Blog

Paraguay are actually one of only two teams at the World Cup I’ve actually seen play in the flesh. Back in September 2008 I stood, blond haired and blue eyed, in the middle of the churning away section of Buenos Aires’ Estadio Monumental watching Argentina take on Paraguay, desperately trying to hide my Argentina shirt and keep my counsel when Messi set up Sergio Aguero for a sublime second half equaliser.

It was an interesting afternoon, the atmosphere in the Paraguay end was actually much better than from the home support, boisterous without ever having much of an edge. The highlight may have been spotting one Paraguayan wearing a Man City training top circa 1994. Big Gary Flitcroft fan, I can only presume.

Paraguay, both the crowd, and the team, were hungrier, compared to Argentinas calm, and ultimately ill-founded, superiority. It finished 1-1, and formed another nail in the coffin of manager Alfio Basile. The rest is history.

Paraguay sit behind only Ghana in the Who Should I Cheer For standings, thus shaming me for my Messi-supporting ways that day in Buenos Aires. They have the lowest national income of any participating nation outside Africa, emit extremely low levels of carbon and spend comparatively very little on the military. They spend even less on their military than the most peaceful country in the world, New Zealand.

However, to their discredit, Paraguay also sport utterly deplorable levels of inequality, with the richest 10% earning 65 for every 1 the poorest 10% earn. This can be attributed to 60 years of elite rule by the Colorados, first under military dictatorship, and then in the early nineties, under a fledgling civilian democracy.

In 2008, Catholic Bishop Fernando Lugo was elected President, representing a coalition of opposition forces and finally breaking the Colorado Party’s hold on power. While he promised to eradicate inequality, the far reaching tentacles of right-wing elite rule have frustrated any attempts to alleviate the grinding poverty of one of South Americas poorest countries.

New Zealand however, are no bad guys in this fixture. They are strong mid-table performers in our rankings, and in footballing terms, even minnows look down on them, such is their stature. They are so far underdogs, they’re subterranean, and their giant-killing, or at least giant-neutralising, exploits against Italy make them attractive candidates for support.

Nonetheless, despite not being surrounded by singing and jumping South Americans this afternoon, I will be cheering on Paraguay, and hoping their road out of tyranny and poverty becomes easier in the coming years.

Posted in: New Zealand, New Zealand-Paraguay, Paraguay

Views expressed here are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Development Movement.

There are several reasons why any ethically minded person would find it very tough to cheer on Italy today against Slovakia – or anyone else for that matter.

Silvio Berlusconi, Silvio Berlusconi, Silvio… you get the idea.

My flatmate Marco is Sardinian, and if our after dinner conversations ever drift onto politics back in his homeland – and after a few glasses of wine they inevitably do – it’s not long before his normally jovial countenance is replaced by a quietly seething rage. Tears often follow.

As you are probably already aware, Signor Berlusconi is a veritable shit storm of political dodginess.

Shady dealings, tasteless gaffes, the fact that he owns huge swathes of the Italian media landscape and has used his influence to limit freedom of expression, his appalling attitude to women – not to mention his hateful politics, which have helped foster the rise of the ultra-right anti-immigration Lega Nord.

Want more? He likes it when women call him “Papi”. Creepy .

I could go into much more detail about any of the above, but this is one blog post. Whole academic papers have been written on every disreputable aspect of Berlusconi’s premiership. (For further reading and viewing, you could try Paul Ginsborg’s Silvio Berlusconi: Television, Power and Patrimony or satirist Sabina Guzzanti’s 2005 film about state censorship Viva Zapatero! Also look out for Guzzanti’s new film Draquila, about the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake and the drift towards authoritarianism in Italy.)

So instead, let’s look at how social justice indicators in Italy stack up against today’s opponents, Slovakia.

I’m happy to report (though it’s a hollow kind of happiness) that the figures largely back up my loathing of Berlusconi. According to the WSICF rankings, Italy come 24th out of the 32 world cup teams.

Percentage of GDP given in aid is 0.29%, lower than most of the other leading European economies, and well below the Millennium Development Goal of 0.7%. Inequality is pretty high. For every £1 the poorest 10 per cent earn, the richest 10 per cent get £11.6, compared to £5.9 in Slovakia. Likewise carbon emissions (7.8 tonnes) and percentage of GDP spent on military (1.9%). And despite Berlusconi’s well publicised promotion of women – admittedly a certain type of woman – in politics, the percentage of women in government is laughable: 8.3%.

