"Sporting victory is ephemeral and doesn’t have much impact on people’s lives."
Some commentators have speculated that the 1970 UK General Election might have gone the other way, had England not been knocked out of the World Cup by West Germany four days earlier.
That shift actually might have had interesting long-term consequences. Presumably a third Wilson administration would have been even less eager to challenge the unions than was Heath's, so the Tories would probably have come in with a majority in 1974 or 1975, but it would have been a "wet" Tory administration that would probably have encountered many of the same problems as did Callaghan's government, and thus would likely have been out of office again in 1979 or 1980. But an incoming Labour government in 1980 would have benefited during the years that followed from the windfall of North Sea Oil, and would therefore have been in a position to govern effectively, and to spend without taxing too heavily. The 1980s might have been a decade of British social democracy.
Therefore, if England had beaten West Germany in June 1970, the Thatcherite revolution might have been postponed or cancelled. Maybe...
Though it was in Colombia - what was the deal with Mexico dirty tricks (fan making racket all night etc) in service of Brazil? You didn’t mention that Jimmy Greaves pitched up in his rally car (some bonkers 24 hours even held at the same time ) for a jailhouse vigil in support of his old pal. Did Bobby pinch the tom? No, though amongst friends I like to pretend he did.
The whole tournament was tremendous fun - with the glorious Alf Ramsay chief villain for the Mexicans. They really did burn his frozen Findus frozen sausages at the airport (leaving the lads with only foreign muck for the tournament.)
Did theypoison Banks? Arrange for the sun to reflect off Uwe Seeler’s head, blinding supply keeper Bonetti? Hypnotise Alf to force him take off Bobby Charlton to ‘save him for the final’ ?
Find the guilty hombres who sabotaged the best team England have ever had.
A nice example of “it doesn’t matter who wins” in politics, maybe: the Yom Kippur War and the subsequent oil price hike in 1973 would have triggered inflation whoever was in power; going to the IMF in 1975 was almost inevitable; the Winter of Discontent in 1979/80 was always on the cards…but yes, perhaps the blow of closing down obsolete industries would have been softened a bit with Healey as Chancellor (or PM?) in the 1980s. But then Thatcher really did win the Falklands War - no one else would have ordered the navy to “Sink it!” in relation to the Belgrano (I’m assuming that actually happened and wasn’t improvised by Meryl Streep!)
OK - but if Callaghan had been Prime Minister in the early 1980s, the Falklands War probably wouldn't have happened in the first place. It was a Tory white paper in 1981 that proposed withdrawing the ice patrol ship Endurance from the South Atlantic; the Argentines seem to have interpreted this as a sign that Britain was unwilling to defend the Falklands. And Thatcher's government (Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington and junior minister Nicholas Ridley) had already been negotiating a "leaseback" solution, which again, seems to have helped convince the Argentinian junta that Britain was ready to give up the islands. By contrast, Callaghan (an ex-naval man), had responded robustly to Argentinian provocations in 1977, ordering the secret Operation Journeyman to deter an invasion.
Good points: earlier, Labour did not-very-secretly send a submarine down south to successfully deter the Argentinians, and the Tories cut defence spending, even after the Falklands! But in the very specific circumstances of 1982, I think her personality was a key factor.
Gosh, that alternative history is more melodramatic than mine! England's victory against West Germany leads to Enoch Powell becoming PM, the Queen and more than 100 MPs being assassinated by the IRA, and Britain at war with Ireland!
Pete Davies, who wrote All Played Out about Italia '90 and paved the way for Nick Hornby, mentions his novel Dollarville in it. A new government take over an African country, and their first act is to speak to the three most important international organisations; the UN, The World Bank and FIFA.
I remember that when Britain was doing unexpectedly well in the 2008 Olympics, they put Gordon Brown in front of the cameras to talk about how pleased he was. His handlers had obviously told him "... and for God's sake, SMILE!" The poor man looked rather uncomfortable as he did so.
"As soon as the 1998 World Cup ended, and Des Lynam had finished his reading of ‘If’, there was a stream of commentary about how France’s multi-racial team would change the country and heal its divisions; four years later Jean-Marie Le Pen came second in the presidential election. Since then, France has grown ever more pessimistic and divided, with many believing it to be heading for civil war; meanwhile, its football team have got better and better, and now look terrifying."
Technically, there already has been a period of history when France had a multi-racial civil war. It was called World War Two!
After the Fall of France in 1940, the regions of Equatorial Africa, French India, New Caledonia, and French Polynesia were the ones to side with De Gaulle's "Free French" forces while the rest of the Empire, including the Metropole remained with Vichy. And the next four years involved the gradual conflict over territory (especially remote islands) between Vichy and Free French forces.
One such figure who participated was Franz Fanon! He was in Martinique when it was taken back by the Free French troops upon which he joined their army! From there, he was sent to French North Africa and later took part in Operation Dragoon, the invasion of Southern France by US and Free French forces.
