreted through their national footballing culture (as we have shown with England’s BrianRobson), but their status also gives them a cosmopolitan quality - a quality symbolised by theirpotential to travel through the international transfer market. What we are being offered is not thenation boycotted by British television, but one of the world’s greatest footballers (inscribedwithin football’s international language).Moore used a similar technique in the lead-up to the game the following day, announcing &dquo;ourfirst chance to see the holders live&dquo;. By referring to Argentina as &dquo;the holders&dquo;, Moore locatesthem in the safety of the footballing world. From this point onwards, to the &dquo;real World Cupfinal&dquo;, (Argentina versus Brazil) any failings Argentina had were situated firmly on the footballfield.

Argentina’s (albeit undistinguished) return to the footballing fold and the rapid disappearence ofthe ’Falklands factor’ were made possible by peace in the South Atlantic. the shift in referentfrom Argentina the political object to Argentina the footballing object was, nevertheless,necessitated by a narrative whose focal points became centred more and more on the footballfield. This is not simply because this is where the story unfolds, but because with each repeatperformance national footballing styles become more recognisable, heroes more identifiable. Asthe ’evidence’ of footbailing film footage accumulates, so the plausibility of analyses taken fromthe world ’outside’ diminishes. BBC’s title sequence exemplified this process, beginning as aneutral set of footballing images - unidentified players from unidentified countries engaged inuniversal footballing manoeuvers - and* as the month progressed, becoming increasinglyInterspersed with action shots of the 1982 World Cup highlights. Familiarity enables the expertsto become more expert, allows the refutation/elaboration of stylistic stereo-types, enrichesfootballing traditions.The re-enactment of the rituals surrounding an international football competition Involvesstructuring the discourse around a series of familiar narratives. The central narrative, of course,gauges the successful team’s path towards the final, but the World Cup (like the F.A. Cup) alsodepends upon the construction of a set of sub-plots and dramas within the drama. It is to thesewe now turn. (9)

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016tcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

130

Roigh of the Rovers

One of the most well-known sub-plots in a knockout cup competition is the part played by thegiant killer, the team of Davids humbling one of the tournament’s Goliaths. The giant killer makesappearances in a whole variety of sporting knockout contests, from snooker at Sheffield totennis at Wimbledon, but it has its pride of place in football competitions. The F.A. Cup is famousfor its long tradition of giant killing acts, as teams from the lower divisions and non-league teamsdo battle against the Liverpools and Spurs of the first division - failure is expected but successwins a place in the sun. The World Cup, with its smattering of teams from the more obscure partsof the footballing map, also has such a tradition: the U.S.A’s triumph over mighty England, NorthKorea’s near triumph over Eusebio’s Portugal, Algeria’s defeat of West Germany. The fact thatthe U.S.A. were cast as minnows in defeating the English big fish demonstrates how firmly thegiant killing act is inscribed within a sporting lexicon - being a’little’ nation or a’big’ nation hasnothing to do with geographical size, population or political clout. We would suggest, in fact, thatthe power of the giant killing myth works to suppress the intrusion of political or non-sportingdiscourses.

