Ron Krabill: Hello, and welcome to the Global Sport Lab podcast. I’m Ron Krabill and I’m your host, as well as the director of the lab, and a professor of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences at the University of Washington Bothell. Listen to the end for a more detailed description of the Global Sport Lab, but for now, let me just say that we would love for you to connect with us at the lab. You can find us on the web or via email at globalsportlab@uw.edu. Today we are privileged to have with us three prominent French scholars of global football, mega events, and modern history here to talk about the political histories of the FIFA World Cups. Special thanks to David Do Paço and the Villa Albertine — which is the cultural affairs arm of the French government — for making their visit possible. I’ll just note that this recording is sandwiched in between two public events here in Seattle. Last night, our guests spoke on “Seattle’s World Cup” The View from Europe,” as part of the Global Sport Lab’s spring speaker series, and this evening they’ll be speaking at an event in the College of Built Environments — co-sponsored by the lab — providing lessons on megavent sustainability from France.
So we really appreciate them making time to record this episode in the midst of a very busy schedule while they’re here in town, which also includes taking in matches of both the Seattle Reign and the Seattle Sounders, as well as a town hall lecture by Hall of Famer and friend of this podcast, Briana Scurry. So with no further ado, let me introduce our panelists. First is Paul Dietschy, professor of contemporary history at the Marie and Louis Pasteur University. Paul is also the editor of the French journal Football(s): History, Culture, Economy, Society, in which I’m honored to have a co-authored article with undergraduate student Sam Hearst on the Cascadia rivalry coming out in the next issue. Welcome, Paul.
Paul Dietschy: Thank you, Ron. Hi, everybody.
RK: Next, we have Yvan Gastaut, lecturer in history at the University of Côte d’Azur, in the beautiful city of Nice. Welcome, Yvan.
Yvan Gastaut: Thank you, Ron.
RK: And finally, we have Stéphane Mourlane, lecturer in modern history and deputy director of the Mediterranean Institute of Social and Human Sciences at Aix-Marseille University. And I should also note, with this appearance, Stéphane becomes the first repeat guest on this podcast, having shared a conversation with him last summer in anticipation of the Sounders Club World Cup match against the team he supports, Paris Saint-Germain. So, welcome back, Stéphane.
Stéphane Mourlane: Hi, Ron. Hi, everybody. It’s a pleasure to come back.
RK: So all three of our guests bring an incredible wealth of knowledge and historical memory around the World Cup and their impacts on local host cities as well, so let me start by asking, what brought each of you to studying global football and mega events?
PD: So I’m Paul Dietschy. I began studying sport and football while I was professor in Turin in Italy, and I was searching for a topic of Ph.D., and I went to see a game of Torino, and I thought that it was a very good entry into society and history of Italy. So I made a Ph.D. on football in Turin, and after I continued to work on football, and especially on global international level, since I’ve spent a long time in the FIFA archive in Zurich. I wrote some book for the centennial of the organizations, and I wrote also with FIFA archives a book on history of football, and so it became my main topic to study as an academic, and I work also about the history of African football during the 20th century.
RK: Fantastic. Thank you.
SM: Hi, I’m Stéphane Mourlane. I’m an associate professor, as you say, at Aix-Marseille University. At the beginning, my Ph.D. was on history of international religion, especially about relationship between France and Italy, and in this case I focused on football and sport global as an aspect of international relation, and then I met Paul and Yvan. We published together a book — a book, a history of a political story of FIFA World Cup.
Yvan Gastaut: 20 years ago.
SM: Yes.
YG: In ‘26 and ‘06 for the book. Yes, I’m Yvan Gastaut from University of Côte d’Azur in Nice. My subject, my topic about Ph.D. was not about sport. It was in the ‘90s, I began to work about sport history, in particular about links between sport — football in particular — and immigration. In the beginning of the 2000s, because I think I have first reason a great passion, great importance for me for football and the sport, but also because sport was not at this time very important in the research, forbidden maybe in the research, and this topic became very, very important until today.
RK: I appreciate you mentioning that, because we really at the Global Sport Lab, we’ve been bringing in these critical sports scholars, and you really are seeing a generational shift where folks closer to our ages sort of didn’t have as much opportunity. It sounds like Paul, you’re a bit of the exception, but, you know, many of us felt like that was something that you couldn’t really focus on, and then there’s another generation after us that starts to do it a little more, and now folks coming up through grad school just recently sort of getting hired into the academy more and more, this is their career and they’re more and more comfortable doing that.
PD: I remember when I began my Ph.D. in the history department of Lyon University — we I made my Ph.D. and was a younger teacher. When I arrived at the department, she said, ‘Oh, the footballer is coming.’ Maybe we can
SM: Maybe we can add that in France, the World Cup of 1998 was a turning point, even in academic field, especially for historians. Sport was not a good topic, a significant topic. And after that, I don’t know, what do you think, Paul? And even better, I think it was really a turning point,
PD: Because there was a comparison between the liberation of France by U.S. armies, in particular, in ‘44, ‘45, and the joy of people, and it was compared to the joy of having won the World Cup, which was impossible for many French at the end of the 90s.
RK: That’s amazing, and it makes total sense that having such an explicit example of where all these social, political, cultural dynamics came together in sport led people to realize, like, ‘Oh no, this really is a valid academic pursuit.’ So, why has soccer been a political issue from the very beginning of the FIFA World Cups?
