Commercializing Soccer

In the book, "How Soccer Explains the World," Foer addresses the role of oligarchs in the game, yet he does not include arguably the most prominent, but discreet oligarch in the game. Roman Abramovich is the owner of Chelsea FC, a team which has recently found monumental success from world class players brought in on Abramovich's dime. Abramovich rose to prominence during the liberalization of Russian industry during the reign of Boris Yeltsin. He seized control of aluminum and oil companies, and held a significant amount of shares in Gazprom, a multi-national corporation. Gazprom is a very well known sponsor of UEFA and FIFA, and arguably contributed to the bribes to bring the World Cup to Russia in 2018. While much of this happened after Foer published his book, the influence of corporations and oligarchs extends far beyond the simplicity of buying referees and smashing transfer records. The rise of rich foreign investors in soccer to protect their funds has increased a marketization of the game, and sponsorships which now have a tremendous amount of influence upon the beautiful game. 

Mr. Abramovich started a wave of foreign investment in large European teams, since his arrival in the English game, many more have followed. The Abu Dhabi United Group has brought Manchester City back to prominence, the Qatar Investment Authority has made Paris St. Germain a continental force, and Dmitrii Rybolovlev splashed cash at AS Monaco. All of these oligarchs were seeking a way to protect their money, and to legitimatize it. When Abramovich bought Chelsea, it was during a time in Russia when Putin was cutting the oligarchs down, men like Boris Berezovskii were seeking asylum, and Abramovich had to ensure that he was not next. By funneling money through Chelsea and Gazprom endorsement deals, Abramovich secured his financial and political future. Since his purchase of Chelsea, Putin has taken Abramovich as a close advisor and even helped him secure political office. These oligarchs have established a very effective system for protecting their own capital through soccer clubs in Europe, and because of this, capitalism has spread through the game. Teams are seeking large endorsements, Manchester United have a sponsor for just about every possible item. Take a look, http://www.manutd.com/en/General-Footer-Section/Sponsors.aspx it truly gets ridiculous at times. These teams are now driven by the profit rather than the glory. 

More recently, the corruption of FIFA is well known, and most notably of Sepp Blatter. He secured another term of office, but soon after corporations such as Coca-Cola and McDonalds reneged their sponsorship deals, two of the largest deals for FIFA. A few days later, Blatter announced he would resign. The influence of money and these corporations cannot be understated in FIFA and the game as a whole. While Foer does touch on the power of money within the game, the rise of corporations and their power he did not predict. While he does talk about the Agnelli family and their corruption using Fiat, the scale of which corporations have taken control could not have been predicted.

While men like Abramovich have brought joy to many fans of soccer, controversy is never far away. Some may argue that money has always been corrupting the game, and that the inflated transfer deals was always going to happen. Commercialization has always been a problem, Johan Cruyff refused to wear the 3 stripes of Adidas due to a Puma endorsement in 1974. While the marketization of soccer has certainly coincided with the rise of globalization, it has always been there and it is unlikely to stop. 

Soccer and Globalization

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/upshot/globalization-under-attack-on-the-soccer-field.html?_r=0

SOCCER IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT

The European Soccer Industry has been facing many changes in the recent years, especially when it comes down to foreign players entering the league. The new rules that Greg Dyke has proposed seems to be a bad idea globally, because it restricts the international globalization, and opens up a domestic globalization. This globalization of foreign players however has its negative effects, such as the tensions between fans and members of the European soccer council. Yes having foreign players has its benefits and will help with globalizing soccer to a higher point, but some members of the Council believe that It is better to improve the domestic teams rather than bring in players from around the world.

The article mentions that foreign players on European teams are bringing in money and they are able to help the European teams profit from their teams. Globalization and soccer both go hand in hand, as discussed in class, because soccer is a global sport that brings about many people from around the world, who attempt to bring up the national pride, as well as play with nationally ranked players.

In class we discussed Soccer and Globalization and we came up with some of the positives to globalization such as Unity among fans, and using Soccer rather than war. In class we discussed how the Syrian and Croatian soccer teams resorted to violence to prove who the better team is. This obviously had negative side effects which lead to the downfall of a lot of the “gangs” involved. 

With European Soccer players rising to the top levels, they are getting paid more, which in turn helps the global soccer market increase. Players from all around the world are looking to play on the nationally ranked teams, and they are increasing the business for the league. Players from smaller countries are getting the opportunity to compete with top notch players which increasing the global economy, and allows for globalization to take place, meaning the different teams and countries begin to integrate.

