How it started: A dream. A French machine-gun officer in the trenches during the First World War. A man named Jules Rimet, who believed an international soccer tournament would bring the nations together with the goal of peace.
How it’s going: The world’s biggest party. A 48-nation celebration of the world’s most beloved sport. Expected to generate about $8.9 billion, it’s become such a big deal that it’s being hosted by three countries — one of which, yes, launched a war on a competing nation in the months before the tournament.
The United States’ war with Iran, costly in all the profound ways that war is, also laid the groundwork for an uneven — and possibly precedent-setting — playing field.
At this World Cup, Team Melli has been subjected to shifting travel restrictions and uncertainty unlike the other 47 teams, spending the tournament commuting between Southern California and its base in Tijuana.
And still, after Sunday’s 0-0 draw against Belgium, the world’s No. 10-ranked team, Team Melli is in position to not only get out of its group at the World Cup for the first time, but to win Group G.
Iran’s treatment only makes its performance more impressive — while bringing into question the future of a tournament that purports to be apolitical. And conjuring up concerns about how the Olympics will operate when L.A. is supposed to open its arms to the world two years from now.
Will we be laying down blanket bans again? Will it be easier to ditch diplomacy than to deal hospitably with a global audience for a global event?
Russia and Qatar were capable of implementing systems that relaxed visa requirements to accommodate every team and its fans in the previous two World Cups. Why couldn’t the United States?
Instead, the U.S. State Department suspended visa issuance for nationals from not only Iran, but also from participating countries Haiti, Senegal and Ivory Coast. Iraq’s striker, Aymen Hussein, was held and questioned for nearly seven hours at Chicago’s O’Hare airport.
And the U.S. has allowed members of Iran’s team — discounting the 15 administration officials who reportedly were denied entry — to enter the country only within 24 hours of a match and leave the same day.
And those arbitrary restrictions — they’re OK 24 hours before a match, but not 48? — have put Team Melli at a competitive disadvantage.
“I think that united us even more,” said winger Alireza Jahanbakhsh, who spoke eloquently in English postmatch, a gracious statesman in Adidas sneakers. “That’s one of the things that I think we showed today — we showed a great team character. And part of it comes from the situation we are in.”
Through an interpreter, coach Amir Ghalenoei broadened the scope of what Iran has been facing in its runup to the World Cup.
“We were in a state of war for six months, we didn’t have a league and I remember once during a FIFA qualifying day, we traveled 40 hours by land to another country to play,” Ghalenoei said. “Everybody knows about the visa issues. Everyone knows about our coming to America. A part of the team was in competition conditions and part of them had their domestic league suspended because of the war … and many of the teams that were supposed to play us, canceled.
“I think we entered the World Cup in the worst possible conditions. This is the part I wanted the whole world to know … but the players who entered the World Cup under these conditions are truly commendable.”
It’s been a spirited rebuttal to what’s felt like a counterattack on the inherent values of the World Cup. A reminder that governments and governing bodies can get it wrong, but the beautiful game stays undefeated.
FIFA president Gianni Infantino, left, and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio pose for a photo before a World Cup game between the U.S. and Paraguay at SoFi Stadium on June 12.
(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)
But what about FIFA?
What about the all-powerful governing body that runs the sport, whose motto is “Football Unites the World”?
The world’s foremost party planning committee, with the cachet to override branded venue names with generic, location-based names — Los Angeles Stadium instead of SoFi Stadium — on Google and Apple maps?
What has FIFA done to flex its muscle to maintain the integrity of the world’s beautiful game?
Not much.
There have been niceties and brownnosing, but no sanctions or threats thereof. Not even a hint of repercussions for diminishing the integrity of the event.
No fines, like what FIFA imposed on six national football associations in response to racist incidents involving supporters during the qualifiers for the World Cup.
No bans, like what FIFA leveled in 1988, when it ousted Mexico from all FIFA competitions for using four overage players in the Under-20 World Cup, or in 2006, when Myanmar was banned from qualifying after refusing to play Iran in an Asian qualifying match for the 2002 World Cup.
Peace talks are ongoing between the United States and Iran, but Iran’s footballing ambassadors haven’t been free to move or to prepare as they wish ahead of its matches against Belgium, and before that, their 2-2 draw against New Zealand.
Apparently, though, Iran will get greater control over travel arrangements before its now hugely consequential final group-stage match is in Seattle against Egypt on June 26, or so Ghalenoei believed when he addressed reporters Saturday.
“What my problem is, why didn’t they let us come earlier for the first two games as well?” Ghalenoei asked. “If they’ve managed to do this now, why didn’t they do that for our first game and for this game?”
Good questions.
Questions no one should be asking at the World Cup.
More to Read
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: latimes.com