PD: Yes, I will begin since I’m the older academic here, and well, we can say that —
SM: Respect for that.
PD: We can say that soccer is maybe the global sport which embodies the nation, because first of all, in football/soccer team, you have players with all kind of skills, all kind of bodies, so it’s a gather of the representative community, so the sports inside in itself can embody a community. If you take, for instance, for example, basketball, all the players are very tall, for instance, or rugby players now — it’s a bit the same thing in Europe — so that’s the first thing; but the second is linked to the beginning of the game in Great Britain, because it began in England and also in Scotland, and the Scottish wanted to play international games, and the first was in 1872, and it was a way to have a revenge against the English.
So, since this moment, the international match was not also the encounter of people, but a match between two nations, and it continues on the European continent at the beginning of the 20th century, when FIFA, Fédération Internationale de Football Association, was created in Paris in 1904. The aim of FIFA was to develop international football, but also to organize what they call at this moment “inter-nation games,” that is to say, games between nations. And in the — for instance — in the press, the first match, international match played by France, it was again Belgium, and it was a match France against Belgium.
And from that moment the team adopt the national colors or the symbol of the nation, for instance, for France’s rooster it was adopted before the First World War, for Italy the color is blue, that is to say the color of the royal dynasty of the Savoy. And just before the First World War, there was a football tournament at the Olympic games of Stockholm, and all the team wore the symbol of their nation; for instance, the German have had huge eagles on the chest. It was the Union Jack for the Great Britain, and so on.
So, football — or soccer for Americans — had initially the capacity to embody the nations and to symbolize also the virtues of the nations. It’s very interesting to note that since the Belle Époque — that is the period before the First World War — there was an interest of the journalists to find what was the style of play of the team. For instance, if you read French papers, when they describe the way of playing of the German, they say they are all, its discipline, it’s a very close tactic, and so on. So I think that’s why it began very early, a political topic, and not only a symbol — symbolically — because some nations were considered that they were oppressed by multinational empire, like the Czech, for instance, — they were called the Bohemians before the First World War — they wanted to be admitted into FIFA to show their existence. And finally, it was refused, because the Hungarian and the Austrian Football Association say no, it’s not possible, they are not a real nation.
RK: And of course those dynamics are still alive today, right? There are still sort of stateless peoples who are trying to get recognition through that, or through CONIFA (Confederation of Independent Football Associations) and other sorts of organizations. Your comments also make me think of the famous historian Eric Hobsbawm — who was actually one of my mentors — and famously said ‘The imagined community of millions is better understood as 11 named people.’ And it’s interesting to hear that that was true from the very beginning, right? We often — I feel like histories of the sport often focus more on the club aspects, but it’s interesting to think about the very inter-international beginnings of it as well. So, Paul, something you said about the journalists trying to look for national styles very early on really struck me about — because we still see that sort of sense of like ‘How is the national spirit sort of embodied in the style of play?’ and thinking about journalists sort of actively looking for that also raises the question of were they looking for the stereotype of the nation that they already had and then putting that onto the style, as opposed to the style sort of bubbling up and them just observing it in some sort of falsely objective way.
PD: Yes, that’s difficult to answer to this question. Anyway, especially at the beginning of the 20th century, when nationalism was very strong, when tension with those countries in Europe were also strong, journalists like to use stereotypes to describe the other, but on the other side, we can say that there are ways of playing — maybe not a national style — but a way of playing. When you see Brazilian players play, they play artistically. They have a special skill to control the ball, and so on. Italian still play like Italian, so very defensive, cheating a bit. That’s a bit, that’s a tradition
RK: Apparently not very well today.
SM: Paul is really French, because now you know in France we are used to being condescendant.
PD: I can say that, because when I was living in Turin, I played football, so —
RK: You experienced it.
PD: Yes, and I learn a lot, but that’s true. Now I could say that in the global football, since players didn’t play at home, finally there is a standardization of the way of playing. For instance, the Brazilian — where all the best play in Europe. So that’s still a great question. Obviously, that’s a creation of a journalist national style, but it’s a way we talk about football, to bringing together people, but that’s a way, another way to know, to know the other, to recognize the talent and the alterity of other people. And that’s, I think, the great merit of competitions like a World Cup,
SM: I mean, I think it means that standardization — as you say — it’s a kind, it’s a part of globalization for the Global Sport Lab.
RK: I think that makes sense. Yes, that makes sense very much, very much.
YG: Yes, we can say that the football has changed because these stereotypes may be a context in the period special today. I think that Brazilian can play as German and German as Brazilian, and we have a changing of stereotypes. And you point to the role of journalists in sport, very important to create the imaginary of football yesterday and today, also.
RK: And it also points to the importance of the federations and how they train — the sort of systems of training — that they’re putting in place within their nations is also shaping how athletes experience the system, what they learn, what they don’t learn before they sort of enter that global marketplace as 19, 20 year olds on another level.
PD: Yes, a player is a kind of product or good employee that could be used everywhere in the world, and that’s particularly true for the French players.
RK: So in what ways can the FIFA World Cup serve as a time of a national celebration specifically for host countries?
