L'Affaire Zizou
Sorry. Back to the World Cup, again.
It's not going to be easy to remember World Cup 2006 as the great tournament it was with L'Affair Zizou hanging over its finale. My initial reactions were of disbelief, disgust, and disappointment (in that particular order). Now that the details are beginning to emerge, I'm having trouble reconciling just how I feel.
Ultimately and obviously, it was a display of poor sportsmanship by Zidane, provoked or not. Accordingly, it was a terrible way to end a beautiful career. But now that Materazzi admits that he insulted Zidane, are we supposed to sympathize with the football hero? I guess that depends on the nature of the insult, a veritable hotbed of speculation without confirmation. While Zidane claims it concerned his mother and sister, Materazzi denies this, claiming that, to him, the mother is sacred (having lost his own at a young age). Materazzi also denies calling Zidane a terrorist, apparently not knowing what a terrorist is. Will we ever know the truth? Maybe. There is a hearing scheduled for July 20. Will it all unfold then?
There has been an investigation opened against Materazzi. This is where I start to have mixed feelings. My reasons are these:
Sorting out a stance on this is really a philosophical battle. First, I have to free myself from the shackles of the omnipotent dichotomy of good and evil. I want to think "he's guilty and he's innocent," but maybe they are each a bit of both. Additionally, it's hard to put shade on the golden light that Zizou has forever been emitting in my mind; he couldn't possibly be capable of such filth, could he? On the same token, it's hard to accept that this Materazzi character I have known of since the middle of June, as really only highly instrumental in My Dearest Zizou's undignified exit, can have any of the same glorious virtues as him; he must be evil, yes?
Secondly, I have to ask myself, "when is The Game no longer The Game?" When is it the real world, and not a match of soccer? Is it always straddling the line between the two? What rules apply when and where? When did their exchange become between two men rather than between two footballers? Why isn't the red card enough resolution?
So, I suppose my conclusion is inconclusive. (<--I think that's a double entendre)
It's not going to be easy to remember World Cup 2006 as the great tournament it was with L'Affair Zizou hanging over its finale. My initial reactions were of disbelief, disgust, and disappointment (in that particular order). Now that the details are beginning to emerge, I'm having trouble reconciling just how I feel.
Ultimately and obviously, it was a display of poor sportsmanship by Zidane, provoked or not. Accordingly, it was a terrible way to end a beautiful career. But now that Materazzi admits that he insulted Zidane, are we supposed to sympathize with the football hero? I guess that depends on the nature of the insult, a veritable hotbed of speculation without confirmation. While Zidane claims it concerned his mother and sister, Materazzi denies this, claiming that, to him, the mother is sacred (having lost his own at a young age). Materazzi also denies calling Zidane a terrorist, apparently not knowing what a terrorist is. Will we ever know the truth? Maybe. There is a hearing scheduled for July 20. Will it all unfold then?
There has been an investigation opened against Materazzi. This is where I start to have mixed feelings. My reasons are these:
- I am fundamentally opposed to the investigation being opened. Materazzi's agent hit the nail on the head when he referred to the Totti spitting incident of Euro 2004. Long story short, Totti spits at Poulsen, Totti gets suspended for three games. Totti didn't spit at Poulsen for no reason, so why wasn't an investigation opened against him? Is FIFA setting a double standard?
- If, hypothetically, Materazzi did not mention Zidane's mother and/or sister, nor called Zidane a terrorist, and simply used a standard, run-of-the-mill insult, has he not acted like 99% (a hypothetical figure) of all the other players, only to be unexpectedly given a head-butt in return? Yes, methinks.
- If, hypothetically, Materazzi mentioned the word "terrorist" and any other racially- or religiously-related insults, is he more than a victim? Yes, methinks. FIFA thinks so, too. Sepp Blatter, FIFA president, is attempting to extinguish the rampant racism in soccer. As reported by the BBC, "If the verdict is that the Italian is found to have been racist he could be fined £4,400 and suspended for five matches." That's fair, within the regulations and whatnot. However, Zizou, although a victim of Materazzi's crime, is still not innocent of his own.
Sorting out a stance on this is really a philosophical battle. First, I have to free myself from the shackles of the omnipotent dichotomy of good and evil. I want to think "he's guilty and he's innocent," but maybe they are each a bit of both. Additionally, it's hard to put shade on the golden light that Zizou has forever been emitting in my mind; he couldn't possibly be capable of such filth, could he? On the same token, it's hard to accept that this Materazzi character I have known of since the middle of June, as really only highly instrumental in My Dearest Zizou's undignified exit, can have any of the same glorious virtues as him; he must be evil, yes?
Secondly, I have to ask myself, "when is The Game no longer The Game?" When is it the real world, and not a match of soccer? Is it always straddling the line between the two? What rules apply when and where? When did their exchange become between two men rather than between two footballers? Why isn't the red card enough resolution?
So, I suppose my conclusion is inconclusive. (<--I think that's a double entendre)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home