Slovakia may be 12 places higher than Italy in the rankings, but they hardly cover themselves in glory. Carbon emissions are pretty high for a small country at 6.7 tons, percentage of GDP spent on the military  is 1.7% and the number of women in government is terminal, literally, at 0%.

And of course we can’t totally rule out on the pitch considerations. It’s great that the minnows have punched above their weight at this World Cup but it would be a shame to see the World Champions fall at the first hurdle. Sure they’ve underperformed, but they’ve not plumbed the depths of the French or the English. And, cliché though it is, the Italians are notorious slow starters at big tournaments. Maybe this must win group game will light the Azzurri’s blue touch paper.

So today, in solidarity with Marco and the large numbers of his countrymen and women who have never voted for Berlusconi, I’ll be donning my Paolo Rossi 1982 World Cup replica jersey and cheering for Italy.

Posted in: Italy, Italy-Slovakia, Slovakia

Views expressed here are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Development Movement.

Denmark and Japan boast contrasting profiles both overseas and at home: the former are more generous with aid and have stronger female representation in government; the latter have much lower military spending and income inequality.

These mixed efforts are good enough for upper mid-table places in the rankings, 11th and 14th respectively, so unless you are Danish, Japanese or a blue whale you may not have an instinctive preference for a Group F clash that will dictate who follows the Netherlands into the second round.

As such we will look outside the established rankings for other pointers. And in the case of two wealthy competitors such as these it is interesting to examine attitudes to the rights of disenfranchised citizens domestically.

One such group is the Deaf community, a minority widely stigmatised as disabled. In response to enduring discrimination Deaf advocates campaign for the promotion and protection of Deaf culture (most obviously sign language) as well as assistance in gaining mainstream parity in education, employment and social integration.

Denmark has long been an example of good practice for the rest of the world. There is a world renowned international leadership training for young deaf people, Frontrunners at Castberggard (a High School owned by the Danish Deaf community), which is a great source of empowerment and leadership for the international Deaf community. In Denmark all deaf people are entitled to full sign language interpreting hours in mainstream education as well as for work meetings with hearing colleagues. Deaf people can also get an interpreter for selected social activities for seven hours per week (the Danish Deaf Association continues to campaign for unlimited interpreting services for all social activities).

Unfortunately the situation is deteriorating rapidly with lobbyists eclipsing advocacy groups in policy formation. 99.98% of Danish deaf children under the age of 11 now receive cochlear implants and don’t use any sign language at all. This creates a virtual wall between deaf children and deaf adults, treating deafness as a disability rather than a difference in human experience – i.e. fixing something that doesn’t need to be fixed. Children’s choices are disregarded with invasive, fallible surgery enforced upon them.

The government, the Danish association of parents of deaf children (90 to 95% of deaf children have hearing parents) and Ear, Nose & Throat surgeons form a powerful front for implanting all deaf children. The Danish Deaf Association and Danish Deaf activists oppose these measures but are relatively powerless.

This decline in Danish Deaf rights is increasingly reflected in everyday life. The TV programme for deaf children was closed down some months ago. Deaf couples with deaf children are moving to Sweden because of better educational opportunities, commuting back to Copenhagen for work. A minority culture is being sacrificed for political expediency and ill-considered conformism.

As recently as 30 years ago Japan was no-one’s idea of an exemplar for Deaf rights. Deaf individuals were generally classed as legal minors or mentally deficient, unable to obtain a driver’s licence or write a will. Activists struggled to replicate the success of campaigners in the United States, who had built on deaf culture and the civil rights movement to pursue radical separatism in which deafness was characterised as a quasi-ethnicity. In Japan at this time racial difference was scarcely acknowledged in the public sphere.

Two decades of activism have brought remarkable results and deaf Japanese now enjoy mainstream acceptance. This is widely attributable to the success of the moderate Japanese Federation of the Deaf, who pursued assimilationist policies with mainstream society (e.g. use of lip-reading). At the same time Deaf culture and identity is championed like never before by younger activists who promote the use of Japanese Sign Language. It amounts to a case study in Japan’s changing attitudes to identity, cultural and linguistic difference over the last 30 years.

Thursday’s meeting between Denmark and Japan is a straight fight for second spot in Group F – Takeshi Okada’s side progress with a draw – and a good shot at the latter stages. The competent but hardly exceptional Paraguay likely await in the last 16 with Brazil probable quarter-final opponents.

Whether you are championing the Danes for their historic support for Deaf rights or Japan for their recent advances, a report on the game (and all others) will be made in International Sign on the FIFA website shortly after full-time.