The players are able to make a ton of money from signing to other teams, and the fans also get the opportunity to have pride for their team regardless of the team member’s ethnic background. People see the international globalization of Soccer teams as a bad thing, but if we are to analyze the process the money that these teams receive are eye-opening. Just as the article mentions, the wealthy foreigners buy the teams, sponsorship comes about, and fans buy merchandise that coincide with their teams. Soccer has become the best and economically sustainable sport in the world. That is why bringing in foreign players is a good thing, because we are helping out profits!

Ineffectiveness of the UN Security Council

         The UN was established in 1945 to prevent a third world war, and in this regard has been successful. In recent years, however, it has been unable to prevent a number of major conflicts and as a result, many casualties. Many of these conflicts have involved members of the UNSC – in the case of Iraq, for example, the US and Britain. The UN could not block that intervention, and it would probably have been bypassed had the UK parliament voted for military intervention in Syria. The fact is, regardless of the nature and scale of conflict, the power structure of the UN prevents joint decisions on the most pressing and immediate issues if the interests of any Big Five (US, Britain, China, France, Russia) clash.

         The UN’s inability to reach a solution for peace in Syria and also the entire Middle East peace process serves as a perfect example. Palestine's rise as an “observer state” after getting overwhelming support in the General Assembly of the UN has already shown the existing differences in the institution. Immediately after UNESCO recognized Palestine as its newest member, the US stopped its funding to the organization – but it still only reassessed its aid to Egypt after the military coup there. Any resolutions to bring Israel to the ICC for war crimes committed in Gaza, or to stop it from building more settlements on Palestinian land are blocked by the US on a regular basis. Because the US has veto power within the UNSC, it is rendered ineffective and it is easily bypassed.                                                      

I believe that reforms of the UN, especially the UNSC, are necessary and could work towards better international governance and maintenance of peace and security in the world, but they can only work if the top 5 countries (mentioned above) are ready to give up their veto and engage in more democratic power-sharing. Minor reforms, such as including more non-permanent members in the UN for two year periods, are not going to help in the long run: countries elected as non-permanent members to the UNSC can vote on a resolution, but the permanent members can still veto it. The UN needs to be a legitimate international organization that serves the needs of those affected by conflicts directly, and not the interests of the power-hungry nations who run the show. This can only be achieved when there are serious diplomatic efforts to make the UNSC a truly “one member, one vote” system, serving the interests of all nations.

There is a consensus that the Council must be reformed for the U.N. to not lose its legitimacy, but there’s a startling lack of will to get the process of reform into gear. And, ultimately, as long as the veto-wielding powers keep their vetoes, much of the underlying facts on the ground won’t change. Those who defend the veto argue that, without it, international governance would be far more unpredictable and chaotic. But with it, the U.N. is becoming more and more irrelevant.

Sovereignty and Intervention

The idea of humanitarian intervention is in contention between IR scholars and the United Nations itself.  Humanitarian intervention can be viewed as a violation of state sovereignty.  Opponents to humanitarian intervention often quote the UN charter which states “the Organization is based on the principle of sovereign equality of all its members.”  However, I am of the opinion that state sovereignty is earned and that humanitarian intervention could be optimal in the right circumstances.

State sovereignty occurs when a government is the sole source of authority in a territory and no other source of authority exists elsewhere.  Where does this authority some from?  Throughout history, different definitions of authority, and therefore sovereignty, have surfaced.  In the Han Dynasty, the ruler had a mandate of heaven from which he drew his authority.  The people were subordinate to the king because, in their view, he was chosen by God.  In the US, authority is drawn from the Constitution.  The US is a nation in which the rule of law, or supremacy of written law over public officials, exists.  In many western democracies, it can be argued that the authority of the government is drawn from the people.  Sovereignty cannot be universally justified because authority comes from different sources according to different worldviews.  If the principle of state sovereignty is upheld universally in IR, it can be said that sovereignty is drawn simply from the fact that a ruler exists and exercises power over the territory.  This implies that power is synonymous with authority.  This idea resembles the laws of the natural world, in which a strong organism rules simply because it has power.  It can live where it wants, kill what it wants, and take what it wants because it is able to assert its power on other organisms.  This should not be the case in IR.  Society is an institution that aims to improve upon the chaos of the natural world.  Sovereignty, therefore, should be earned, not granted by power.  Under the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect, a state must protect its people from atrocities.  States also deserve help in protecting their people from atrocity.  However, if the state actively commits atrocity against its people, member states of the UN have agreed to take decisive action to protect the people (Ban).