SM: We can say from its very first edition in 1930 the World Cup served as a national celebration for the host country, and the first host country was Uruguay. It celebrate Uruguay’s central independence, and it’s also soccer Olympics gold in 1924 and 1928 Uruguay, the Switzerland of South America, with 1.5 million people, used soccer to showcase its modern integrated society, welfare state, secularism, women’s rights, and eight hour work day food. Soccer, not football, soccer.
RK: It’s fine. On this podcast we can call it football, that’s no problem.
SM: Soccer also integrated immigrants from Europe, especially from Spain and Italy into a national identity — I have to say, accounting, according to estimate between 1860 and 1920 over 600,000 European immigrants settled in Uruguay. And I can say also that the massive Estadio Centenario symbolized this progress, blending functionality with national pride. It was built especially for the 1930 FIFA World Cup by immigrant workers in a record time, in nine months. It’s an 80,000-feet stadium, and its name originate from the 100 years celebration of the ratification of the first constitution of Uruguay. In 1983 it was declared by FIFA as the first historical monument of world football — to this day the only building to achieve this recognition worldwide. If you go to Montevideo, you can visit — as we did with Paul — and you will find the stadium almost exactly as it was in 1930. It doesn’t meet international standards at all, but even so is still in news.
But let’s go back in 1930; that year, only 13 teams participated into — split into groups. Only four European countries have made long travel across the Atlantic by ship. There were Belgium, Romania, Yugoslavia, and obviously France. The U.S. was also there, and anyway, the final was a South American affair. Uruguay defeated its neighbor on the river Argentia in the final, and Uruguay’s victory fueled national euphoria and sparked a brief rift with Argentina. And this event affirmed soccer’s political role, boosting Uruguay’s prestige and proving the World Cup’s viability, despite low European turnout.
RK: Fantastic, thanks, Yvan, I’d love to hear what you think of this as well. Before you do that, I’ll just make a quick comment: so it’s a very warm day here in Seattle and we have the windows open in the attic, so if you’re hearing seagulls in the background, that is why. So, I just thought I’d make a comment of that for our listeners. Go ahead, Yvan.
YG: Yeah, another moment important is 1998. We have already evoked a turn in academics studying, particularly in history in France, because 1988 was an event, really event for the football in France, in particular. Not maybe in the world, but in France, for the history of France, for many reasons. And as said, my colleague, my friends, in sport, in particular, we study very often the beginnings — when is beginnings? And I think 1988 is a beginning of something in France, more patient about football, linked football with the thematic topic of migrations, and also linked football with politic issue. And for many points, this World Cup is the end — the last World Cup of the 20th century is for France a moment of building some places, and in particular the Stade de France was created. France is not a good nation for the big stadium in difference with the United States, and in ‘98 the Stade de France is linked with the event, because all of the happiness was in this place, and also on the street of Paris, and on all of town and countries in France.
And this is important because in ‘98 we have — that in France it’s very important, the unity, the unity of the population, those who like football, very interested by football, but also those who don’t know football are linked at this moment. And it was three days of happiness, 12th of July, the victory against the Brazil. France is two victory, victory about the organization of the World Cup. It was the second time after 1938 and the second moment is the victory.
It’s not that it was not so evident, because it was a great nation against France at the Brazil in this match, very surprised, 3-0 against the team of big Ronaldo — Brazilian best player this time — and building a hero — Zidane. Zinedine Zidane was the scorer to head goal, and also Zidane was promote as an hero of integration, as a hero of multicultural France, as an hero of the politic of integration. At this time, France was in the situation of racism and extremely right was very important in the opinion, public opinion, and this match seems to be a dream, because anti-racism won with the match. And this is very important, because also 1998 is the possibility to think that football may change the society and this may be a dream. Is it possible? Point of interrogation.
RK: Excellent. Yeah, I mean, even from the United States, we really followed that victory and understood sort of the political ramifications of it, understanding that Le Pen was sort of speaking very negatively about the team in the run-up, and all of all of those dynamics were also international dynamics, even though they were playing out very much within France.
YG: Yes, because two years before, in 1996 in the European tournament in England, France was beat in semifinal against the Netherlands and Le Pen say in the media that this is not the French team because there are two migrants in this team.
SM: And this team was known as — it’s not easy to translate in English — as a team as black-blanc- beur — white and beur is a word who means Arab, but Arab bomb in France, French
YG: French Arabs who are French.
RK: Well, let’s go back a little further into time, back to the 1930s. A lot of people talk about the Berlin Olympics as a moment where a dictatorship, sort of the rise of the Nazis — and the way the Nazi party sort of hitched themselves to the Olympics — so many people talk about it as sort of the first case of sports washing, or an early case, at least, of sports washing. So what about the FIFA World Cups held in — held during that period, particularly the 1934 tournament in fascist Italy. Were there other examples after that? And how did the ‘34 World Cup play out?
PD: Yes, sometimes the comparison is made between Italy ‘34 and Berlin ‘36, but it can be a bit exaggerated, but it’s a very complex affair. Even so, it was really — competition was characterized by the ideology and the propaganda of the regime. First of all, we have to state that Italy was the first state in Europe to lead a real sport policy after democratic France. Democratic France used sport in diplomacy since 1920, but Italy — after the taking of power by Mussolini, that is to say, between 1922- 1925 — fascist Italy began to have a huge policy. It means building a small stadium for the practice, big stadium for the mass spectators, and Mussolini himself was shown by the propaganda, as I say it in Italian, is primo sportivo d’Italia, it is to say the first sportsman of Italy.