The 1982 World Cup had more than its fair share of giant killers, their exploits providing the BBCwith &dquo;the story&dquo; of the first week of the competition. Cameroon remained undefeated againstPoland, Italy and Peru, Honduras held host nation Spain to a 1-1 draw, Kuwait almost beat theonce mighty Czechs, and Algeria actually succeeded in beating the still mighty West Germans,Commentators immediately adopted their traditional paternalistic role of siding - using amixture of praise and patronage - with these enthusiastic underdogs. The giant killing mythwas, moreover, the only interpretive tool for representing or explaining these footballingunknowns. When attempts were made to go beyond this myth, the one footballing category of theunderdog was repeatedly conflated with one geographical entity. When Jimmy Hill featured theexploits of &dquo;developing nations&dquo; Honduras and Algeria, he went on to predict the rise of Africa asa major footballing continent. It was, indeed, the Hondurans’ fate on both channels to be shiftedthousands of miles across the globe into the category of rising African (footballing) nations(usually by implication rather than directly - the experts were not sufficiently au fait with worldgeography to be too specific).The giant killers of the tournament as a whole, however, turned out to be ’our very own’ NorthernIreland - to the universal delight of the footballing fraternity. While no one was going tocatergorise Northern Ireland with the (black) ’developing nations’, the absence of the mostcommonplace signification of Northern Ireland to English eyes - political conflict and violence(the Province rarely makes an appearance on English television outside a political context) -was remarkable. Here was an instance where the strength of a footballing discourse, the Roy ofthe Rovers adventure, magnified the construction of the footballing object to the almost totalexclusion of (extremely familiar) political discourses. (The only direct reference to the troubleswas the - somewhat naive - comment that every Northern Irish game meant 90 minutes ofpeace on the streets of Belfast.) (10)The Northern Irish team was composed largely of players from the lower divisions of the FootballLeague - ideal candidates for the underdog role in the F.A. Cup, let alone the World Cup -allowing the pundits to identify them as distinctive as well as positioning them within the giantkiller narrative. To the pundits their footballing style was immediately familiar: hardworking,selfless, big centre forwards, equally big (and rather clumsier) centre-halves, lots of high crossesinto the penalty area, dedicated teamwork - almost a poor man’s England. To see themdefeating the host nation, and reaching a position to qualify for the semi-finals was almost toogood to be true - not only was it Roy of the Rovers romance, but Roy was actually one of ’us’, animmediately recognisable figure to identify with.As their success continued, so the football story cliches mounted up. Their forward, NormanWhiteside, was the youngest player to ever appear in the tournament - younger even than Pelehad been on his first appearance.(11) Both channels made Whiteside an immediate focal point,while ITV sent a camera crew to interview Mr and Mrs Whiteside in their Belfast home, so that MrWhiteside senior could declare himself to be &dquo;over the moon&dquo; with his son’s selection(Mr Whiteside junior had already revealed himself to be &dquo;over the moon&dquo; earlier on BBC). Thegreat Pele himself appeared on our screens to wish him luck. The dream would have been

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016tcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

131

complete had he actually scored, but the power of the myth allowed Whiteside to become a starwithout actually doing anything too spectacular. Then there was their goalkeeper, Pat Jennings,who began playing for his country before young Norman had been born, the highly respected andlikeable veteran who had finally made it on the world’s stage in the twilight of his career. Notforgetting the tireless Gerry Armstrong, who had been on the substitutes bench so often atWatford that he had been christened &dquo;The Judge&dquo; (in the footballing lexicon, the substitutesbench is commonly known as simply &dquo;the bench&dquo;), but who became the star of the team in Spain.It is Northern Ireland’s part in a footballing story par excellence that makes them a purelyapolitical footballing entity. While the Polish team were consistently referred to as having&dquo;problems back home&dquo;, Northern Ireland’s problems were restricted to the trials and tribulationsof the footballing world. To some extent, this is simply a reflection of the treatment received bythese countries on news and current affairs television prior to June 1982. What is also crucial,however, is that while Northern Ireland could be fitted into a new series of pre-existing footballingnarratives and clich6es, few such discourses were available for interpreting a competent andunexceptional Polish side.Conclusion

The 1982 World Cup finals was not, as seen on television, a political spectacle. There were,certainty, some onslaughts made into the footballing world by political and nationalisticjlscourses, where football teams were made to truly ’represent’ their nation states, but, given thecontext in which the tournament was played, these were the exception rather than the rule, andinvariably short-lived. We have tried to demonstrate that the footballing world is a well developedsite that does not easily appropriate discourses outside itself.The footballing world, indeed, has its own politics. The political authorities (FIFA) were accused?f discriminating against the ’smaller’ teams by the Kuwait team. Their judicial powers werewaited upon when West Germany and Austria were accused of ’fixing’ a match for reasons ofmtual self interest and to the detriment of the Algerian team. The competence of the game’s law3nforcers - the referees - was frequently a subject of controversy. Nationalism was3ngendered - purely on a footballing level - by a skilful and entertaining French team, who]ained the support of the footballing fraternity for their flair, and their sympathy for being themfortunate losers in a dramatic semi-final. (12)kbove all, the footballing world has its own language - a well developed form of the lexicon of,ompetition familiar to all sports commentators. As such it is exceptionally vulnerable tonfluence from other forms of competitions. Hence the Malvinas/Falklands terminology of taskforces, rockets, bombardments and strategies was appropriated within the construction of the.ournament by the English experts, but only in a neutralised form, increasingly purged of itslngoistic combative overtones. As such it became a part of the ’natural’ language of footballJsed to interpret, elaborate and contextualise what goes on between two football teams. It will:ake more than a war between two major competitors to cast the World Cup finals as a politicalfootball.

