United we stand, for 90 minutes at least
Every four years, around this time, I buy a World Cup preview and start looking for the most interesting games. I look for those games that carry some potential to momentarily stop the world and to use the unique facility soccer has for bringing goodwill to a tense or troubled situation.
Many will recall the World Cup match between Iran and the United States in 1998, for instance. Tensions between the two countries had been simmering since the shah was deposed in 1979. The Iranian players had been instructed not to approach the Americans to shake hands before the game. The American media was calling it the 'mother of all games'.
But, for 90-odd minutes, a glorious encounter took place. In a spirited, end-to-end game, Iran won 2-1 and set off wild celebrations back home. American player Jeff Agoos summed up the prevailing mood: 'We did more in 90 minutes than the politicians did in 20 years.'
Other match-ups promise similar piquancy, lifting the games beyond mere sport. England vs Argentina always carries solid political overtones, especially since the 1982 Falklands war. That conflict became a red rag to an already bullish rivalry. Diego Maradona's goals, including the infamous 'hand of God', against England in the 1986 World Cup - and the David Beckham sending off against the 'Argies' in 1998 - were deep notches in a long belt of bitter rivalry. Others carrying colonial overtones - say, France or Spain against former colonies in Africa or South America - often pack some weight, as well.
But the draw for 2010 throws up few opportunities for such uber-games. England vs Argentina is possible for a quarter-final. France and Algeria may also meet at the quarter-final stage, as might the US and Mexico. The latter, especially given the recent passing of laws against illegal migrants in Arizona, which has inflamed Latino communities, could be a classic.
Alas, the real standout possibility for 2010 is highly unlikely to occur. South Korea vs North Korea, given historic tensions and the North's fatal, unprovoked sinking of a South Korean navy vessel in March, could have been one of those games: the sort that would stop the world for 90 minutes or so. But both have low rankings and will probably be on the way home early.
The beautiful thing about most of these meetings is that they bring people together. Teams shake hands at the end - win, lose or draw. There's no death, there's no violence. There's only competition against a backdrop of agreed, unspoken ethics and a mutual appreciation and respect.
Some games in the coming weeks will be analysed more than the recent nuclear non-proliferation talks and viewed far more than any UN Security Council emergency session. Players' autographs will mean more than the imprimatur of any state leader, and the paper they are written on will be more valuable than any parliamentary bill.
Why does this happen only every four years? We need these games to see the world as it might be.