And he was taken by photograph playing tennis, swimming in the sea, skying, and so on. So sport was really part of the image of the regime in this, in this context — what was a place of culture, that is to say, soccer. At the beginning, it was a bit complex, because soccer means violence in the stadium between supporters from different clubs or city. It means also professionalism, that is to say, briberies, and it means also foreign sport, which was not finally the collective sport that was very close to the fascist ideal. The fascist ideal of sport was sports who could produce soldiers for the future war of the regime. For instance, rugby was really a fascist sport — more than football — but the regime had to resign itself, because Mussolini and the other hierarchy had to state that football was a very popular sport with cyclists, so they had to use it. And some heads of the regime, like Leandro Arpinati, he was the mayor of Bologna and the president of the Italian Football Federation, was for the development of football. And the regime modernized the competition, creating the Serie A Championship and providing good and modern stadium for the team, like for instance Juventus played from the middle of the 30s in the Mussolini stadium in Turin. Coming back to the World Cup, the World Cup was proposed to the Italian Federation in 1931, and the response was ‘Maybe we could do it, but it dependent of the economical situation,’ because we were at the beginning of the Great Depression. There is a legend about the link between the regime and the competition: the stadium were not built for the World Cup. In fact, they were built in each city, for instance, in Firenze/Florence, it was the Berta Stadium.
Mussolini in ’33 in Turin or in Rome, the stadium of Partito National Fascista, so in the name of the fascist party in Rome. Mussolini, at the beginning he was a bit diffident, because he didn’t see very much the interest; for instance, Starace — who was the head of the party, national party — fascist party, wanted to create a big cup dedicated to Mussolini, and which will be given to the victorious team of the competition was very huge. And Mussolini, if we see the archives in Rome, was not really interested. When Mussolini understood the benefits of the competition while being seated in the stands in Roma to see the match against the United States — the first match of the Italian team won 7-0, and there was a lot of foreign journalists; there was also a crowd, and he began to have this dialogue with a crowd, which was a part of the fascist ritual. So it was very present during the competition, and at the end the Italian team won.
Why some say is because of the help of referees, especially Swiss and Swedish, who were very tolerant with some players of the Italian team, like Luis Monti, an Argentine-born player who was kicking the opponent. And there was also the help of the public. And at the end, Italy won again against Czechoslovakia, and the operation of propaganda was good, because all the foreign press say that Italy is a country with their beautiful stadium, order is in all the streets; and as we can — we can add — so is that at the moment Mussolini was an ally of the democracies, he was an opponent to Hitler in May, June ‘34, so the situation was a bit different. The Mussolini after ‘35, ‘36 is very different, so that’s why we — that’s the way we can — we have to understand the reaction and the comment at this time from Netherlands, from France, or from Belgium. Was it a very huge operation of propaganda, as the games of Berlin? It’s a bit difficult to say, because the World Cup was not a mega event, as today, it was only the championship of very popular sport, but it was not the World Cup of today.
RK: Your comparison of rugby and football is a really interesting one in terms of thinking about are certain sports more or less compatible with certain political ideologies? Certainly, at the turn of the century in the United States, Teddy Roosevelt pushed American football very hard as like muscular Christianity, in a way of preparing soldiers in a similar way you’re describing rugby. And it’s very interesting to think of any dynamics within the actual play of sport lend themselves more or less to different ideologies, whereas we certainly know that any sport, to some degree, can be sort of hitched to a political agenda with the right sort of propagandist
SM: Fascist was not, well, not the only regime to ensue onto the propaganda of soccer. As everybody knows, communist regimes and famously avoided sports as a tool for propaganda. However, for a long time, the USSR stood apart. Before the World War II, it refused to compete against capitalist nations and largely avoid international events like the Olympic — Olympic Games. This changed in 1952 when USSR joined the Olympic movement, effectively turning sport into a front line of the Cold War. The goal of the Soviet Bloc was clear: use sporting victories to demonstrate the superiority of the communist model. While the FIFA World Cup became a major stage of this rivalry, the Soviet team struggled to dominate, and they made a debut in 1958; but their performance was modest, reaching the quarter final in 1958 and 1962, and picking with a semifinal loss to Germany in 1966. In reality, the true powerhouse of Eastern Europe was Hungary. People — Paul know that very well — with the deep-rooted soccer tradition, the Hungarian magical Magyar were widely considered the best in Europe, and their attacking style drew global admiration, leading them to the 1964 World Cup final, and that final remains legendary. The miracle of Bern. Germany’s under the victory over the heavily favored Hungarians was doubled as miracle — miracle — due to the sheer shock to the results. But beyond the pitch, many historians argued this match changed postwar Germany. It helped foster a sense of national pride and restored international recognition for the West Germany following the trauma of the war and denazification. Despite their defeat, the Hungarian team maintained a positive image in the West. Their star player Ferenc Puskás — Puskás, who was also an Hungarian army officer, gave communism a humane and radiant face. However, the propaganda machine faced a crisis during the 1966 Hungarian Revolution. When the Soviet army crushed an uprising in Budapest, Puskás chose exile. He transformed, at this time, from a communist icon into a symbol of resistance; but we must clarify this narrative. Puskás went on to play for Real Madrid, the flagship — as everybody knows — of another dictatorship, Franco’s regime in Spain. Maybe just a word about another major figure who truly served as an ambassador for the communist system in the West. It was the goalkeeper — the Soviet goalkeeper — Yashin. Yashin is very famous, and Yashin embodied propaganda during East-West tension, and also humanizing the USSR abroad.
