Blog

This is a very important match for both teams. Having lost their opening matches, anything but a win this afternoon almost certainly means an early exit from the tournament. Having previously declared my support for Nigeria, I very much hope that the Super Eagles will be able to rise to the challenge.

It’s difficult to think of Greece at the moment without considering its debt crisis. The country has a budget deficit of 13 percent of GDP, a national debt of about £260bn and, in fear of the money markets and credit ratings agencies, has recently accepted an emergency loan from the EU and the IMF of about £30bn per year over the next three years.

As part of the ‘rescue package’, Greece has been forced to make cuts in public sector pay, increase VAT, raise the retirement age and reduce pensions, measures that have hit ordinary people hard and sparked widespread protests.

But does it have to be this way?

Greece has the highest military spending in the World Cup. At nearly £10bn per year – 4.1 percent of GDP – it amounts to almost £1,000 per person per year. If Greece was to reduce its spending on the army to the level of, say Mexico, which has the lowest in the World Cup, it would immediately reduce its budget deficit to 9.9 percent. This is a manageable one percent higher than the 8.7 percent it has had to agree to reduce the deficit to by the end of 2010.

Nigeria, with an income per person of £1,128, is the poorest country in the World Cup. But it also has one of the World’s largest oil reserves, bringing in an income of more than £600bn since the 1960s – an average of £12bn per year.

But this income doesn’t benefit ordinary people. It has been estimated that 80 percent of the oil income benefits only one percent of the population. As I’ve written about elsewhere, instead of prosperity, the oil industry has brought environmental degradation, human rights abuses, poverty and conflict to large parts of the population. The winners are the multinational oil companies and a small wealthy Nigerian elite.

In both countries, ordinary people are well justified to ask – where has all the money gone?

Posted in: Greece, Greece-Nigeria, Nigeria

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

After using the ‘Who should I cheer for’ website to compare Argentina and Nigeria, I was struck by the many compelling reasons to cheer for Nigeria in this match. For example, the average Nigerian is thirteen times poorer than the average Argentine and as such Nigeria is definitely the underdog in the match. While Nigerian’s emit nearly 75 per cent less CO2 per person, and the country spends less on its military and has more women in government.

However, the whole concept behind ‘Who should I cheer for’ is to get people thinking differently and not just conforming to their normal national ties and prejudices. Being English, not supporting Argentina would seem a little too much like conformity. After all the English enjoy hating Argentina (along with Germany) almost as much as they love supporting England. This national dislike of Argentine football teams is a mixture of geo politics and footballing grievances. First, came the invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982, when both Thatcher and the Argentine Junta used the blood and bodies of their countries’ youth to whip up support for their deeply unpopular domestic policies; the ensuing state violence left 258 British and 649 Argentines dead. And then if war wasn’t enough, to top it off, this was followed just four years later by the infamous Maradona ‘hand of God’ incident during Argentina’s 2-1 victory over England in the World Cup quarter final. To say nothing of David Beckham’s red card in the second round of the 1998 World Cup.

So to avoid bowing to conformity, I will be cheering for Argentina in solidarity with the workers of occupied cooperatives.

In the wake of the 2001 IMF sponsored economic meltdown, millions were left jobless and had their savings wiped out. Meanwhile, the rich who had benefited from the IMF economic policies upped and left the country taking their savings with them and leaving the country to fend for itself. But the people who had been locked out of their bankrupted workplaces chose not to stand idly by. They refused to allow their livelihoods be sold off to the highest bidder to satisfy the profits of foreign banks. Instead they broke in to their old workplaces; armed only with sleeping bags and simply refused to leave, defying the banks, their former bosses, the police and judges. Around 200 factories, bankrupt and abandoned by their owners, were taken over by their workers and turned into co-ops. And the workers began to produce goods for the community – providing both much needed work and goods. From tractor plants to supermarkets, printing houses to aluminium factories and pizza parlours, decisions about company policy were made in open assemblies and the profits split equally among the workers, they turned former exploitive sweatshops into a real alternative to private corporations.

In the wake of our own economic collapse and under threat of devastating public sector cuts and mass unemployment, it’s time for the English to look past their differences with Argentina and learn from Argentine workers. The millionaires that make up Argentina’s national team must also learn from the occupied factories and start playing as a collective like the workers of the cooperatives do; if they are to progress in the World Cup.

Posted in: Argentina, Argentina-Nigeria, Matches, Nigeria, Teams

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

Sweden had scored 1-0 early in the first half and dominated the match, but Hungary had equalised after a cheap penalty decision with just ten minutes to go. The World Cup dream looked far away.

