Soccer Politics as Relating to Brazil, Argentina and Other Latin American Countries

After Brazil’s overwhelming loss to Germany in the World Cup semifinals, the question asked by many was whether or not such a defeat would have political consequences for the future of Brazilian president, Dilma Rousseff. While many believed this would be the case, the situation turns out to be more complex

To be sure, it is not that the World Cup was devoid of politics. For example, “Telesur”, the Latin American TV network whose existence was inspired by Havana and its funding comes from Caracas, broadcast a nightly program during the World Cup, called “De Zurda”. The name “De Zurda” alludes to goals scored with the left leg. The key word here is “left”. The program was accompanied by a song especially written for the program that says that kicking the ball with “the left” does not apply only to soccer but also to the world itself that is in need of an injection of “left”. The program and the song focus on Latin America as a whole. Thus, it remained neutral with regard to specific national teams as long as the winning team is some Latin American country. Of course, that fits Chavez’s dream of the “big country” or a united (left leaning) Latin America.

Another such program is one conducted by well-known announcer and journalist Victor Hugo Morales, who has ties to the Argentinean government of Cristina Kirchner. The program was co-hosted by retired Argentinean soccer star, Diego Maradona. Maradona, himself, is a fierce supporter of the Bolivarian Revolution and the Castro Regime and was adopted by Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. In fact, in one of the programs Maradona read with great emotion a letter sent to him by the aging and sick Fidel Castro. The program did not spare comments in praise of “Commander Chavez”, Castro and everyone else associated with the Latin American left. .

Likewise, during these programs many leaders of the Latin American left were interviewed including Uruguayan president, Jose Mujica, former Brazilian president, Luiz Ignacio (Lula) Da Silva, and Ecuadorian president, Rafael Correa. Furthermore, incidents such as the expulsion of Uruguayan player Luis Suarez from the tournament as a result of his biting an Italian player was largely interpreted as disproportionate and discriminatory against Latino countries. The Uruguayan president even pointed out that Suarez is hated because he is “a poor guy who came from below and never attended college”. The remark was particularly curious because most soccer players, in general, come from poor neighborhoods.

By the same token, in the same game where Suarez bit the Italian player, the referee expelled an Italian player and in fact did not even pay attention to the complaints against Suarez’s biting. Therefore, Mujica had no factual basis for making such accusations in regard to Suarez’s expulsion. Venezuelan president, Nicolas Maduro echoed Mujica by saying that Suarez was punished because he helped defeat two soccer giants such as England and Italy. Maduro sent “a message of solidarity to Suarez. He called him “son of the people” and stressed the fact that he is the “son of a humble housekeeper”.

Of course, these leaders in their passion to make populist and nationalistic political statements neglected to consider that Mr. Suarez clearly violated the rules of the international soccer association (FIFA) and that any player regardless of origin would have been punished. But the Suarez episode served their populist discourse extremely well. In a similar vein, Argentinean president Cristina Kirchner has also been politicizing soccer for years by using public TV to provide “Soccer for Everybody’ or free access to soccer on TV for everybody. For this World Cup, Kirchner placed announcers and sport journalists associated with the ruling party as the broadcasters. Likewise, Kirchner secured a joint appearance with the national team’s coach when he announced the 30 players he confirmed for the World Cup. It is reasonable to assume that had Argentina won she would have associated that victory with her own government as did the Argentinean dictator, Jorge Videla during the 1978 games that took place in Argentina.

Yet, the case of Brazil presents a different picture.

Rousseff never so directly mixed soccer and politics although deep in her thoughts she hoped that a victory by Brazil could boost her deteriorated popularity.

Protests in Brazil began a year before the World Cup. Those protests erupted over deficient public and health services, housing, and taxes. There were also serious protests denouncing the excessive expenses in the construction of stadiums and preparations for the World Cup. Furthermore, on the day of the tournament’s inauguration, Rousseff avoided delivering a speech that she prepared in light of protests and insults against her at the stadium, itself. Even at the beginning of the tournament, angry protests were met with some police abuse that was denounced by human rights organizations. The intensity of the protests diminished as the tournament evolved.

In other words, political legitimacy and government criticism was detached from the performance of the national soccer team, itself. Brazilians have acted as real citizens, more self-aware, and demand better from their government. In the words of renowned Brazilian anthropologist Roberto Da Matta “Football (soccer) is no longer the opiate of the people.”

Brazil’s presidential elections will take place on October 5^th this year.

Rousseff has about 38% popular support while her main opponent, Aecio Neves from the pro-business Brazilian Social Democratic Party has 20% and a third candidate former Pernambuco Governor, Eduardo Campos from the Brazilian Socialist party has 9%.

Whatever interpretations people may have about the result of the soccer game, Rousseff, at this point, is far from being defeated despite all the protests.

In my view a victory over Rousseff ‘s Workers Party is necessary because its’ foreign policy has been negative for regional democracy as it has enhanced the capricious dictatorships of Castro and Maduro and has competed with the United States rather than working with it. The Workers Party under both Lula and Rousseff has ignored the plea of the people oppressed by these authoritarian populist regimes. In its pursuit of a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council and under the veil of developing South-South relations, it has become an enabler of third world tyrannies while presenting them as victims of an imperialist world order.

Yet, phlegmatic political campaigns on the part of the Brazilian opposition candidates, as happened in 2010, will not help to bring about a change in leadership. Without a serious opposition capable of articulating a clear message and without a serious and critical approach to Rousseff’s policies no victory can be attained. For the opposition to count on Brazil’s soccer shellacking would be superficial and self-defeating. Meanwhile, it is incumbent on Rousseff to deal more effectively with the country’s many problems as well as redirecting her foreign policy to support the political democracy in other Latin American countries that those in Brazil now enjoy.