YG: My two friends evoke the moment of instrumentalization of football. I think it’s a long history about this topic, and we can make a history of the 20th and 21th centuries at this line of the use in politics about football — not only the dictatorship, also in republics. And I have a good example to complete, my friends, about Argentina: ‘Don’t Cry for Me Argentina.’ It was the World War Cup, the only one World War Cup in this very important country of football. In 1978, it’s a good laboratory of study — instrumentalization of football by the dictator. This country has a dictator with Jorge Videla. We also have the example of Chile three or four years before. In Argentina, it was the narrative of victory — not so easy to have at the end, because it was rigging against some countries, I think like in Argentina, Peru was not so regular — and at the end this great team beats in final Netherlands — three goals to one — with two grand heroes: Mario Kempes and also Leopoldo Luque. At this time it was a moment of detention in Argentina, because the dictator was a contest by some people, and we have the images of the woman in the Plaza de Mayo.
RK: The mothers of the disappeared, right?
YG: Yeah. Again, disappear. And we know that stadium was used to make some violence against opponents. And so the victory of Argentina provoked more patience, very important patience. This country is very connected with football — and we know that today also with the victory, last victory of this country against France — and I think that this victory gives the possibility to the dictator to continue his power until 1983. It was not the victory, maybe, this Videla lived the power before, I think. So the football has a great consequence on this time.
SM: Maybe we can say a word about the boycott movement in France at this time. I’m not sure, Paul, but I think it was the first movement like this in the story of the World Cup, because we know well this kind of movement for the Olympics games, but there were —
PD: Protests against the participation of the China team during the World Cup in German in ‘74. but there was, there was not an organized movement for the boycott.
YG: Yes, and this boycott was important in France. Discussion, so not real, in fact, because nobody — no country — boycotted France. But it was a debate — it was a debate — and we have the memory, maybe too important memory, about this potential protest, and it is history of this not organized boycott at this time.
PD: Yes, but the main parties, from Communist Party to the Gaullist Party, they were all for the participation of France, because since ‘66 it was the first time France qualified for the World Cup. And we have to say yes, as the other reason, that the French industry sold a lot of fighters to the Argentinian army and missiles too.
YG: But it’s not enough, not only France, because we have also other countries — about this, for example, the case — mysterious case — of Johan Cruyff, who don’t want to participate at this edition. Why? Many reason, many, many, many complexity about this great figure.
RK: Yeah, I mean, I think this question of boycotts almost always runs into the issue of if your team has qualified, people are loathed to boycott. If your team hasn’t qualified, it becomes easy to call for a boycott, because it’s a different aspect, right? Am I right in thinking that the first boycott is the African nations in 1966?
PD: Yes, yes, but for another reason. The reason was that FIFA gave one spot for the countries from Asia, Africa, and Oceania together. So, for the Football Federation from Africa — which were very poor at the moment — it’s participate to the qualification competition was too expensive, and with very, very few chance to be qualified. So that’s why, but you’re right in the sense that it was kind of protestation against the domination of the northern nations within the FIFA.
RK: And you are hearing more and more about people talking about boycotting the current — the upcoming — World Cup here in the United States and Mexico and Canada. It doesn’t seem to be grabbing any particular steam, but the chairman of St. Pauli was among them.
YG: I think it’s a new context in the 60s and 70s to have, I think, boycott, because I think boycott in sport is not real in place before the Second World War. The time of the boycott arrived in the 60s.
PD: No, if you see the situation of the Olympic Games of Berlin, there was a huge former Jewish Association, in particular in North America, who plead for boycott —
SM: Not only Jewish, especially the Athletic Federation was for a boycott of the Olympic Games in Berlin. But Avery Brundage — very progressive man, to joke — was definitely for U.S. participation.
YG: I think it’s a difference between Olympics and football.
PD: Yes, and let’s come back to football again.
RK: Again, we’re totally good with football on this podcast. Just one other comment on the sort of timing of when boycotts become sort of more — if not viable — more talked about, is that it also seems to more or less coincide with the increase in satellite television, greater coverage, greater media, greater — so the political significance of these mega events also rises at particular moments, and that makes it maybe more something to talk about.
I’m thinking of the ‘68 Olympics as well, with African Americans in the United States calling for a boycott. But yeah, let’s shift back to the World Cup and back to the early days. So Jules Rimet, the first president of FIFA and the founder of the FIFA World Cup, wrote a book in 1954 titled “Football and the Bringing Together of Peoples.” I’m very curious to hear if you think that the FIFA World Cups have always achieved that goal.
SM: Not really. I would like to focus on the 1938 FIFA World Cup in France because it could be a significant case. It was not just a sporting event, but also political, a political and diplomatic event. It took place in a tense international context, on the eve of the Second World War — obviously — and was influenced by the rise of fascist regime that Paul talked about on the Spanish War, also the Anschluss — I mean the annexation of Austria into Nazi Germany on March 1938 just before the tournament. It must say that France used also the competition to strength its international prestige. At the same time, Paul said about that, Italy clearly used football as a propaganda for the fascism regime; and the Italian team, known as the Nazionale del Duce, became a national showcase for Benito Mussolini’s Italy.
