Furias Rojas (Updated)

I published an op-ed with the LA Times about the Luis Rubiales fiasco. Here, some of the things that I couldn’t cram into 700 words.

Editors gave my piece the headline “Rubiales Must Resign.” Were I writing headlines, I might opt for “Rubiales must go,” or, “Fire Rubiales.”

Last week, surprising reports by Spanish sports outlets gave us almost a whole day of thinking he might step down from his position as the president of the RFEF, Spain’s federation. This was, we thought, the reason for the federation’s August 25 emergency session. Bullies like him do not resign, however. A man like him responds to criticism with howls of injury. He scans interactions for signs of betrayal. His world is one of friends and enemies, with the former always on the edge of becoming the latter.

From the moment the team won, his behavior has been awful. His first instinct, at the referee whistle announcing the team’s historic victory, was to wave his balls at his critics. This is not offensive because he was standing next to members of Spain’s royal family. This is offensive because it shows the world the posture he has taken toward the people in the game who have been demanding that the federation do better. It shows a profound disrespect for the accomplishments of the women on the field, and the women off of it. And it shows how little he cares about the team’s fans.

In the hours after the win, he tried to make this team’s victory his. On the award platform, he asserted a special relationship to players—physically laying claim to them in his body language. He didn’t just hug them, he nuzzled their necks and kissed them. He lifted a number of players off their feet—that is a particularly loaded piece of bodily interaction. More on that in a second. He acted like he and the players were all old friends, or like a drunk uncle at a family picnic. His behavior towards Hermoso felt extra weird: for me, it was the way he grabbed her head. Soon we saw locker room video of her expressing disgust at the kiss, and another video of him promising the team a free trip to Ibiza, to celebrate his impending marriage to Hermoso.

Pressured into recording a video apology, he tried to coerce Hermoso and the team’s captain into being his alibis. When that didn’t work, the federation issued a statement that put his words in Hermoso’s mouth — this amplifies the violation of the way he kissed her. She told people to talk to her union, and eventually had to come out and say how all this felt for her. It made her feel vulnerable, and it made her into a victim. For this alone, we all have a right to be furious.

On Friday, Rubiales gathered as many members of the federation and coaching staff as could be found. Only a handful of the members of the Spanish federation are women, so they had to work to find women to populate this this spectacle. Jorge Vilda’s coaching staff were in the room, and the women who work under him were made to sit in the front row.

Rubiales’s discourse has been disturbing. In his empty apology he suggested one could “both sides” the incident (“there was no bad faith from either side”). His behavior was “natural,” “normal.” He claimed that he and Hermoso had a special relationship. His speech on Friday was a naked display of toxic and wounded narcissism. Here I get to the reason I am writing today.

Rubiales argued that the kiss was consensual. He anchored that argument in the fact that when Hermoso stopped in front of him, as was expected of her, she did something unusual. She lifted him off his feet. Rubiales had done this to three or four people before his interaction with Hermoso—with players who are shorter than him. On Friday, he argued that this made the kiss consensual. The federation then went (as one fan put it) “full Zapruder film” and posted screenshots which somehow make this argument.

Clearly, all this demonstrates is that Hermoso made him feel small, and so he needed to do something about it. So, in the press conference, he reminds everyone that in the final Hermoso’s penalty kick was saved by Mary Earps. He claims that he told her she could forget about it—but forgetting about it is clearly not what he wants us to do. He wants us to think about her as a weak player, and the team’s victory as having been achieved in spite of her. He then said he asked for a little kiss and claims she said yes.

Even if everything he said about this interaction is true (and we have ever so many reasons to characterize his narrative as gaslighting) it is the very definition of a coercive scenario. Players in that situation can’t just push him away from them. If they refuse to shake his hand, or dodge the hug, it’s a massive scandal and all along even the players on the front line of the struggle have done everything they could to keep everyone’s eyes on the game.

He demonstrated that he understands the coerciveness of the public spectacle in the way he used cameras to manipulate women on Vilda’s coaching staff into appearing to support him. You can see a couple women move their hands almost as if they were clapping during the event, while either appearing demoralized or as if they might explode in anger. Those women resigned shortly afterwards and published a statement giving the full breakdown of his dishonest and manipulative behavior.

I have so much more to say and will keep writing here.

I Hate FIFA More Than You Do, a poem

I hate Sepp Blatter

as much as I hated Jesse Helms, may that homophobic, racist monster rot in hell.

I hate FIFA

like I hate the contemporary art market, which is run by bankers and assholes.

