I am not a devoted fan of soccer. But the World Cup has held a growingfascination for me. Take, for example, the contest between England andArgentina, “the Second Falklands War” (only the results are reversed). Awar-like excitement on both sides. Agitated crowds. Flags. Anthems. Averitable war, only without Margaret Thatcher in England and without themurderous generals in Argentina. Without the blood. Without the dead.
Even more so the U.S. and Iran. The sons of Allah against the GreatSatan. Western culture against Moslem savagery. Embraces before,kisses afterwards, just as in the ancient myth of Sumer (whatis now the area on the periphery of Iran). It is where thecataclysmic battle between the hero Gilgamesh and his enemyEnkidu took place. After that battle the two became soulbrothers.
Konrad Lorenz, who studied animal behavior and its relevance inunderstanding of human behavior, believed that aggression is innate tohuman nature and that it is hereditary. We inherited it through abiological process over hundreds of millions of years. It was essentialto the development of the human race. But now that the human mind hasinvented the nuclear bomb, this agression threatens the very survival ofhumankind. It is impossible to root it out — but it is possible todivert it into harmless channels. Like soccer.
The World Cup validates this theory. After all, the game is nothing butaggression. Aggression on the field, aggression among the spectators inthe stands and those at home, aggression of hooligans out in the streets.Facial expressions, body language, guttural exclamations — all thesebelong to the realm of battle. It is a pretend-war, providing a (mostly)harmless outlet to aggression.
This outlet is so useful because it provides a non-violent channel for themost powerful collective instinct of our times — nationalism. The humananimal, like many other creatures in nature, requires a sense of belonging,”us” against “them”. “We” are the good, the righteous, themaster race, the chosen people, the children of light.”They” are the bad ones, the Evil Empire, the inferior race, thesubhumans, the immoral goyim who are more closely related to thebeasts than to us. Soccer provides a legitimate and acceptableoutlet for all of these emotions. Together in hope (before thegame), together in pride (if we win or even if we lose with honor).There is no minority discrimination. The French cheer on the Africanand the Arab on their team.
But the World Cup is much more than just a series of soccer games. It isthe vision of the future.The World Cup embodies a world-order. It contains international law,recognized by all and obeyed by all without hesitation or objection. Itis equally familiar to a Russian muzhik as it is to an Argentineangaucho. There is a law and there is a judge. One may complain about thejudge’s decision, but one may not defy it. Millions of Italians watch thegame with the same emotions as millions of Chinese. Tiny Croatia is equalto the American giant. The same has not been achieved in the UnitedNations. Brazil is a soccer superpower not because of its size and richesbut because of its talented players. There is a lesson in this.
On the threshold of the 21st century, the best minds of the human raceunderstand that a new compulsory world order must be established, withinternational law, an international court with international mandatorypowers and an international police force.. Every terrorist group andevery mafia can arm itself today with nuclear, chemical or biologicalweapons of destruction, holding tens of millions in fear. A tinycountry can bring about an irreversible ecological catastrophe. Atthis very moment, there are dozens of “small” wars being waged acrossthe world, accompanied by ethnic cleansings and genocide. The holein the ozone layer threatens the future survival of the human race.The economy and the media are global. When the stock exchangecrashes in Hong Kong, a store keeper in Tel-Aviv may lose his lifesavings. When the rain forest in Brazil is being burned, it has aneffect on our climate. El Nino and the Internet do not recognizenational borders.
Some beginnings of a world order can be found here and there, forinstance in the international tribunal for trying war criminals. Buthuman development lags hundreds of years behind the objective reality.In the area of the Middle Eastern conflict, the U.N. proves itself to betoothless. Saddam Hussein, Kim Il Sung and Binyamin Netanyahyu can eachspit into the face of the world and emerge as victors. The world is stuckin the nationalist phase (which in its time was progressive and vital forthe development of society and the economy). Europe is moving toward aregional stage, which seems like the vision of the future — althoughit, too, is already obsolete.
The next stage is a global government, a global democracy and global law.A global government capable of using its power to prevent genocide andwars, of enforcing the safeguarding of human rights and international justice,just like the court and the police enforce the law on each of us withinour countries. This is still a distant vision, but I have no doubt thatit will come — if the human race survives until then (which is not at alla given).
Actually the World Cup points to the destination as well as to the path.The world-law of soccer does not cancel out national pride. On thecontrary — it only diverts it to a constructive channel. The religiousfervor with which the players and the spectators sing their respectivenational anthems, the unfurled national flags, the nationalist spiritoverwhelming the crowds during a game — all these indicate that anational sense which is natural and deep does not contradict thevision of a world order.