Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Supporting teams from repressive regimes

imposs1904 said:
Nah, the title of the Latin Quarter's comeback album, surely?
Click to expand...
jesus , remember this ?
I'm hearing only bad news from Radio Africa
Hearing only sad news from Radio Africa
They've still got trouble with a monster in the South
Heads buried deep in that lion's mouth
Like a jaw snapped shut, it keeps them apart
If that jaw got broken it would be a start
I'm hearing only bad news from Radio Africa
I'm hearing only sad news from Radio Africa
The West still complains about the foreign aid
They'd do better to change the terms of the trade
There's more tanks than food in the Ogaden
It looks like Moscow got it wrong again
I'm hearing only bad news from Radio Africa
I'm hearing only sad news from Radio Africa
I'm hearing only bad news from Radio Africa
I'm hearing only sad news
Mozambique and Mugabe
Still got FRELIMO I hear them say
But exchange means
Recession means
It all means it's harder to take
Tanzania could be moving up a gear
Instead they've got to step on the brake
I'm hearing only bad news (so many movements have come this far)
I'm hearing only bad news (the lending means and interest means it's harder to find)
I'm hearing only bad news from Radio Africa (independence has a hidden expense)
I'm hearing only bad news from Radio Africa (when the hands of the purse strings are white)
Hearing only bad news from Radio Africa
Hearing only bad news from Radio Africa
Hearing only the bad news from Radio Africa
Hearing only the bad news from Radio Africa
Hearing only bad news from Radio Africa
 
Not as good as this which i used to have:
R-2149570-1266966501.jpeg.jpg

Sign-on with the AK47 fire got sampled a bit as i recall
 
Not stirring but curious what redsquirrel thinks on this?
For me it's easy to sperate the politics from the sport... That's what I like about sport, especially the world cup...unity (and friendly competition ) through sport

The backstory of the Iranian goalkeeper is ace btw.
 
I don’t really see listening or watching a football match at home or down the boozer is a political act. My Capricious and arbitrary whims Regarding which team I might favour Don’t have any affect on the regemes from whence they hale. . I’ve certainly never supported a team because I like their country’s government.
 
xenon said:
I don’t really see listening or watching a football match at home or down the boozer is a political act. My Capricious and arbitrary whims Regarding which team I might favour Don’t have any affect on the regemes from whence they hale. . I’ve certainly never supported a team because I like their country’s government.
Click to expand...
Yep, this. Also, even if a country has a shitty regime, doesn't mean its people - players and supporters - are shitty.

My only exception in this WC is Saudi Arabia, cos I think they should be banned from men's football. But that's for football reasons (women not allowed to play).
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Yep, this. Also, even if a country has a shitty regime, doesn't mean its people - players and supporters - are shitty.

My only exception in this WC is Saudi Arabia, cos I think they should be banned from men's football. But that's for football reasons (women not allowed to play).
Click to expand...


Just adding to this. I do feel a bit differently in that I think boycotting a country with an appalling human rights regime , so far as not taking part in prestige sporting and cultural events, is fair enough. I suppose the difference is the regime can gain some credence, use such events to whitewash what they are doing. Alternatively of course, by attending such events, is perhaps a chance to throw a bit of light on the host country.

All that pontificating aside, I do just want to see a good game of football.
 
imposs1904 said:
Costa Rica don't have a standing army. Does that mean they are everyone's team on Urban?
Click to expand...
they're impressing me against brazil, that's good enough :)

Most people seem to be saying that the politics of the governemtn don't matter, the players aren't representing them. Which is fair enough, but that is what was trotted out by those opposed to the sports boycott of South Africa. How much that boycott mattered in the fall of the regime I don't know, but it appeared from here to part of a package that eventually destroyed the confidence of those who held up the Apartheid governemnt.
 
The39thStep said:
In my opinion on one hand its very difficult to seperate football from politics and on the other its very easy to do so whilst watching a game for 90 minutes . One one hand we have a World Cup hosted by a nationalist country with a high level of corruption ,poor record on LGBT rights, racism, a dubious foreign policy and where there is little in the way of political opposition . The host nations first game was against Saudi Arabia a despicable conservative regime that has financed and promoted Islamic extremism , bans trade unions and has an appalling human rights record. A plague on both houses would have been the response of many until a relatively unfancied Russia scored five and exceeded expectaions football wise.T Add to that the experience of most attending the World Cup has not been the anti LGBT , racist, hooligan violence hell that was predicted ( Iranian women can attend football matches there) and perhaps Russia isnt that bad after all?

Theres a grim list of teams in Russia with terrible human rights , high levels of corruption and and disgusting inequalities .However they are pretty much the underdogs against the big teams and unless you have a bet on the big teams or have them in the sweepstake its natural ( isn't it?) to want an upset.Or is there a line that can be drawn about teams who are not only from repressive regimes but whose style of play is a crime against football? Or countries like Egypt who despite trying citizens in miltary courts, persecuting human rights defenders and subjecting them to travel bans, repressing trade unions and attacking gays in fact pretty much working to eradicate independent civil society in the country are ok because they have Mo Salah?

Dont get me wrong I can remember cheering Iran on in one World Cup against the USA just on the grounds that it was against the USA but I can also remember cheering the USA on in another World Cup because Landon Donovan was playing for them.

I dont know what the answer is , perhaps there isnt one?
Click to expand...

The regimes aren’t kicking the ball about though are they?
You’re supporting the workers, toiling on the soil pitch.
 
I admit to supporting a team because I am keen on the national flora. This year, Chile, had they appeared, would have been great contenders for fandom with Japan definitely up there (and Iceland and Peru because I like the wool). Nearly all regimes are repressive - it's the nature of power...and even the corrupt business of sport itself...so yeah, I have a solid (if shallow) rationale for supporting teams...
 
ska invita said:
Not stirring but curious what redsquirrel thinks on this?
Click to expand...
No offence but why? The debate about the poppy we had?
ska invita said:
For me it's easy to sperate the politics from the sport... That's what I like about sport, especially the world cup...unity (and friendly competition ) through sport
Click to expand...
Anyway my thoughts are pretty much what xenon said. Generally I think the players are removed from the regime that there's no issue. There are some exceptions where the team is intimately bound up with the regime - to take a extreme example the German team at the 1936 Olympics - where there is an issue but I think those are the exception rather than the rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

chilango
Who are you supporting?
Replies
7
Views
524
JimW
JimW
J Ed
England supporters, who is going to be your second team and why?
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
JimW
JimW
tommers
Rest Day Support Group
2
Replies
33
Views
987
Teaboy
T
Back
Top Bottom