With thanks to Maartje DeMeulder.

Posted in: Denmark, Denmark-Japan, Japan

Views expressed here are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Development Movement.

One thing that is guaranteed to drive me mad during any World Cup is unfair refereeing. And just like I don’t quite get the offside rule, I don’t get why the referee’s decision is final on occasions when clearly a wrong decision has been made. (Who mentioned Kaka.) But actually, ‘bad’ refereeing is just the tip of the iceberg if you’re talking about unfairness in the World Cup. If the allocation of team places in the World Cup was a referee’s decision, the referee would have been sacked for bias a long time ago.

Europe and Africa have a similar number of countries – 50 and 53. However, Europe is allowed 13 places in the World Cup while Africa is allowed only 5 (although this year they’ve been treated to an extra one as the host country is always given a place).  ‘The World Cup’.  To me the World Cup suggests that the best teams in the world would be able to secure a place as one of the last 32 teams to play in South Africa; I didn’t realise that if African teams played better than some European teams they might be denied a place because the rules dictate that Europe must have more teams.

And the World Cup isn’t the only place where the rules are skewed against Africa. In economics the unfairness of the World Cup is replicated across African countries. Let’s look at The World Trade Organisation. Again, it sounds fair enough – a body that oversees world trade? The referee of world trade?  Perhaps a regulatory body? – this would imply some degree of fairness and indeed, the WTO supposedly operates on a consensus basis, with equal decision-making power for all.

But if you look a bit deeper, in reality, many important decisions get made in a process whereby poor countries’ negotiators are not even invited to so called ‘closed door’ meetings – and then ‘agreements’ are announced that poor countries didn’t even know were being discussed. Many countries do not even have enough trade personnel to participate in all the negotiations or to even have a permanent representative at the WTO and are too poor to defend themselves from WTO challenges from the rich countries, and change their laws rather than pay for their own defence.

Yet decisions made at the WTO usually impact most heavily on the poor resulting in trade deals that are often disastrous for African and other poor countries where many of their people must survive on less than a dollar a day. Yes, in football unfair rules leave fans disappointed but in economics they can be the difference between one or two meals a day or even life and death.

Today Ghana play Germany. With the unbalanced allocation of World Cup places I guess some might say that Ghana should count themselves lucky – the Black Stars have a chance to shine.  But on the economics playing field the chances to break through are virtually non-existent.  Trade rules rigged against Africa in favour of rich nations have seen Ghana’s buoyant tomato and poultry industries devastated. ‘Liberalisation’ economic polices imposed by the WTO over a fifteen year period have cost Ghana’s population the equivalent of £350 per person – it’s as if everyone in Ghana stopped working for one and a half years.

Other trade practices also affect the lives of poor people around the world.  Currently bankers are betting billions of pounds on food and oil markets in secret, unregulated deals.  While they collect a tidy profit, their big-money gambling has made food prices around the world more expensive and more unpredictable. This directly affects millions of people in developing countries, who often struggle to feed their families and are forced deeper into poverty.

This is why the World Development Movement works with people in Ghana and across the world to stand up to these unjust practices and to bring change where it’s needed most.  And this is why I’ll be cheering for Ghana as they take on Germany tonight and also why I’ll continue to cheer them on as we join them in their fight for economic justice. Things can change. The referee’s decision does not have to be final.

Posted in: Germany, Ghana, Ghana-Germany

Views expressed here are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Development Movement.

Following the inability of their ‘star’ players to practise the simple skill of passing and controlling a football on Friday, I said I would not support England anymore. But like any good addict I will be back on Wednesday for another excruciating performance from England on the world stage.

One measure England do beat Slovenia on is the amount of aid they give. In 1970 the countries of western Europe all agreed to spend 70p out of every £100 they earn on overseas aid. England has never done this; it is currently spending 47p. But according to official figures, Slovenia isn’t giving any.

Slovenia isn’t as rich as England, but it is still well-off in world terms. The eastern European country has an income higher than Portugal.

‘Aid’ is a term which can mean lots of different things. During the Cold War, the western and eastern blocks used ‘aid’ to advance their military aims across the world. The people of Slovenia, then part of Yugoslavia, stood aside from this competition. Whilst Yugoslavia was communist, it was one of the founder-members of the neutral non-aligned movement.

