The sport of football is a global game. Players from nations far and wide come together to play on the same pitch, for the same team. Football is known to many as a language that supersedes the word of mouth.
When so many different backgrounds and cultures are forced to mesh, it's impossible to avoid conflict. Sticky situations — political, social, economic, etc. — are bound to arise.
Two of England's historic "Big Six" clubs were recently thrust into the limelight due to their involvement in world issues. I read a December editorial from The Guardian that discussed the clubs' responses.
The theme in this editorial is clear: Analyzing the responses of Liverpool and Arsenal to unique situations that each club faced. It was established early and maintained throughout the piece. I felt that the authors did well in giving appropriate background information on the situation for those, like myself, who weren't completely familiar with the situation. Throughout the piece, the authors cited and drew upon other issues from the past that other clubs and footballers have faced. I felted that the inclusion of these were beneficial: they added to the piece and helped move it along as opposed to distracting from the overall theme.
In regards to research evidence, there isn't much. The piece relies more on a recounting of events and a historical perspective on the situation. The piece does offer previous examples of similar situations, or situations that would have meaningful relations to this one. Fundamentally, though, hard research and statistics are lacking.
As for the lead, I felt that it left something considerable to be desired. It doesn't really utilize any of the effective soft lead techniques, and it is not really a "hard-hitting" statement.
The kicker is much better. The final graph really wraps up the editorial board's thoughts on the situation in a way that culminates in the piece going full-circle and back to the original assertion and theme. Not only that, but it possesses a call to action. It implores football clubs to use their platform and pull to address situations and not shy away from discussion.
To me, the flow of the piece makes sense. It is a little "summary-heavy" at the beginning, giving background on the recent events. While this is often a negative, I can definitely see why it could be considered necessary for this piece. I mean lets face it, as a seasoned football fan myself, and an English football fan specifically, I wasn't fully aware of these situations. I knew Liverpool was playing in the Club World Cup in Qatar, and I knew Mezut Ozil is a German Muslim, but I was not aware that these clubs both made statements on their respective issues. So for this reason, I can support the summary.
The intangibles are present in this piece, in my opinion. In the lead, the authors allude to the fact that both clubs are owned by Americans. Later in the piece, they assert that athletes are doing a better job using their power and voice for change, globally. They go local by discussing Raheem Sterling and the English National Team facing racist chants in Bulgaria, but then they draw back on the earlier reference to the United States. They draw a comparison between the new-found boldness of footballers to the actions taken by some professional American football players, namely Colin Kaepernick and their role in the kneeling protest.
I also admired the fact that authors addressed the other side of the argument. The fourth graph, which I believe to be the nut graph, begins like this: "Determined neutrality is a tenable position for a major sporting organisation, but only up to a point."
They are conceding that, yes, as major sporting organizations, there are some situations that cannot and should not be commented on. However, there are certain situations that simply should be. And one should not respond like Arsenal did, who effectively hung their player out to dry.
Comments