Blog

Last night I found myself in the strange position of cheering my heart out for a Dutch team playing in South Africa – given the history of the dreadful Dutch role in apartheid that was something I would have never envisaged happening. But my cheers were really for Ghana, as Holland avenged Uruguay for knocking the wonderful Ghanaians out of the world cup with a deliberate hand ball (yes, I know I should have let go of that by now – I’m working on it).

So tonight, how the six teams (oops, seven if you include Holland) I was following are not playing – who should I cheer for? Spain or Germany.

Well, win-wise they are fairly equal – both teams having lost just one (albeit quite surprising) match each. In terms of social justice indicators they are fairly even too. Both countries give a similar amount in aid (ie for health European economies – not enough). Germany has less carbon emissions than Spain but then Spain’s inequality difference is slightly less than Germany. Hmm.

The only thing is that when Germany won their matches, they really won! Except of course when Ghana managed to limit them to only one goal – sorry, had to get that in. Otherwise it was a clear 4:1 or 4:0 hammering. I would like to say that Spain’s fabulous 50% representation of women in government was a similarly thumping victory which would have helped in my choice dilemma, but actually, Germany aren’t far behind on 46.2% and they have a female Chancellor.

So I’m still undecided. But in a world cup that saw some teams have progress because of unfair decisions and plain cheating I think I’m going to go by something my son told me. He said Spain have been the cleanest team of the world cup with only 3 yellow cards even at this stage. Having been upset at Ghana’s unjust exit (and other more major injustices around the world ranging from bankers’ greed pushing people further into poverty or the ravaging impacts of climate change suffered by people that didn’t even cause it) I think my cheering criteria should be judged by fairness and so I will celebrate with Spain’s in their clean and justified arrival at the semis.

Posted in: Germany, Spain, Spain v Germany

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.

In one of his rare articulate moments, Gary Lineker once declared that “Football is a simple game – you play for 120 minutes and then the Germans win on penalties”. Ethical comparison may also well be a simple game – you line up the statistics and then the Germans win on low levels of income inequality, progressive attitudes to gender and forward thinking on the environment.

Sunday’s evening game sees perennial World Cup overachievers Germany take on the great sporting nation of Australia. They may not have the Ballacks this time around, and they were comprehensively outclassed by Spain in the final of their last major tournament, but few would bet against Deutschland progressing once again to the latter stages in South Africa. Australia have had their own injury problems in the run up to the tournament, with Brett Emerton, Tim Cahill and, in surprise news, Harry Kewell, all struggling with various ailments.

As the science wars rumble on in Britain between proponents of alternative medicine and the cause of rational scientific enquiry, Australia appear to be taking a punt on quackery after Harry Kewell’s recent visit to a South African ‘witch doctor’. Despite 15 years of doctors telling him that his body is made of chocolate, it apparently turns out that he has been infected by malign spirits, and is only a message of well wishes from the Australian PM away from full health. I would be lying if I said I wasn’t incredibly excited about this development. If it works out, the NHS could be in line to save a hell of a lot of money. Though Kevin Rudd’s workload may suffer.

Germany sit in 10th place in the Who Should I Cheer For? rankings, behind only the Netherlands and (surprisingly) Spain in the developed world. Australia, mirroring their position in the football world, lie comprehensively towards the bottom in 25th. I was surprised to note Australia’s national income is actually higher than Germany’s, though it’s not exactly a battle of rags versus riches in that regard. However, despite their higher income, Australia has twice the level of inequality as Germany, with the richest 10% earning over 12 times as much as the poorest 10%. Given their somewhat macho national culture, Australia also lag behind Germany in the gender stakes, with less than half the number of sheilas in government. The Germans even showboat to victory in that category with a sheila for a prime minister.