‘Aid’ is also used to win valuable contracts for a country’s companies. In 1994, the World Development Movement won a landmark court case when it proved that UK ‘aid’ for building the Pergau dam in Malaysia had been given to win contracts for British companies, including arms deals, rather than for tackling poverty.

Throughout the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s ‘aid’ has been used to force developing countries to deregulate their economies for the benefit of multinational companies. The Conservative party prior to the 2010 UK election said that aid should be used to privatise public services in developing countries.

Despite all the problems of ‘aid’ the whoshouldicheerfor rankings still list it as positive. Aid seems like it should be a good thing; those with a lot give a little bit away to those with a lot less.

An alternative view of aid is to see it as compensation for past wrongs. From its central role in the transatlantic slave trade to its central and continuing role in causing the climate to change in catastrophic ways, England has a lot to compensate for. Slovenia would have a reasonable case that its compensation payments should be a lot less.

Central to compensation is not to keep on committing wrong. Any benefit from UK aid dwarfs in comparison to the way our unregulated banks increase hunger and the effects of our climate changing greenhouse gas emissions.

This is why I am proud to be part of the World Development Movement which campaigns to abolish the wrongs of the UK which cause poverty, rather than just giving the sticking plaster of aid.

Posted in: England, England-Slovenia, Slovenia

Views expressed here are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Development Movement.

So, here’s a question.

Which member of the OECD “rich countries club” allowed slavery until 1969?

Here’ s another. In which genocide in the last 200 years was an entire ethnicity wiped out?

Here’s one you might just know. In which country did it used to be common to go hunting for people – and there’s evidence that this carried on until these people were finally given the legal status “human” in 1967?

OK, here’s an easier one – this country had a “whites only” policy until 1973…

Got it?

The answer to these harrowing questions is, of course, Australia. When white Europeans landed on it’s shores, the continent had hundreds of thousands of inhabitants, yet was declared “terra nullius ” – land without people. The arriving Europeans spend the next couple of centuries persecuting and killing these Aborigines  – and succeeded in wiping out all of the population of Tasmania by 1879. The ensuing “lost generation”,  and “White Australia” policy saw continued systematic oppression until the late 1960s and early 1970s, and the marginalization of the community continues to this day.

While no one has ever gone to court for these crimes in Australia – that doesn’t happen to Anglophones – and while there is still much segregation and oppression of Aborigonal communities, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has at least apologized for their treatment. This does seem to have begun to open up some national discussion of the history.

In Serbia, Australia’s opponents today, the use of the International Criminal Court after is now famed, with more than 1000 staff employed by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. And while Europeans seem strangely unaware of much of what happened to Aborigonies in Australia, Serbia is known for it’s ethnic cleansing more than for anything else. What is perhaps remarkable is the speed with which Serbia has, with the help of a legal process, transformed from a state suffering brutal civil war, to one which is likely to join the EU within 5 years – having formally applied for membership in late 2009.

The history of the Balkans is, though, famously, a bloody one, and peace can’t be taken for granted. The most recent war in Serbia is a part of a long string of violence. And while it’s causes are complex, it is hard not to point some of the blame at the Ottoman empire – who ruled the region for centuries – for, as both stories tell us, death and imperialism march side by side – and death often carries on long after it’s comrade has retired.

So what we see on the pitch are two countries struggling to come to terms with the bloody consequences of our species’ colonial history – with what happens when one group of people tries to impose it’s will on another. And while the ethnic violence has played out differently in each of these examples, both countries may, just, be beginning to come to terms with their histories.

Posted in: Australia, Australia-Serbia, Serbia

Views expressed here are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Development Movement.

Argentina and Greece are no strangers to economic austerity, right wing dictatorships and perhaps even a little bit of the shock doctrine. It seems appropriate that these two countries are drawn together just as the economic forecast for Greece hits rock bottom. Of course, the footballing styles couldn’t be more different. Lionel Messi is almost certainly the finest player I’ve seen play 90 minutes. Greece are probably best described as attritional.

Greece is of course the oldest western European civilisation, while Argentina’s culture is marked by its period as a melting pot equal to the USA in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century. It is a little known fact that Argentina has some of the largest communities of Armenians and Jews in the world. Indeed Efrain Chacurian, who played international football for the USA (once against England – though not in that match) in the 1950s was born and brought up in Argentina.

Both countries have been in the American sphere of influence in the twentieth century, and have had the corresponding economic prescription of austerity for the poor and socialism for the rich. While Greece benefited enormously from the Marshall Plan this was no doubt linked to its strategic importance as a bulwark against communism in the eastern Mediterranean. Of course, membership of the European Economic Community in 1983 moved Greece slightly further from America’s influence. But the historically high levels of welfare spending remained as a concession to social harmony.

