Offside News

Features

Controversial international football bans (part 2)

Comment: 0 October 14th, 2011 by: admin

In some situations, there is no room for compromise. Just ask FIFA and UEFA.

Take a gander at these decisions on what the big bad football organisations deemed unacceptable.

They had their reasons.

IRAQ-HOSTED MATCHES
Reason: Security concerns

Because you can never be too safe, right?

At least FIFA thought so, when it wrote a letter to the Iraq Football Association (IFA) expressing fears over safety conditions. They also told the IFA that all qualifying matches set to be held in Iraq must be moved somewhere else.

The letter came after a match with Jordan earlier last month at Iraq’s Franso Hariri Stadium experienced venue overcapacity, plus a power interruption during the actual match that caused a 10-minute delay.

FIFA added that the qualifier matches meant to take place in Iraq would have to be relocated to a neutral ground that Iraq would have to nominate.
As expected, the president of IFA reacted, saying that although they would do what was asked, FIFA was overreacting.

‘We will respect the FIFA decision and we will implement it,’ said IFA president Najih Hmoud. ‘But I think it was not appropriate because it was based on incorrect information.’

Iraq’s stadium is currently located in Arbil, which many may consider one of the safest cities in the country. Hmoud stood by this fact, saying that even fact-finding delegation or foreign embassy attaches would not deem Arbil a place of danger.

Hmoud, continuously insisting that the area was being misrepresented, stated that he planned to submit a request for reconsideration, because ‘all decisions in the world are subject to appeal.’

Apparently this was not the case as far as FIFA was concerned. The organisation gave Iraq until the start of this month to elect a neutral country in which to hold qualifiers (for the World Cup and the 2012 Olympics) originally scheduled at Arbil.

A few weeks ago the IFA announced that it has decided on Qatar as the venue for all qualifying matches. And FIFA sat back in their high-backed chair, sporting a satisfied smile.

VUVUZELAS (almost)
Reason: Annoying

FIFA’s openness to the diversity of world culture was severely tested during the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.

The nightmare began at kickoff, when FIFA officials were faced with thousands of plastic horns that together made a sound that mimicked a million-strong swarm of angry killer bees.

For South Africa, the vuvuzela is as essential to football as ammunition is to a soldier at war. Its low, loud buzzing sound is considered by many as one that elicits inspiration and festiveness.

But for most of the foreign spectators, it was a long, unpleasant, and headache-inducing distraction.

Other complaints came from TV and radio broadcasters struggling to filter the unrelenting sound while providing commentary. Players also raised concerns of the noise depriving them of rest, as well as in-game concentration and communication.

In the beginning FIFA shrugged off the complaints and refused to ban the instruments, explaining that the vuvuzela was a unique and integral part of South African culture.

Unfortunately after failed attempts to keep crowds from blowing the instruments during national anthems and stadium announcements, the notion of officiating a ban became a serious consideration.

Local organisers reacted to the possible ban, saying that the instrument’s defining significance to South African football has made it an essential factor that cannot be banned.

‘There has never been any consideration to ban them,’ said a spokesperson for the South African organisers. ‘The history of the vuvuzela is ingrained in the history of South Africa.’

And just in case the ‘national treasure’ argument was not up to snuff, they began proclaiming the vuvuzela as an ‘international instrument’ that foreign visitors bring home with them.

England’s Jamie Carragher attested to that, saying the sound did not bother him, and that his kids have already requested that he bring home two of the instruments.

The issue came to a close when big FIFA man Sepp Blatter stepped in and announced that the vuvuzelas were a priceless part of South African culture and will be welcomed inside the stadiums.

MONTY PYTHON REFERENCE
Reason: “Racist” (i.e. didn’t get it)

To most people, Monty Python is regarded as not only a British treasure, but an absolute good. This notion, however, was challenged when UEFA decided to declare a Monty Python-inspired fan banner as against regulations.

The banner created by Bayern Munich fans for a Champions League game against AS Roma showed the Latin words ‘Romani ite domum’, a phrase taken from the famous movie Monty Python’s Life of Brian.

The phrase translated to “Romans go home”, which UEFA (apparently oblivious to the clear comedic reference) deemed racist and provocative.

Defending their stance, a clueless UEFA, nose in the air, declared that ‘anything that may cause offense to a fan base or ethnic group, and therefore pose a security risk, including banners or symbols, is carefully vetted.’

This, by the way, was despite the accompanying “Life of Bayern” banner which the organisation left untouched (5 quid says they didn’t get that either).

Perhaps more amusing than the ban was the statement UEFA gave upon realising their error, and after acknowledging the misinterpretation:
‘We belatedly congratulate you on your humorous creation that was never shown.’

That’s a banner statement waiting to happen, wouldn’t you say?

Not long before, UEFA made a similar gaffe by banning a sign by a Bayern Munich supporters group. The sign brandished the words ‘Dachau City ‘95’, the name of the club. The club logo was also proudly printed on the banner.

What was a proud representation apparently came across to UEFA as clearly a pro-Nazi reference alluding to the Dachau concentration camp. And they went further, accusing the club of being a right-wing extremist organisation, not knowing that Dachau was actually a city.

A frustrated club member reacted, saying ‘We are from Dachau, what do they expect us to put on the flag?’

What indeed, UEFA?

More