All those English people who came over here and swooned about the United States — the freedom, the politeness, the hospitality, Buc-ees (and did I mention the freedom?) had a somewhat rude awakening after their team got beaten by the Argies in the semi-finals.
Seems as though some things are not easily forgotten, among them being the Margaret Thatcher-era beating dished out to the Argies when the latter tried to invade the Falkland Islands (a.k.a. the Malvinas).
So after beating England at their own game last week, the Argie football team had a little celebration in their dressing room, waving a banner which said “Malvinas are Argentina” (or something like that).
Well, the response was an outburst of “How dare they?” from the UKgov:
“It prompted a fierce response in London as Business Secretary Peter Kyle demanded a FIFA investigation into the matter before (then-BritPM) Sir Keir Starmer publicly backed those calls.”
A FIFA spokesman said: “As is standard procedure, FIFA’s independent Disciplinary Committee is currently assessing the match reports and considering the relevant circumstances before deciding on potential further steps based on the FIFA Disciplinary Code.'”
Yeah, well fuck FIFA, their disciplinary code and the UKgov.
You see, this particular World Cup match was played in the United States of America, where we have a First Amendment — basically guaranteeing the right of the Argies to be as rude and disrespectful as they want. (I should point out that the Brits still mock the Krauts for having lost the last pair of World Wars, so their peevishness is somewhat ironic.)
So here’s the lesson for the Brits: freedom of speech sometimes means putting up with stuff that you find offensive. I know that BritLaw seems to have overridden that simple precept recently — where people can get arrested just for posting naughty things on Teh Intarwebz — but there ya go. Deal with it.
As for FIFA: your little disciplinary code doesn’t supersede our laws, so if you don’t want stuff like this to happen during your precious tournaments, feel free to hold your future World Cups in countries that don’t have a First Amendment.
Good luck in North Korea.
Footnote: The Argies lost the final to Spain (0-1), in the most boring football match ever played.
The Brits are fucked. With a chainsaw, sans any lube. Starmer’s replacement is just as woke, & they keep voting for chainsaw after chainsaw.
…The Argies lost the final to Spain (0-1), in the most boring football match ever played.
That’s only partially true. ALL soccer games are the most boring ever played. It’s the old joke: If I wanted to watch a bunch of guys spend a couple hours struggling to score, I’d take my friends to the bar.
Back in the day (i.e., the Falklands War), I was as enthusiastically on the side of the Limeys as any American junior high student could be about a foreign war. My logic then (as now) was perfectly sound: in any conflict between English speakers and Spanish speakers, take the side of the Mother Tongue.
These days, if the Argies wanted to get a little frisky and reclaim the Malvinas, I honestly don’t know whose side I would take. Milei is more Thatcher than Thatcher, and Starmer and his replacement are a bunch of wankers. On top of which there’s almost no way the Brits could mount ANY kind of military operation that far away.
Rupert Lowe on Rogan said the Brits have one usable warship, one. Even allowing for some hyperbole that’s shocking.
And I did the same thing, backed the Limeys because of a common language. I was about 12, but I’m not sure I was right.
Doesn’t matter: we have nukes.
And if you don’t support the right of the indigenous Falkland Islanders in their wish to remain British, then I think you need to think about liberty.
When I was at Boat School (AKA Canoe U.) In the late 80s. We had exchange officers in the professional department from Britain and Argentina. The British officer had apparently shot and taken the Argentine officer prisoner in the Falklands war. So I am sure that was awkward.
It was in the middle of the pitch, at the end of the game.
Arrghh. Sorry. Should have been:
It was in the middle of the pitch, at the end of the game.
British players? In the middle of the pitch, during / at the end of a game against Germany?
Would the first amendment protect the job of eg. a data analyst who told one of their clients, during a meeting, that their products were garbage and their competition was vastly superior?
“Would the first amendment protect the job of e.g. a data analyst who told one of their clients, during a meeting, that their products were garbage and their competition was vastly superior?”
No it wouldn’t. But that’s not the purpose of the 1A, is it?
But I get your general point. If FIFA wants to censure someone for breaking their rules, they’re welcome. Their party, their monkeys. That doesn’t stop the US from supporting the rights of the people to be offensive.
Also, you’re being disingenuous. Whether the celebration took place in the dressing room or in the middle of the pitch is irrelevant — it’s still protected speech.
Likewise, the Brits mocking the Krauts about WWII was a general statement.
No, I’m not.
The complaint is specifically about the players doing so in the middle of the pitch, at the end of the game.
No-one is demanding action be taken, based on what the Argentinian fans were saying or the banners they were displaying (which had been saying much the same thing).
I thought England beat them 31:24?
The banner was the same one used by the Argentinian Army at Port Stanley, but back then it didn’t have the writing on it.
Not that it directly addresses the point of the post, but FIFA is fundamentally a morally bankrupt organization. ANYTHING they might have to say about ANYTHING they might say it about should be viewed through that lens.