OP-ED: World Cup offered rare communal experience
For 39 days, the World Cup captivated the attention of the world. It ended Sunday in a theoretically predictable fashion (No. 2 Spain played No. 1 Argentina), but the result was always in doubt. The Spanish team controlled possession and played a stifling defense all over the field (they only conceded one goal in eight games), but due to heroic play by Emiliano Martínez, Argentina’s goalkeeper (a WC Finals record 11 saves while playing with a broken finger), the game was scoreless until Spain broke the deadlock in the 105th minute.
Soccer is a game where one team can dominate possession, create many more chances to score, but still lose. This is very frustrating if your team is dominating, but it does mean that outcomes can be in doubt until the final whistle. This was the case on Sunday.
The game was 15 minutes from going to penalty kicks to decide the winner, and if that were the case, there was a pretty good chance that Argentina would win without ever having taken a shot on goal (Argentina had advanced in 11 of its last 13 games that went into extra time or a shootout). Argentina played a man short for the final 30 minutes when Enzo Fernandez was ejected for a second yellow card. In spite of that, Argentina generated multiple scoring chances after the Spanish goal. When the 39-year-old Lionel Messi is on the field, no lead is safe (ask the English, who lost to Messi-inspired late goals in the 85th minute to tie, and the 92nd minute to win the semi-final). But it was not enough. Spain now has both the men’s and the women’s championship teams.
Critics of soccer often cite the lack of goals, and finals can be tense, low-scoring affairs as teams try to avoid making mistakes. By contrast, the third-place game has the benefit of being low pressure, which can lead to a wide-open game. This year, the English went ahead of the French by a seemingly insurmountable 4-0 lead by halftime, but in the second half, the French came back to make it 4-3 and were pressing for a fourth. In doing so, they left themselves open for English counterattacks and eventually lost 4-6. But what a game!
The World Cup is unique in that soccer is played throughout the world, so the entire world stops to watch the games. In this day of divided attention, it is a rare communal experience.
The stadiums were filled (99.7% of capacity) with fans of opposing nations wearing national team jerseys, singing songs and interacting with each other throughout the games.
FIFA took a risk in expanding the field to 48 teams, but it largely worked. Who would have expected more than 68,000 fans would pay top dollar to see Jordan play Algeria in Santa Clara, California? I feared the inclusion of too many teams would mean some weak teams would be beaten badly, and Germany did beat Curacao 7-1, but that was the exception. Cape Verde, a country with fewer people than Washington County, lost to Argentina in extra time and tied Spain and Uruguay. The gap between the world powers, while it remains, has closed considerably.
America excelled as a host, with our immigrant communities helping fill stadiums and our uniquely American experiences wowing tourists (Waffle House open 24/7 was a big hit). The Algerian team used Lawrence, Kansas, as a training camp, and the town welcomed them by becoming supporters, serenading them with a marching band, constructing a giant Algerian flag on the University of Kansas campus and watching their practices. The Scottish fans (known as the Tartan Army) drank all the beer in Boston and made friends wherever they went. The Norwegian fans engaged in the “Viking row” to support their team.
Unfortunately, the World Cup could not completely escape politics. While it was amazing that a team from Iran, a country the U.S. attacked, was even able to participate, the U.S. forced them to commute from Mexico on game days. A Somalian referee, who was honored as the best referee in Africa and regularly referees top games in Europe, was interrogated for 11 hours at the airport and deemed too dangerous to allow in the country. Fans from some countries (Haiti, Senegal, and the Ivory Coast) were blanket denied visas.
President Trump was largely absent until the round of 16 when he called the head of FIFA, Gianni Infantino (who obsequiously had given Trump the “FIFA Peace Prize” just before we attacked Iran) to reinstate America’s best forward, Folarin Balogun, who was scheduled to sit out a game as punishment for a red card. While the red card was questionable, politicians should not be interfering in the tournament. Ironically, Balogun is an example of the kind of immigrant Trump wants to deny citizenship, since he was born in the US when his mother, who was on a tourist visa, was deemed too pregnant to fly back to Britain. The interference turned the very likable American team, scrappy underdogs who to that point had played well beyond expectation, into villains. Balogun was allowed to play, but the team had by far its worst performance and lost badly to Belgium.
While it’s unclear if the controversy contributed to that performance, it certainly inspired the Belgians who played by far their best game (they celebrated their victory by mockingly performing “the Trump dance”).
Trump was also at the final to give the trophy to Spain, a country he had recently denigrated and threatened to cut off trade to because it refused to help the US against Iran. Trump was heartily booed by the crowd and had to be (embarrassingly) ushered off the stage after he awarded the trophy, as he was trying to bask in the spotlight that rightfully belonged to the Spanish team.
One of the things that makes the World Cup special is that it only happens every four years. I am looking forward to 2030 already.
Kent James, of East Washington, has a doctorate in history and policy from Carnegie Mellon University.