I hate Sepp Blatter

more than I am disgusted by rotten meat.

I hate FIFA

in exactly the same way that I hate Capitalism.

I hate Sepp Blatter

without the pleasure of hating a villain in a movie.

I hate FIFA

because FIFA hates women.

I hate Sepp Blatter

more than I hate Manchester United, a club I don’t hate as much as one should.

I hate FIFA

with a white-hot passion that seems to know no scale.

I hate Sepp Blatter

only slightly less than I hate the assault on structures that do not service the rich, which is still a high order of hate.

I hate FIFA

more than I hate the sexism of my workplace, which surprises me.

I hate Sepp Blatter

more than you do, unless you aren’t on FIFA’s payroll, in which case

You hate FIFA as much as, maybe even more than I do.

The Revolt of the Woman Athlete

vid6-20071002174503

Hope Solo’s sex life makes more news than the struggle of the world’s best athletes for basic gender equity. I open this post with those four words, “Hope Solo’s sex life,” because public fascination with her, as a woman — meaning, as a sex object (google searches of her name are usually in the pursuit of “nude pics”) — means that this post might get more traffic than would a post that leads with its true subject, a gender discrimination law suit.

Of course, if you’ve landed here looking for nude pics, by now I’ve already lost you. Instead of nude pictures of Hope Solo, I’ve given you a blurry screen grab of Brazil’s women’s national team, circa 2007.

In 2007, the year they knocked the US women’s team out of the World Cup in one of the most shocking upsets ever, Marta Viera da Silva and her insanely gifted teammates begged the world for help: their national federation had all but abandoned the team. The team had to fight to get access to the money they won in previous tournaments, their training schedule was irregular, and their support team at tournaments was inadequate. Their intervention made no news outside of light reporting of the incident by Brazilian media. Nothing changed. If anything, things have gotten worse. In 2011, Brazil’s federation (CBF) didn’t bother to order the team uniforms. They were sent to the World Cup in Germany wearing shirts for the men’s team.

That a team would do something like unfurl a protest banner at an award ceremony is a big deal. Logistically it is harder to do this than it is to raise one’s fist from a podium.

But of course, when Tommie Smith and John Carlos did just that, the world’s eyes were upon them. They were at the center of the sport spectacle. Women athletes are eternally on its margins. We have only peripheral vision when it comes to their gestures of protests. A fuzzy screen-grab.

Sixty national team players from around the world are now participating in the gender discrimination complaint filed against FIFA and the Canadian Soccer Association. That is twenty more players than when this complaint was filed a month ago. The jump in the numbers of women willing to identify themselves as in conflict with the World Cup’s governing bodies was provoked by the threats of retaliation circulating through national teams—players from Mexico, Costa Rica and France were told they’d either be dropped from the squad if they didn’t withdraw their names—or their national football association was told they’d lose any bid to host the women’s world cup. Instead of bullying these players into backing down, these actions galvanized them.

Women athletes care about the sport, but the sport’s governing bodies do not give a shit about them.

And mainstream sports media doesn’t give a shit about that. I’ve been blogging about this stuff for seven years: the only thing that has improved is player-activation as resistant subjects.

Mainstream sports media only pays any real attention to the US Women’s National Team when they are in competition, and only after they’ve made it to the semi-finals. The day in, day out grind of women’s sports is not news worthy. There is not a news/sports editor in the US who will tell you that women’s sports is, in and of itself, newsworthy. Those outlets will instead vomit bullshit stories about transfers and free agents and the post-game interview in which male players and managers explore a verbal universe of infinitely expanding empty space. Every day, hours and hours of bullshit about men doing nothing in particular.

The public conjured by mainstream sports media cares more about that empty space than it does about anything women athletes accomplish.

How else to explain the fact that Canada was the only country to bid for the 2015 tournament? Even though the women’s championship tournaments have been successful, as mass sporting events. And they are much less dogged by controversy—they do not require displacement or  military occupation of whole communities, for example.

FIFA accepted a bid that gave up grass for the women’s matches—in Canada, of all places—while accepting another bid built around the elaborate, delusional promise of grass in Qatar!

As FIFA downgrades the Women’s World Cup, women lose the incentive to play it. When FIFA failed to solicit a decent bid for the Women’s World Cup, it ought to have stopped the process and started over again—by proactively developing World Cup bids, in partnership with potential host countries.

Downgrading the Women’s World Cup makes playing the World Cup less desirable. And as FIFA’s indifference to the women’s game becomes more and more obvious to players, they must ask themselves why they bother.