But in the 94th minute Rasmus Elm sent a long ball down the middle of the pitch which Zlatan Ibrahimovic managed to just get a toe on. The goal keeper saved, but the return hit Zlatan squarely in the stomach and the ball slowly slid into the goal, just as the referee blew the final whistle.

At that elated moment I was sure that Sweden was going to make it. A win against Malta and a draw away against Denmark would secure at least a play-off place.

But things don’t always turn out the way you expect them to. After just barely beating Malta, Sweden lost the final match in Copenhagen and Denmark won the group. They say that to qualify for a world cup you have to win every home game and draw every away game. Sweden lost two – home and away to Denmark – and for the first time in 12 years, will not take part in a major football tournament.

I remember the 1998 World Cup well. I was 17 and in Spain for the first time, drinking San Miguel (legal drinking age – 16!) and watching football in the bars of a small town in Catalonia.

Norway, managed by ‘Drillo’ Olsen – an eccentric who wore green wellington boots to matches – beat Brazil 2-1 in the group stages. It was the first time South Africa – Bafana Bafana – had qualified, but disappointingly failed to make it past the group stage. Ronaldo’s mysterious illness. Owen’s goal. And of course course France’s 3-0 win over Brazil in the final.

But there was no Sweden. Just like this year.

So who will I cheer for instead? Last time this happened I supported Scandinavian neigbours Norway, along with South Africa, where my parents lived at the time. But what about this time? Denmark is out of the question having been the team that knocked out Sweden and I’ve not been too impressed with Bafana Bafana the last few years.

I do like an an underdog though, and in the spirit of Who Should I Cheer For? I wanted to support a team which scores fairly high on the rankings. I also wanted to take into consideration the fact that the world cup is being played in Africa, which is also the contintent where I spent half my upbringing and where my parents have lived for over 20 years.

An African team then. But which one?

Algeria? No, I think Egypt is a better team and deserved to win that play off match instead of them. Cameroon? Perhaps, but as much as I loved Roger Milla in ’90 and ’94 I think they’ve lost some of their lustre. Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire? Not a fan of big star players (apart from Zlatan of course).

Luckily, the choice is quite an easy one. About two months ago – Lasse Lagerbäck, the manager who had taken Sweden to five European Championships and World Cups in a row and had lost his job when Sweden failed to qualify for South Africa – was unexpectedly announced as the new manager for Nigeria.

With a GDP per capita of just $1,128, Nigeria is the poorest country in the World cup. 158th out of 182 countries on the Human Development Index, with 53 percent of the population not having access to clean drinking and 84% living on less than $2 a day, it’s amazing that they manage to qualify time after time again. Nigeria also comes number 7 in the Who Should I Cheer For? rankings.

In Southern Nigeria is the Niger Delta, one of the world’s 10 most important wetland and marine ecosystems and home to 31 million people. It also has one of the world’s largest oil deposits – extracted for years by multinational corporations. However, despite the oil generating more than $600 billion since the 1960s, very little has actually gone to the impoverished Ongoni people who live in the area.

Instead the oil industry has caused an environmenal and human distaster. Every year there are oil spills equivalent in size to the Exxon Valdez disaster. According to Amnesty:

“Millions of people in the Niger Delta have seen their lives and livelihoods destroyed by Shell’s approach to oil production. Water pollution has killed the fish they rely on for food and income. Land pollution has made it impossible to grow crops. And today 75% of the area’s rural population have no access to clean water.”

More than 60% of the people living in the area rely on the natural environment for their livelihoods, yet the oil spills are having massive negative effects on their ability to survive – killing fish, polluting drinking water and poisoining agricultural land. This in turn is causing people to turn to stealing oil and vandalising infrastructure and several armed groups have formed to fight over the scarce resources. According to an Amnesty report:

“Armed groups are increasingly demanding greater control of resources in the region, and engage in large-scale theft of oil and the ransoming of oil workers. Government reprisals against militancy and violence frequently involve excessive force, and communities are subjected to violence and collective punishment, deepening anger and resentment.”

The government reprisals include the 1996 hanging of nine Ongoni activists, including Ken Saro-Wiwa, by the Nigerian state. A 2001 Greenpeace report found that:

“Shell and the military had bribed them [witnessses in the case] with promises of money and jobs at Shell. Shell admitted having given money to the Nigerian military, who brutally tried to silence the voices which claimed justice.”

The Amnesty report also shows that Shell is to blame for most of the problems reported. You can take action by writing to Shell’s CEO over at the Amnesty website.

So there you have it. I am cheering for Nigeria in the 2010 football world cup.

Go Super Eagles!

Posted in: Nigeria, Who am I cheering for?

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