The most significant disparity between the two countries is probably in carbon emissions, with Australia posting the highest emissions of any competing nation apart from perennial front-runner in that category, the United States. While Germany’s is not particularly low for a European country, the strength of the Green movement there means there was only ever going to be one winner. While the extent of Australia’s emissions (16.2 tons per person) is disturbing, it is at least partly explicable by the geography of the country, and it is not without its own progressive policies in that area. Kevin Rudd has applied himself to fixing their environmental policy as much as Harry Kewell’s dodgy groin. He belatedly signed the Kyoto Protocol immediately after entering office in 2007 and Australia were the first country in the world to impose an outright ban on traditional lightbulbs later that year. While they are on track to fulfil their Kyoto obligations, despite being such a late signatory, it is clear they still have much work to do to escape their position as one of the world’s climate villains. In the meantime though, Deutschland über Aussies…

Posted in: Australia, Germany, Germany-Australia

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

Group C

Algeria

An overdue return for the Desert Foxes, whose best-known World Cup moment was as victims of the notorious Austro-West German stitch-up in 1982. Armchair psychologists looking for wider significance in this campaign see them as the Arab world’s only representatives – and drawn against the USA. But Algerians consider their greatest rivalries with neighbours Egypt (whom they defeated in a spectacularly ill-tempered qualifying showdown) and former colonial masters France (who are potential quarter-final opponents). We rank Algeria 22nd, a distant fifth of six African countries, not least due to high military spending.

England

The Three Lions have perhaps their weakest squad since failing to qualify in 1994. But in that time they have had nine managers and Fabio Capello has won more honours than the rest put together. Much depends on the pragmatic Italian, who is on record as an admirer of Francisco Franco and Silvio Berlusconi. Certainly he will envy their media control if his men bow out early and the tabloids go rabid. England is as low as 27th in our rankings thanks to high carbon emissions, military spending and inequality.

Slovenia

Slovenia are at their third major tournament in eight years, a remarkable achievement for a nation of just two million, after defeating Russia in a David-and-Goliath play-off. Among the most prosperous and stable of all post-Soviet states, there is marked inequality across such a small country from the wealthy north west, which borders Austria and Italy, to the poor south east, next to Croatia and Hungary.

USA

One of only seven teams at their sixth successive World Cup, the US are overdue to make serious progress. To this end they may benefit from familiarity with altitude after regular trips to Mexico and last year’s Confederations Cup. The Obama effect may be enough for the Nobel committee but it has no effect on the Who Should I Cheer For? rankings, which rates the US as the least supportable of all 32 nations due to their combination of wealth, high military spending and rampant inequality.

Group D

Australia

A second successive World Cup appearance for the Socceroos but without the guidance of former coach Guus Hiddink they are expected to struggle. Australia’s famously sport-centric culture extends to immigration policy, where the citizenship test asks ‘Who was the greatest cricketer of the 1930s?’. In 2008 the new left-centre government reasoned that the question was biased against many new immigrants and moved to scratch it – only for a populist outcry to force a climb-down. (It’s Donald Bradman, FYI)

Ghana

‘They are good, these Africans!’ hollered a startled John Motson in 2006 as the Black Stars progressed at the expense of more fancied Czech Republic and USA. Runners-up in January’s Africa Cup of Nations, they look likely to invite more European condescension although the magnificent Michael Essien has withdrawn injured. Ghana tops our rankings as the most supportable team. It’s a poor country with a lot of hunger, and across all factors only scores badly on maternal mortality.

Germany

‘This is not a great German team’ is the pundit’s biennial refrain and that has probably been true back to their last World Cup win at Italia ’90 (or, to a certain anti-German mindset, their first in 1954). But in the noughties ungreat German teams have managed two major finals and a further semi-. That other ubiquitous cliché – ‘Never write off the Germans’ – is probably more apt even without their captain Michael Ballack. Our rankings place them 9th overall, reflecting their commitment to equality both in income distribution and opportunities for women.

Serbia

Serbia qualified comfortably ahead of France under veteran coach Raddy Antic, formerly of Barcelona, Real Madrid and Luton Town. This is their first World Cup as an independent nation after regular appearances within Yugoslavia before 2002 and as Serbia & Montenegro in 2006. Battling high unemployment in the wake of the global recession and overcoming turbulent internal politics, 6% of the Serbian population is chronically hungry despite its upper-middle global income and advantageous trading position between Europe and Russia.

Posted in: Algeria, Australia, England, Germany, Ghana, Group previews, Serbia, Slovenia, USA

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