It is necessary that humanity adopts a global responsibility for the welfare of all people.  Should we not provide aid in the form of medicine and food to needy people because it encroaches on the sovereignty of an irresponsible or incompetent nation?  I believe that humanitarian intervention can be justified using this same question.  I concede that humanitarian intervention may not always be the best option.  For example, Syria’s conflict consists of Assad, various rebel groups, and ISIS.  There is no legitimate side to support.  All humanitarian intervention would accomplish in this circumstance is to saturate the nation with more weapons and complicate things further.  However, the idea of humanitarian intervention is justifiable.  Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, shares this viewpoint.  In a report, he concludes that the responsibility to protect is a legitimate concept that should be carried out with cooperation between the member states of the UN.  He supports the three pillars of the responsibility to protect, but realizes that it is a new idea that must be refined in strategy.  If the responsibility to protect is exercised with cooperation between nations, and each instance of atrocity is carefully analyzed, I agree with the Secretary General.  Humanitarian intervention could be a legitimate action used to enhance the welfare of humanity.    

 UN Charter- http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html

Ban Ki-moon Report-http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/UNSG%20Report_timely%20and%20decisive%20response(1).pdf

Syrian Intervention

They say hindsight is 20/20, yet that still does not help answer the question on whether we should have intervened in the Syrian crisis in the summer of 2013. Even after the rise of the Islamic State and the refugee crisis that has given Europe quite a headache, the possibility of getting heavily involved in another Middle Eastern country could have possibly had infinitely worse consequences. While many see the control ISIS has over the region as a direct result of the United States refusing the intervene, there is always the possibility that some other extremist group would have risen in its place, using nationalism against the United States to recruit members. A definitive answer to whether we should have intervened or not is truly impossible to give, but I argue that our path of not getting involved during the summer of 2013 was the correct move at the time. 

The past experience including Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq have shown that attempting to exert our influence both militarily and politically can be turned against us. All of these situations had deeper cultural issues that we did not understand at the time. For example, Vietnam had a long and glorious tradition of repelling foreigners who sought to use the country, from the Chinese in the 1st millennia to the French in the age of imperialism. When we gave weapons and training to the Mujahideen, we ended up funding the beginning of Al Qaeda and fostered an incredible amount of anti-Western sentiment that has been used since to recruit members to organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS. The Iraq War truly has a very negative image in the minds of many Americans. That is still a very fresh memory and we want to avoid it at all costs, so when we saw another tyrannical dictator being awful to his people, it seemed similar to Saddam. While some saw this as a chance to act as a police force, many wanted to avoid the possibility of another expensive war in the Middle East.

Another aspect to consider is the staunch defense of the Assad regime by Moscow. If we had intervened, Russia could easily have taken that as a violation on the sphere of influence. With a leader in Putin who is so quick to use action and assert dominance, we could have triggered military action from another great power which is certainly something we want to avoid. 

While a US military presence in Syria might have helped curtail the rapid growth ISIS has experienced, our presence could have just as easily helped unite the locals against us. Using anti-Western sentiment, gathering support and spreading extremism could have been a legitimate possibility of US intervention. Settling a civil war is infinitely more complicated than an occupying force. In the Gulf War, we got Saddam out of Kuwait, but if we wanted to remove Assad then all of Assad’s followers could not just leave. Splitting two or more factions that are set in a state make the aftermath much more complicated and expensive for the US.

In conclusion, the possibilities of what could have gone wrong is just as bad as what has happened since we did not intervene. However, American boots are not on the ground in the same number that they would be and we are avoiding another expensive war in the Middle East. I see it as the right decision not to intervene. 

Somalia or North Korea? (And How This Relates to Tipping Restrictions)

Response Blog Post #3

In Lecture 13, an interesting question was raised when we looked at the critique of failed states: Is it better to be a failed state or a repressed state? That introduces the related question of, would you rather live in Somalia or North Korea? It is arguably a lose-lose situation, because Somalia is a failed (or weak) state and North Korea is a repressed state. We discussed how we can regard a state as failed when there are is prevalent human rights abuses, high crime rates, lack of civil rights, lack of an ability to handle natural disasters, civil war, and many other disastrous qualities. This leads to a myriad of security, poverty, and human rights issues. Conversely, we can determine a state as repressed when there is no choice given to the public on how they live their lives, and the government control is overreaching. The effects can sometimes be similar to those of a failed or weak state, such as poverty due to a lack of economic freedom (and many more). However, the main distinction is clarified as being that a failed state has a weak/ incompetent government and a repressed state has a government that is seemingly omnipotent. Both are bad, evidently. Nonetheless, in my opinion, it would be better to live in a repressed state like North Korea, even if I was surrendering my freedom to do so, because the former option just seems much more dangerous, unpredictable, and overall, the worse option.  

