The Paradox

On the one hand a team sport, like soccer, unites people in common cause, on the other hand it divides people along factional lines. As a passive participant in the sport (i.e. a fan) the same phenomenon occurs: you are united behind your team and divided against the opposition. The question in this context is how to unite people through a mechanism that is going to, at some point, also divide them?

The second paradox is less related to soccer per se and more about the space that it occupies. As a part of civil society, soccer becomes a grass roots community activity. A totalitarian regime finds this overtly threatening in its non-politcalness, and will thus try to control it and impose a political identity on it. We also understand that in the face of repression the very cause of the civic culture is borne (i.e. resistance). What happens to civil society during a transition presents the paradox. While moving away from totalitarianism the civil society becomes very large and outspoken. After all there is consensus that change is needed. But when the same culture moves towards democracy it shrinks and becomes muted. The reason being change has happened and there is a satisfaction with the system. That which gave you inspiration to be active and engaged in the community is no longer.

If this is the case for sports participation is questionable. Certainly there was much emphasis on sporting events under the USSR and the DDR, only the values promoted through these activities was different. Second, will people really play less sport because they are happy with their government? I believe Putnam’s thesis in bowling alone was that individual bowling was taking over from league bowling. The loss of community is represented there, but I doubt I can find a similar case in soccer. The problem being it is purely a team sport – either you play in the team, or you are not playing soccer.