40tes:

1. We recognise that this paper is concerned with only one dimension of the construction ofdiscourses. Hence although here we are concerned with the influence of geo-political discourseson sports coverage, we feel that the influence of the discourses of sport on political ideologies isalso important. See: Clarke and Clarke (1982).2. Coleman’s comments during the Moscow Olympics were laced with political cynicism, while3BC’s treatment of the Moscow games was conspicuously more ’political’ than ITV’s. Even thepublicity in the Radio Times drew attention to the political crisis surrounding this sportingestival.

3. Channon’s evidence of this comment was decidedly superficial — ignoring the SovietJnion’s exciting opening game with Brazil and Hungary’s record breaking 10-1 win over EISalvador. Channon’s comment is not entirely without justification, but even the consistentreferent "Eastern bloc sides are one-paced", (i.e. unable to lift the pace of the game if they go agoal behind) requires a selective construction of the narrative.

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016tcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

132

4. 1980 saw the protests of the West about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and, as a result,the boycotting of the Moscow games by America and some British athletes. Shortly afterwardsthe English cricket team were not allowed to enter Guyana on their tour of the West Indiesbecause of the alleged breaches of the Gleneagles Agreement which governs sporting contactswith South Africa. Far from supporting this boycott in the name of human rights, the Governmentand the media in this country condemned the West Indies for bringing politics into a sport. Thissays much for the power of existing lexicons to influence the presentation of sporting issues.5. What commentators did not refer to, however, was the fans’ persistent chant of ’Argentina,Argentina, what’s it like to lose a war?’ during England’s games. To have dwelt on some of theEnglish supporters particular brand of nationalism would have made it difficult to sustain themyth of a ’healthy’ patriotic spirit.6. This early characterisation of the French team as ’dirty’, ’negative’ or ’cynical’ was proved anonsense as France progressed through the tournament. By the semi-finals they were generallyrecognised as possessing none of these qualities, and received much praise for their flair andenthusiasm.

They always remained something of an enigmatic side, living up to the radio commentatorsdescription of them as one of football’s romantic sides. This may explain the way they managedto lose an ’epic’ semi-final having led the West Germans 1-0, then 3-1 in extra time and beingahead in the penalties which followed. Losing nobly, also allowed the initial decision to bereversed. it was not that they were negative but that the English side had not allowed them toplay - as Don Howe, the English coach said, it just showed what a good side England hadbeaten.

7. A disconsolate Ossie Ardiles was interviewed for the benefit of the British Audience. Hisspecial status as a part of the Tottenham side bridged the gap between military enemy and thecuriosity of the footballing fan. The interviews revealed little except that Ardiles still liked theEnglish, would like to play for Spurs again and thought Argentina would win the World Cup.8. The state of the orthodoxy was captured in Jimmy Greaves’ comment during the discussionof Argentina’s defeat in their opening game, when he confessed that "at the moment" he didn’tcare if they "didn’t win a game of dominoes".9. Critcher has argued with reference to the F.A. Cup that the story is not primarily one ofwinners but overwhelmingly of losers. As each season brings the hope of victory but with oneexception — the ultimate winners - always ends in defeat. See Critcher’s Open University U203Television programme on the F.A. Cup.10. There is a parallel between the treatment of the second and third division footballers in theNorthern Ireland side with the coverage given to the teams emerging from the Third World. Theequivalence of which is constructed here goes beyond the scope of this paper, but we recognisethe patronising astonishment of the commentators in references to both conditions.11. With a Brazilian camera crew making a film of Norman Whiteside, there is some evidencethat this footballing story has a certain degree of universality. Certainly the Irish manager felt theneed to ration the boy’s appearances before the media as he thought that the attention mightmake excessive demands on such an inexperienced player.12. The hard-fought, incident packed, skillful semi-final, where teams tussle with one anotheruntil the last possible minute - and in this instance beyond the final whistle of extra-time — hasa place in sporting mythology. Italy versus West Germany in the 1970 semi-final in Mexico holds asimilar position in footballing history, as does the Borg-Guerilitis semi-final at Wimbledon.

ReferencesClarke A & Clarke J (1982), Highlights and Action Replays - the Politics of the TelevisionCoverage of Sport, in J Hargreaves (ed) Sport, Politics and Ideology, London: Routledge andKegan Paul

Nowell Smith G (1978-79), Television — Football — The World, Screen, 19,4Tudor A (1975), The Panels, in E Buscombe (ed) Football on Television, London: British Film

Institute Monograph No.4

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016tcs.sagepub.comDownloaded from