The real interest in a comparative economic history of these countries, though, is that Greece is currently going through what Argentina went through in the late 1990s. Dealing with a budget deficit is something that people in the UK are becoming increasingly interested in. That is what the Argentine government tried to do in the late 1990s.

The economy bumped along as a series of politicians tried to sort it out to the satisfaction of the International Monetary Fund. In the end Nelson Kirchner came to power. Part of the package he implemented was to take a number of utilities including the post office and the municipal water supply for Buenos Aires back into public control.

The Naomi Klein scripted film The Take tells the story of how workers took control of factories that was closed as a result of IMF advice. It’s well worth a watch.

Argentina was able to produce export led growth because of a low valued currency. This is a route unavailable to Greece until the leave the Euro. Argentina have ignored neo-liberal economic orthodoxy and have managed to build a wide range of co-operatives, like that mentioned in “The Take”.

Perhaps in 10 years time we’ll be witnessing a resurgent Greek economy marked by the presence of the world’s greatest player, while Argentina return to their worst, as characterised by their performance at the 1990 World Cup. Perhaps Greece will have opted for fiscal independence and will be able to boast an economic recovery like that of Argentina.

Posted in: Argentina, Argentina-Greece, Greece

Views expressed here are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Development Movement.

I am supporting South Africa in today’s match, although part of me feels that the French team needs all the support it can get. With Nicolas Anelka sent home, the team refusing to train on Sunday, resignations from within their camp and both teams needing to win today it will definitely be a great match to watch.

But I’m sticking to supporting Bafana Bafana. That’s not because I don’t like Les Bleus, in the past they have played some spectacular football. And I like France; I have travelled around the country and had some amazing holidays there. My preference is simply for South Africa.

Both countries have had revolutions, France in 1789 and South Africa more recently in 1994, the result of a negotiated settlement. 16 years later South Africa is hosting the first World Cup in Africa – and to date is doing so very well, with none of the pre-tournament concerns coming to fruition.

South Africa is a vibrant functioning democracy, which people campaigned, suffered and sacrificed to achieve. It is now a country for all its citizens. Much has been achieved with pensions, a form of child benefit, and many now have water, electricity and homes. There is however, still great poverty, gross inequality, issues of service delivery and challenges of the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

The World Cup is no panacea for these challenges. But what it does do is bring the issues affecting the country to those with little existing knowledge. Alan Hanson, Alan Shearer and Garry Lineker were discussing on Sunday on the BBC the forced removal of 60,000 residents from District Six, Cape Town in the 1970s by the apartheid regime; this isn’t your usual post match analysis! People are widely talking about the history of South Africa and the challenges facing the country today; this is important as hopefully this interest in the issues will continue after the World Cup.

I’ve been interested in the statistics the World Development Movement has used. France, as expected, comes out on top, although South Africa does do better on the number of women in government, 41.4% against France’s 17.6%. The statistics are interesting and useful, but they don’t tell the full story.

They don’t convey the activity and sacrifice to bring democratic, non-racist, non-sexist South Africa into being, or the issues of governance and community mobilisation. Also you can use the statistics to guide your choice in different ways. A country that scores low because of poverty, inequality, quality of life indicators may actually deserve support more than a country which scores well.

I am cheering on South Africa because I want to support the people of South Africa and their efforts to eradicate poverty, provide decent jobs and homes, better education and health care. I also want South Africans to have the joy of a win, to celebrate. I think a win today for South Africa celebrates the achievement of ending apartheid; one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century and certainly something celebrate. But ending apartheid great as that was is only half the battle, South and southern Africa wants solidarity and support today to help achieve socio economic transformation.  I hope a win today for South Africa will also lead to even greater solidarity between people, groups and organisations there and here.

Development is not only about tangible things; it is also about being able to enjoy life, enjoy art, music and sport. So my call today is come on Bafana Bafana you can do it.

Posted in: France, France-South Africa, South Africa

Views expressed here are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Development Movement.

In September 2007, the Spanish ombudsman, a national human rights institution investigated a report into allegations made by the Human Rights Watch (HRW) regarding the mistreatment of child immigrants by the hands of detention centre guards and security forces in the Canary Islands. Over 900 unaccompanied children arrived in the Canary Islands by boat from Africa in 2006. In response, the Islands opened up four emergency centers as a temporary solution. HRW stated that the migrant children ‘do not enjoy access to public education, they have limited opportunity for recreation and leisure, and they are unduly restricted in their freedom of movement’.