Its victories, like in 1934, was celebrated not only as a sporting success, but also as evidence of the supposed superiority of fascism. This tournament was also shaped by absences on political crises. Spain could not participate because civil war. Austria disappeared from the competition after the Anschluss. And these missing teams reveal how strongly international tensions affected the World Cup.
I encourage listeners of this podcast to look for the official poster for the 1938 World Cup, it’s possible to see it online, and they will see that this poster reflects the somber and tense atmosphere of the pre-war era. It depicts an anonymous soccer player in a martial pose crushing a ball as if he were wearing a soldier boot and a globe tinged with a blood red on the pitch of the tournament reflects this tension in dramatic waves. The German team was associated with Nazi symbolism, and the Italian team was welcomed in hostile atmosphere in France, especially in Marseilles, because of anti-fascist sentiment in the stands. There were many Italian immigrants who had come to France to escape the fascist regime, but the Italian was truly — maybe Paul would be agree with that — the best at the time. And when Italy beat France in Paris and later won the final against Hungary, the fascist regime turned the result into a major political victory.
Finally, I would like to say that 1938 World Cup did not obviously directly cause the war, as well. We must be wary of historical determinism. In 1938, many people still believe in peace, and war did not seem inevitable at this time. Some believe even that the World Cup could help bring about peace. Actually, this World Cup clearly showed the troubled international situation of the time, it was one of the last moments when sport could still serve as a stage for diplomacy, prestige, and ideological confrontation before Europe moved into open conflict.
YG: Yes, we have a good example of context before the war, and I would like to present you a match as a context. Match is not final like ‘98, but here match of the first round in 1974. In the middle of the Cold War, we have a match against the Fédérale République [West Germany] against the Allemagne de l’Est [East Germany]. The two Germany are against at this time for first round, and you can analyze the organization of this match in Hamburg as conflict between the two Germanies. And this is a special history of sport, because the two Germanies are sequences in history as politic, with not the same sequences in sport, because in the first moment the two Germany are together in the competition, and they separate at the moment after this. And in football we have the two Germany was not in equality, because RFA from the West was better than Allemagne.
And at this time in 1974 in West Germany, this team at the final was the champion and arrived at the end against Netherlands, but this match was won by the East Germany and with a goal of Sparwasser — player from Magdeburg — at the end of the match. And we can say here that this confrontation is a symbol of the Cold War in a context special because it was in the context of the Cold War was not in a real tension, because it was the host politic at the moment where Honecker from one way and Willy Brandt from the other way were in the situation to make some discussion, so we can see with the angle of this match a moment of the Cold War.
PD: Yes, and to finish, I would like to speak about the World Cup of 2002 in South Korea and Japan, and coming back first to Jules Rimet. Jules Rimet was born in my region where I live in France, so maybe he’s a most famous, famous man of Franche-Comté; but he was an important official, and the book, very little book he wrote about football — “Bringing Together of Peoples” in 1954 was also the testimony of a man who fought during the First World War, who were was French during the occupation. So for him, war means something.
And we can say that this project continued inside the FIFA, and especially after the election of João Havelange, with the Brazilian president in 1974 who was very controversial, but who changed FIFA. And we can say that Havelange had two aims: commercial aim to increase the income of FIFA and a diplomatical aim to be wanted. And he managed to this aim to make that FIFA will be very important organization in the world and had a diplomatic role, and this diplomatic role was really at stake for this first World Cup organized by two countries.
Why Japan and South Korea? It’s the situation — geographical situation is interesting for your global approach, because these two countries are in fact influenced from the sport point of view by USA, because they are very fond of baseball, but also by Europe with soccer, so there is a kind of struggle between the two sports. And for FIFA, giving the World Cup to these two countries was mean to give a World Cup to Asia after South Africa — north, no, no — after South America, North America, Europe, and to try to operate the reconciliation between the two countries. But it failed. It failed because there was no will to cooperate. The South Koreans protested because they wanted to be named before Japan, that is to say, South Korean and Japan World Cup. The first match was played in Seoul, South Korea and the final in Yokohama in Japan. Anyway, it was a great success as a competition, and a success especially for the South Korean team, which reached the semifinal and classified fourth of the competition.
RK: I think it’s interesting to hear you sort of describe this as like an attempt by FIFA to bring people together, and it often feels like when it’s a very conscious attempt, it falls flat, like it needs to — as you say — have the will of the participants of the populace to actually bring people together. And oftentimes, the moments where people come together are sort of more authentic in the grassroots, or the players themselves are like just different kinds of dynamics rather than this sort of imposed from the top down. We’ve talked a lot about sort of international political dynamics. How do World Cups also provide an opportunity to address post-colonial issues within empires, former empires, and that sort of thing?
SM: Maybe Paul, you could talk about the first appearance by African attempts.
YG: Yes, Paul, come on.
PD: Yes, the World Cup was first a competition reserved for America and Europe, because when it was created the world was divided into several great imperial empires, as the British ones, the French one, and so on. So during the interwar, it was the beginning of football, especially in Africa, but the African footballers who had a regular way of playing — this to say to be affiliated to a federation and to play a regular competition — they had to play this competition within a federal space dominated by the Federation — the Football Association of the metropolis — to say, for instance, French Federation for French Africa or England Federation for Football Association for British Africa. So it means that until the beginning of the 60s, there were few chants for African teams. There was only one example; it was the one of Egypt, which was not really a colony who was under domination by the British, but it was different — and the Egyptians were very good footballers.