"A country can be deeply fractured and ailing and still get behind its national team; citizens across the Soviet Union cheered enthusiastically for their side, a great unifying force who won the first European Championships, but at the end of the day, they still lived in the Soviet Union."
The dissolution of the USSR was far more contingent than many realize. As recently as Spring, 1991, there was an actual referendum on keeping the union together in a reformed fashion. Literally, everyone outside of the Baltic and Caucasian states said "yes" to a large degree!
Outside the Baltic States who were independent states under illegal occupation and possibly the Caucasus the collapse of the Soviet Union was a bad thing that made people poorer, more conflict prone and gave them less freedom.
All enjoyable to speculate about. But two things to keep in mind a) the defeat against West Germany did not lose Wilson the election (see Sandbrook). Yes it happened four days after but Labour’s poll rating had been going south anyway. Devaluation (pound in your pocket etc) sunk him b) notice in the Spectator comments increasingly manic speculation that Andy will waltz in and claim credit for any WC triumph. Yes, but so what? He’s not idiot enough to do so overtly and would be whacked at the polls if he did. As for the vibes argument - see Kamala H.
One way in which the game reflects a country is in the attitude of the players towards the officials and the rules. This seems to be a constant over time. For France , it is hard to imagine a non-arab comitting Zidane's act of madness.
Sorry I thought you meant this time. England not qualifying in 1994 muted the coverage at home, but I wasn’t aware of anything like the same numbers of visitors there has been this time - despite the villainous pricing. That’s undoubtedly here to stay.
I think the World Cup has been pretty good for America's image, despite the Belgium thing. Even the most hardline euroshitlib is usually charmed by the people.
"Sporting victory is ephemeral and doesn’t have much impact on people’s lives."
Some commentators have speculated that the 1970 UK General Election might have gone the other way, had England not been knocked out of the World Cup by West Germany four days earlier.
That shift actually might have had interesting long-term consequences. Presumably a third Wilson administration would have been even less eager to challenge the unions than was Heath's, so the Tories would probably have come in with a majority in 1974 or 1975, but it would have been a "wet" Tory administration that would probably have encountered many of the same problems as did Callaghan's government, and thus would likely have been out of office again in 1979 or 1980. But an incoming Labour government in 1980 would have benefited during the years that followed from the windfall of North Sea Oil, and would therefore have been in a position to govern effectively, and to spend without taxing too heavily. The 1980s might have been a decade of British social democracy.
Therefore, if England had beaten West Germany in June 1970, the Thatcherite revolution might have been postponed or cancelled. Maybe...
that’s why the CIA poisoned Gordon Banks. It was all part of the plan
I wonder if they fitted Bobby Moore up for the bracelet theft too.
almost certainly
Though it was in Colombia - what was the deal with Mexico dirty tricks (fan making racket all night etc) in service of Brazil? You didn’t mention that Jimmy Greaves pitched up in his rally car (some bonkers 24 hours even held at the same time ) for a jailhouse vigil in support of his old pal. Did Bobby pinch the tom? No, though amongst friends I like to pretend he did.
The whole tournament was tremendous fun - with the glorious Alf Ramsay chief villain for the Mexicans. They really did burn his frozen Findus frozen sausages at the airport (leaving the lads with only foreign muck for the tournament.)
Did theypoison Banks? Arrange for the sun to reflect off Uwe Seeler’s head, blinding supply keeper Bonetti? Hypnotise Alf to force him take off Bobby Charlton to ‘save him for the final’ ?
Find the guilty hombres who sabotaged the best team England have ever had.
A nice example of “it doesn’t matter who wins” in politics, maybe: the Yom Kippur War and the subsequent oil price hike in 1973 would have triggered inflation whoever was in power; going to the IMF in 1975 was almost inevitable; the Winter of Discontent in 1979/80 was always on the cards…but yes, perhaps the blow of closing down obsolete industries would have been softened a bit with Healey as Chancellor (or PM?) in the 1980s. But then Thatcher really did win the Falklands War - no one else would have ordered the navy to “Sink it!” in relation to the Belgrano (I’m assuming that actually happened and wasn’t improvised by Meryl Streep!)
OK - but if Callaghan had been Prime Minister in the early 1980s, the Falklands War probably wouldn't have happened in the first place. It was a Tory white paper in 1981 that proposed withdrawing the ice patrol ship Endurance from the South Atlantic; the Argentines seem to have interpreted this as a sign that Britain was unwilling to defend the Falklands. And Thatcher's government (Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington and junior minister Nicholas Ridley) had already been negotiating a "leaseback" solution, which again, seems to have helped convince the Argentinian junta that Britain was ready to give up the islands. By contrast, Callaghan (an ex-naval man), had responded robustly to Argentinian provocations in 1977, ordering the secret Operation Journeyman to deter an invasion.