The ombudsman found the allegations to be true and that one year after the HRW report, the care of unaccompanied migrant children in the Canary Islands was still unsatisfactory. This was despite efforts to improve the facility with renovations and better structuring of how the children were grouped together. In particular it was found that children in the La Esperanza centre were often housed for up to a year in overcrowded, unsafe, and substandard facilities and detained in police stations upon arrival.

Violating a host of child protection laws, and basic human, not to mention vulnerable child rights, I’d send Spain off for this.  Although I would generally be cheering for Spain and their rather shiny record of respecting human rights; in this game I can only place both thumbs firmly down and boo.

Honduras. Not a glowing example of a human rights based utopia, and with more coups than fake injuries on a football pitch, it doesn’t take long to write a list of social injustices associated with the country. Migration for Hondurans and those traveling through Honduras to arrive at the good old land of the free is often traumatic and unsuccessful. Paved with ill treatment, racism, abuse and a host of sexual violence towards women, migration of Hondurans and those traveling through risk life and dignity in the dream of reaching the promise land (our friend the USA).

Sadly, many don’t make it alive, and are usually denied entry or can’t afford the corrupt methods to get in. Obama is hardly standing there with arms wide open. The experiences of migrants are often unknown and rarely documented. Yet most that do speak up and report living through or witnessing a traumatic experience such as psychological or physical abuse, injury, rape, or death at the hands of gangs, Mexican authorities, or freight trains along the way.

Within their journeys it is actually Mexico that poses most of the threats to the desperate migrants, not the USA. Many Mexicans particularly are not fans of Hondurans and all levels discriminate against them, including police and gangs. A film I recommend in particular to highlight the plight of Honduran and other migrants is Sin Nombre.

I could go on about migrant policies, laws and support groups, but like my interest in football I’ll keep this short and sweet. So I am sending a ‘red card’ both countries for Spain’s treatment of child migrants in the Canary Islands and the treatment of Honduran migrants in Mexico and the land of the brave.

So who will I be cheering for? For freedom. For our right to live and move to where ever we like with dignity and armed with our right to live. I am cheering for all of us lucky ones unlike the Honduran and African migrants who have their human rights respected and don’t feel they have to risk their lives for a better future.

I am cheering for democracy and freedom.

Posted in: Honduras, Honduras-Spain, Spain

Views expressed here are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Development Movement.

Cheering for anyone other than Liverpool or England leaves me feeling like I’m having an affair. Football’s always played a huge part in my life and growing up on Merseyside in the 70’s and 80’s I saw more highs than lows .The power of football to inspire, incite or devastate is clear. The fans watching Brazil v Cote d’Ivoire will ride an emotional roller coaster as their teams slog it out today.

Many neutrals will be cheering for Brazil who’ve got it all – flair, charisma, beaches, weather, rhythm and a booming economy. Scratch the surface though and the inequalities are clear. A few years ago I was in Rio and ended up joining a community marching on the town hall because their favela’s water supply had been poisoned by an American chemical company. It was an amazing day. If only our protests in the UK were more like that. Oh, and they taught me to samba.

I’ve never been to Cote d’Ivoire but it looks like a pretty miserable place to live as reflected in their 4th place WSICF ranking. A win against Brazil won’t fix any of the country’s problems but it will give their people cause for celebration. So, in spite of Didier Drogba I’m cheering for The Elephants. Beating Brazil is a big challenge but miracles do happen as one did that night in Istanbul in 2005.

FIFA works hard to commoditise football and exploit ordinary people along the way. Nowhere is this more apparent than in South Africa with forced clearances and the introduction of draconian laws which make it look like the bad old days of apartheid never left.

Football can bring out the best and worst in fans and players. This quote from Bill Shankly, the footballing legend, is about football and about lives well lived. Let’s hope we see some of that spirit in South Africa over the next few weeks.

“The socialism I believe in is not really politics. It is a way of living. It is humanity. I believe the only way to live and to be truly successful is by collective effort, with everyone working for each other, everyone helping each other, and everyone having a share of the rewards at the end of the day.”

If you love football and hate poverty visit www.wdm.org.uk to join or donate to the World Development Movement and help us in our fight for justice for the world’s poor.

Posted in: Brazil, Brazil-Cote d'Ivoire, Cote d'Ivoire

Views expressed here are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Development Movement.