They played the Olympic tournament in ‘24. They beat 3-0 Hungary, and then they classified fourth at the Olympic tournament of Amsterdam, and they play the World Cup in Italy. They lost at the first turn, but 4-2 against Hungary, which was very, very good, good team, and from ‘34 to — we can say — 1970, no, no more African team for many reasons. We have recorded this, the boycott of 1966, it had results, since for the next World Cup in Mexico, Africa had one post spot for that team. So it was Morocco who qualified for this World Cup.
It wasn’t — was not an hazard, because in North Africa, football was more developed than in other parts of Africa. It was linked also to the nationalist movement. For instance, one of the great clubs of Morocco, Wydad, was created in 1954 and it was linked to the Istiqlal, the political party for independence; and the monarchy, the Moroccan monarchy, helped also footballers. So they were eliminated at the first round, but they lost only 2-1 against West Germany, and they draw against Bulgaria, I think. So that maybe after Egypt it’s the first African team.
And we can also speak of the first Sub-Saharan team who participated to the World Cup — it was Zaire in 1974. Inside, the dictator Mobutu had led a very huge sport politic for propaganda — and especially in football — but the team was rather inexperienced at the level. There were also a problem of primes, we were not paid to the to the players, so Zaire lost all the three games, and especially games they lost against, Yugoslavia 9-0. Humiliation, obviously, and which had a consequence, consequence for some officials in FIFA, not for João Havelange of Brazilian, but further. They were a bit defeated against this African team, we were not at the level, and the other consequence is a consequence — a tactical consequence — because after — a lot of teams from Sub-Saharan Africa adopted very defensive tactics to avoid such a humiliation. And we have to wait the end of the 80s to see teams like Cameroon to prove the valor of African football.
YG: Another case — very difficult to study for France — is the Algerian case, because we have many, many points of view about the history of football in Algeria against colonization, because football — as we say at the beginning — is a sport of migration, of movement, of multiplication of identity, national identity, identity of club, movement of players are going through the world; and for Algeria, the independence is linked at football with the story very briefly for me here of the Fédération de libération — Front de Libération Nationale, FLN. In 1958, many players — professional players, soccer and club, professional club in France — leave the country, France, to create in Tunisia the national team of Algeria, who is not exist at this time, because it was the Algerian War until ‘62, 1962.
And this team — illegal, unofficial — make a long way journey, a large journey, into the world to have a meeting with Ho Chi Minh, for example, and the nation collaborate with the FLN to remove the national anthem — national idea — and these players came in 1962, the first generation of Algeria team. For example, two very important players: Rachid Mekhloufi, for example, from Saint-Étienne was a player in France with the possibility to participate in 1958 at the World Cup in Sweden, who leave France and not participate, and become with another project Algerian, and they have two nations, for example, and others, it really is the same. This is the first moment, and now the moment —
SM: We can say that this story remains in the history with the nickname of ‘XI of Independence, XI of Independence.’
YG: And the second moment is 20 years after moment where, when Algeria appear very important in the World Cup 1982 — when the Algeria victory, important victory against West Germany with a great team — she was eliminated after the first round with a mysterious affair between Austria.
RK: The reason we have matches at the same time — at the end of group stage.
YG: It was a moment important for this generation. It was a shame. So — and at this moment — Algerian, the people in Saint-Étienne was very proud about this team, and this is emergence of Algeria in the — in the national, in the international, area.
And the third example is very interesting, also is a post-colonial study. It is a friendly match — not so friendly in real — in 2001 in France, because politics want to organize the match of the retrouvé — reconciliation — possibility to have a meeting together with left government in France, and in particular the communist Marie-George Buffet was Minister of Sport, organize this match.
But this match was not so friendly, because three elements arrive and created a tension, post-colonial tension. For example, the national anthem, the “Marseillaise” was criticized, booed by the public. Why? Because a large part of this public are French-Arabic, as we say before, and this is trouble for his politics. Integration doesn’t work at this time. Second element, Zidane was a topic of tension. Is he French? Is he Algerian? As you know today, that his son is playing for the Algerian team. And third element, very difficult, the match was not at the end, because 10 minutes before the end, French — Algerian was in difficulty, and the public — part of public going in the ground and interrupt the match. And for example, these three elements say that it’s very difficult to have football match against France and Algeria.
SM: This event means the end of the dream of 1998 that yes, you know, the friends, multicultural friends —
RK: And another example of how imposing sort of a coming together through sport from, from the top down often fails, that it needs to have support.
SM: Absolutely, absolutely. And to continue I would like to speak about the link between the French national team and post-colonial immigration, because in France the issue of postcolonialism is closely linked to immigration. Indeed, between the 50s and 80s, most immigration came from the former colonies in North and West Africa. Half of the immigration living in France today are from Africa, and Algerians make up the largest group of foreign nationals.
And dissonance of these immigrants are represented in the French national team, even Paul spoke about that, especially yesterday evening. Even during the colonial era, players considered as native Algierans in French played for the national team. Among the most famous were Raoul Diagne from Senegal, son of famous politician, member of the Chamber of Deputy. There was also Larbi Benbarek Moroccan from Morocco; and even told about after the second World War, the great player Rachid Mekhloufi — Rachid Mekhloufi was a kind of Zidane at this time. Yes.