Good points: earlier, Labour did not-very-secretly send a submarine down south to successfully deter the Argentinians, and the Tories cut defence spending, even after the Falklands! But in the very specific circumstances of 1982, I think her personality was a key factor.
There is a very good alternative political history written about exactly this and called "If Gordon Banks had played". Unfortunately its only available on the wayback machine now, but its worth a read: http://web.archive.org/web/20071212170442/http://www.btinternet.com/~chief.gnome/
Gosh, that alternative history is more melodramatic than mine! England's victory against West Germany leads to Enoch Powell becoming PM, the Queen and more than 100 MPs being assassinated by the IRA, and Britain at war with Ireland!
Even before the 2002 elections, this was the night when the dream of football forging a truly multicultural France died.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2001/oct/08/newsstory.sport16
Yes, i seem to remember it's in Hussey's book.
Your piece reminded me of 2 things:-
- Being inspired by the 40-year old star of the Cameroon team (I was the same age) - I'm pretty sure his first name was Roger.
- A twin towns exchange with some French people who refused to admit the French National Team represented France. Zinedine Zidane - "c'est un Arabe".
Pete Davies, who wrote All Played Out about Italia '90 and paved the way for Nick Hornby, mentions his novel Dollarville in it. A new government take over an African country, and their first act is to speak to the three most important international organisations; the UN, The World Bank and FIFA.
"Or impoverished lands which have endured great hardship, like DR Congo or Scotland."
I think that line alone justified my entire annual subscription. I could hear John Swinney's head explode 40 miles away.
I remember that when Britain was doing unexpectedly well in the 2008 Olympics, they put Gordon Brown in front of the cameras to talk about how pleased he was. His handlers had obviously told him "... and for God's sake, SMILE!" The poor man looked rather uncomfortable as he did so.
Considering your abysmal PM situation I believe Trump shines in comparison. At least he loves his country.
"As soon as the 1998 World Cup ended, and Des Lynam had finished his reading of ‘If’, there was a stream of commentary about how France’s multi-racial team would change the country and heal its divisions; four years later Jean-Marie Le Pen came second in the presidential election. Since then, France has grown ever more pessimistic and divided, with many believing it to be heading for civil war; meanwhile, its football team have got better and better, and now look terrifying."
Technically, there already has been a period of history when France had a multi-racial civil war. It was called World War Two!
After the Fall of France in 1940, the regions of Equatorial Africa, French India, New Caledonia, and French Polynesia were the ones to side with De Gaulle's "Free French" forces while the rest of the Empire, including the Metropole remained with Vichy. And the next four years involved the gradual conflict over territory (especially remote islands) between Vichy and Free French forces.
One such figure who participated was Franz Fanon! He was in Martinique when it was taken back by the Free French troops upon which he joined their army! From there, he was sent to French North Africa and later took part in Operation Dragoon, the invasion of Southern France by US and Free French forces.
Those were tiny! French India? Never heard of it! Almost the entire French overseas empire stayed loyal to the Vichy regime.
"A country can be deeply fractured and ailing and still get behind its national team; citizens across the Soviet Union cheered enthusiastically for their side, a great unifying force who won the first European Championships, but at the end of the day, they still lived in the Soviet Union."
The dissolution of the USSR was far more contingent than many realize. As recently as Spring, 1991, there was an actual referendum on keeping the union together in a reformed fashion. Literally, everyone outside of the Baltic and Caucasian states said "yes" to a large degree!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum
Unfortunately, some hard-line officers thought it would be a good idea to launch a couple the day before the New Union Treaty was signed!
And the rest is history.
Outside the Baltic States who were independent states under illegal occupation and possibly the Caucasus the collapse of the Soviet Union was a bad thing that made people poorer, more conflict prone and gave them less freedom.
All enjoyable to speculate about. But two things to keep in mind a) the defeat against West Germany did not lose Wilson the election (see Sandbrook). Yes it happened four days after but Labour’s poll rating had been going south anyway. Devaluation (pound in your pocket etc) sunk him b) notice in the Spectator comments increasingly manic speculation that Andy will waltz in and claim credit for any WC triumph. Yes, but so what? He’s not idiot enough to do so overtly and would be whacked at the polls if he did. As for the vibes argument - see Kamala H.
One way in which the game reflects a country is in the attitude of the players towards the officials and the rules. This seems to be a constant over time. For France , it is hard to imagine a non-arab comitting Zidane's act of madness.
First time hosts? You mean Canada.
Well in my lifetime the US, Japan, Korea, South Africa, and a couple of more controversial choices.
Sorry I thought you meant this time. England not qualifying in 1994 muted the coverage at home, but I wasn’t aware of anything like the same numbers of visitors there has been this time - despite the villainous pricing. That’s undoubtedly here to stay.
I think the World Cup has been pretty good for America's image, despite the Belgium thing. Even the most hardline euroshitlib is usually charmed by the people.