It is extremely dangerous to live in Somalia due to the armed conflict between the many warlords and factions against the government forces. Pirates threaten security. There is ubiquitous terrorist activities and civil unrest. Recently, because of a dispute between rival clans over tax collection, “At least 14 people were killed and 20 others injured on Monday in deadly clashes in central Somalia” (Somalia Clan). Personally, I would not feel safe in such a country where something as trivial as a tax conflict leads to over a dozen deaths. Meanwhile, in North Korea, while the government dictates most of your daily life and there is limited private ownership, at least it is relatively safe. According to one crime rating, North Korea has a crime index of 16.90, while Somalia’s crime index skyrockets at 53.77 (Crime Rankings).

Based on current news, I found this failed vs repressed state question to parallel the situation of the Union Square Hospitality Group, which has been explained by CEO Danny Meyer that the company is beginning a new program that will eliminate the freedom of restaurant-goers to tip their waiters (Eliminate Tipping). This is a form of repression on how people can spend their money. Now the tips are already inherent in the meal prices as a service charge, which could be seen as repressive to people who may not want to tip their waiters. According to Meyer, this strategy helps workers and the restaurant industry, because it is often the case that waiters are paid less than minimum wage (Eliminate Tipping). This is not fair and can compromise the livelihood of those working in the dining industry.

Though on a much less crucial scale, the tipping situation can be seen as an analogy to the Somalia or North Korea question. Meyers’ proposal of eliminating tips in place of a service charge can be compared to North Korea, because freedom is limited. What if the waiter serves very poorly or extremely well? They still get the standard “tip” that now comes in the form of a service charge. This, though on a much lighter scale, is repression to the restaurant customers. On the other hand, by allowing people to tip, a disparity of wealth is formed when sometimes, the waiters are tipped so much that they earn more than the chef. Or, they can be paid under minimum wage, which is equally, if not more, detrimental. When comparing this to the belligerent clans of Somalia, one can look at this as a conflict between the chef clan and the clan of waiters.

            This is a subjective question, so what would you choose: living in Somalia or North Korea?

 Works Cited

http://www.voanews.com/content/somalia-clan-clashes-kill-fourteen/3014063.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-eliminate-tipping-waiters-20151016-story.html

http://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp

Syrian Intervention (Post #3)

Over the past two years, the United States has considered an intervention in Syria to stop the atrocities committed by the Syrian government, the Assad Regime, against its own people. During this war, somewhere between 250,000 and 340,000 people have been killed as a result of the fighting by, conventional weapons, chemical weapons, torture, and other examples of violence. As the debate continues to be had in Washington, more and more people are dying in this civil war, and now Russia is involving itself on the side of the Assad Regime, which is sure to only elevate the number of casualties. I argue that the United States should involve itself in the war to end the violence, and probably should have already. The most important reason for intervention being the fact that the huge number of casualties as a result of the war, needs to end.

This is something that I believe would be easily accomplished, as American military is far superior to that of the Syrians. Not only that, but the rebel forces would be sure to accept the help of the American forces if it meant that they could finally end the war. One major counter argument to this is the intervention of the Russian forces on the side of the Assad Regime. However, I do not think that the Russians would continue to support the current Syrian government after an American intervention for two reasons. The first reason being that the vast network of international allies that the United States has compared to the small number Russia has, as mentioned in the article on Russian weakness in the Syrian intervention, would prevent them from opposing the United States. Additionally, the Russians would no longer see the battle as one worth fighting, as the loss on the Bargaining Theory of War scale that would come from fighting the United States would not be outweighed by the benefits.

Furthermore, I think the history of the United States makes it sympathetic to the Syrian rebels cause, as the events taking place in Syria are not totally dissimilar to events in our own American History. Civil war, as well as fighting against an oppressive government, are both concepts that should be relatable to the American people as a result of our Civil and Revolutionary Wars respectively. For this reason, I believe the American people could be rallied to the aide of the Syrians because of a feeling of similarity between their histories. Not only would the connection help to bolster support, but it would also give more credibility to the intervention through a sense of legitimacy. This credibility be given to the rebels cause as a result of the similarities with the American Revolutionary War that American definitely considers a legitimate cause.

Finally, despite the relative lack of success that American interventions have had in the past, because this war has a definite faction, the Syrian Rebels, to support, its success would be much more likely. This success can be seen as possible because if the U.S. is able to when the war, which seems very likely, they will have a definite faction to turn the rule of Syria over to, making the region much more stable. The United States also receives two major benefits; first, American intervention and American military power are given more legitimacy through their successful actions. Additionally, however, the United States would gain another ally in an area where allies a hard to come by and vital to U.S. interest.