For a long time, however, players from the former colonies were largely absent of the French national team in the 60s and 70s. Memories of colonization were still very present in France, and racism was widespread, and even known well, this topic, because he devoted many studies to this subject. And in the 90s, it was the children of immigrants who began to play for the French national team. The most famous of them was, of course, Zinedine Zidane, the son of an Algerian family that settled in Marseille, a major city in south of France with a large immigrant population. As everyone knows, Zidane is one of the greatest players in history of soccer. He’s also one of the French public favorite figures ever, even in a country where racism remains widespread.
One sign of that is the rise of the racist far right. In fact, unfortunately, the next president of the [French] Republic may well come from the far right. And naturally, the far right does not like the large number of players of color — Arabs, as they are often called, Black players from Africa or the Caribbean; but for many other people these players symbolize the integration of immigrants into French society. They also represent a multicultural France. There is also, if I — if I may have a debate, a debate about children of immigrants who are born in France, and they are therefore French citizens by birth, yet choose to play for their family’s national team. Of the 658 players taking part in the last African Cup of Nation, across 24 teams, more than 100, 107 were born in France. That is one in six.
And in fact, the Africa Cup of Nations is actually very popular in French television, and when the winning team celebrates, their fans openly express their joy in the street, wearing jerseys and waving flags from their home countries. Or for many French people, these young people, most recall, most of them are French, are seen as symbols of failed integration. Some even regard them as a threat to national unity or national identity. In that sense, the most significant event was a match between France and Algeria, that which I even told just a few minutes ago. I would like to conclude by stressing the post-colonial dimension of this issue, and by pointing out that the celebration — we talk about that with David — the celebration organized by many descendants of Portuguese-Italians. I would like to record that Italian people have been, during a long time, the first nationally — foreign nationality in France. So this kind of celebration do not attract the same kind of comments. I think it means the real issue of postcolonialism.
RK: And the dynamics you’re describing are certainly present in so many different, different places around the world, including in the United States. Even though it wasn’t a formally colonial system in the same sense, we still have the immigration from informal colonies, or in some cases — thinking particularly of Guam and Puerto Rico — quite explicit colonies. So, you, you also have these same dynamics, and you see it in Spain, you see it even now in England, lots of places. I so appreciate all of the insights you all have brought today, it’s a fascinating conversation. My last question is, it’s been 20 years since the book you all produced together on the politics of the World Cup. Is there an update coming,
SM: Paul?
RK: Apparently it’s up to you, Paul.
PD: For the moment, we should —
SM: We should, because the last chapter was about the 1988 —
PD: No, no, we have a chapter.
SM: I’m sorry, we have a chapter about Korea in 2002. So we definitely —
PD: We have no chapter about the South African World Cup, which is quite important, the Russian one, and Qatar, and the U.S. And I will add something, that since the moment when we wrote this book, there are a lot of archives, a lot of other books, a lot of studies that were published. The access of the archives is much more easier today. So I think we could use a new, new issue update, very interesting.
SM: We have been junior.
YG: Yeah, but something is interesting about the possibility to study only 20 years, the story of the present, I think.
SM: The story of the 21st century.
YG: Yeah, 21st century with new events. But I think the strategy to evoke the history through every moment of World Cup, every four years until 1930, is very interesting. It’s a good meaning to make the history — maybe football is not right history. We have some distortion with football, in plus or minus — maybe with patience — but we have the possibility to observe society, diplomacy, war, or also happiness, instrumentalization of politics, and I think this strategy is not old. I think it’s new, maybe for the future, and the simply objective is to make the story of the present, last present.
SM: Maybe we can have, because we will agree with that. Many people used to say that sport — and especially sport in politics, in international relation — sport is like a mirror. But we don’t really agree with that, because we think that sport is part of politics, is part of international religion, is part of society, in fact.
RK: Right. So it both impacts politics and reflects politics. It can do both at the same time. Yeah, my favorite part of Eduardo Galeano’s famous book, “Soccer in Sun and Shadow,” are the short little vignettes that — of each World Cup, where he sort of gives a quick summary of what’s happening in each World Cup.
Thank you so much for the conversation today, Yvan, Paul, and Stéphane. And special thanks to all of you for listening.
PD: Thank you, Ron.
RK: To say a bit more about the Global Sport Lab, we are a new collaboration based in the Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington, Seattle, in partnership with my own school, Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences at UW Bothell. The lab uses the lens of sport to explore the big issues of our global world, from migration, politics, inequity, racism, and gender discrimination to popular culture, democracy, human rights, and the economy, to name just a few. We are particularly focused on the global sport of football, better known as soccer in the United States, during the run-up to Seattle’s hosting of the FIFA Men’s World Cup in 2026, but we are interested in a wide range of sports, well-known and less well known, from the grassroots to the professional levels, and how they help us make meaning of the world.
Special thanks to musician and scholar of global football, Laurent Dubois, and WOTI Production for the use of our theme music, “Merci Kylian,” available on Spotify and Apple Music. If you would like to join more conversations like this, please reach out to us at globalsportlab@uw.edu We look forward to hearing from you. Thanks, and keep playing.