In the VAST majority of cases, women actually give up resources in order to compete on their national squads—many don’t receive much more training than they would otherwise. They get better training from their European and US clubs, and those clubs have rightly earned their loyalty. Most national team players don’t receive a living wage through their participation in this level of competition, almost none receive commercial endorsements. Most have other jobs, and many are the primary caretakers for their families. Participation at the international level turns their lives upside down.

These athletes deserve to play on grass.

A player like Megan Rapinoe comes out as gay to the media and it makes news for a few days. The NFL throws Hope Solo under the domestic violence bus, hoping to distract media from the real story (violence is endemic to its culture—the league takes no responsibility for the damage it does to players and to the people who love them)—and it works. Hope Solo’s private life makes more news than does the fact that Abby Wambach—a player no one associates with the word “political”—volunteered herself as the lead complainant in this case.

Screen shot 2014-11-05 at 9.34.42 AMAbby Wambach should be on the cover of Sports Illustrated for this. This is a tremendous assertion of her power as an athlete—and her determination to make a difference in the game.

Should players walk out, as a fan I would frankly be over the moon with gratitude. They really should strike. What is there to lose?

Let’s show the men how its done—because as far as I’m concerned men players have been absolute chickenshit when it comes to standing up to the OUTRAGEOUS corruption in their game!

We fans of the women’s game need to stand with Abby Wambach and with her colleagues. We need to stage our own boycott of the tournament, petition sponsors to withdraw their support and plan our own protests from the stands!

FIFA can’t even handle its SEXISM right

Screen shot 2014-10-28 at 7.16.22 PM

Most sex discrimination complaints break down not around the original discriminatory action, but around retaliation. Threats of retaliation escalate the problem created by the defendant’s sexism. They demonstrate a disregard for the process; they are easier to track and to prove. They are, also, against all sorts of laws.

So how does FIFA respond to the sex discrimination complaint filed by 40 women players, regarding FIFA and CSA’s decision to play the Women’s World Cup on artificial turf?

FIFA threatens players from a handful of FAs that it thinks it can bully—Mexico, Costa Rica and France (which wants to host the next women’s World Cup). Officials told women on these teams to withdraw their names from the complaint or they would not be selected to play and, in the case of France, their country might risk losing its future bid.

Result: said players withdraw their names—and file a retaliation complaint. And the number of players signing on to the original complaint jumps to 62.

Read the retaliation complaint here: Oct 2014 Letter-to-human-rights-tribunal-re-threats-against-players.

Second Sex, Artificial Turf

images

If we needed proof that the people who govern the beautiful game do not see women as real athletes, we need look no further than FIFA’s decision to play the 2015 Women’s World Cup on artificial turf. Players have been angry since was this announced; a complaint of gender discrimination has been filed with Canadian courts. Artificial turf forces a different game: tackling is different, injuries are different, the speed/pace of the game is different. You can play harder when the ground is softer. Football’s Sith Lords probably figured that women would prefer the artificial turf because it’s prettier and doesn’t stain.

The women’s game is treated by FIFA as charity work that serves to justify its monopoly over the “real” sport. Note the opening page of “The Laws of the Game,” which categorizes women as disabled players for whom the rules might be adjusted. If FIFA and the Canadian Soccer Association wanted to move the goal posts, make the field smaller, the match shorter, if they wanted to make women play with smaller balls, they could. They could do none of these things for men, unless those men were not men but children. Or over 35. Or disabled.

Screen Shot 2014-06-19 at 11.00.53 PM

If I were going after FIFA as a player, I’d call for a BOYCOTT. I’d demand that this “exception” for the women’s game be wiped from the books, and that FIFA change its leadership—dramatically. A few professional players might have a lot of success organizing amateur and semi-pro players—the bulk of the Women’s World Cup roster—especially players from countries where the administration of the women’s game is fucked up. Which is most places.

Sepp Blatter is as much a sexist bastard as Avery Brundage was an abominable racist. Why stop with a demand for real grass? How about a demand for real change!

 

Olympic Blatter: boycott on the brain

Sepp Blatter is going to Sochi. So the FIFA president declares in a recent issue of FIFA Weekly. The magazine includes a two-page selective history of boycott movements. In his “presidential notes” accompanying this weird article, Blatter characterizes the boycotter as “running away” from the problem rather than confronting it. He makes a vague gesture towards FIFA’s even more vague stand against the unpleasantness of “discrimination.”

Image

He can’t bring himself to write words like “homophobia,” or “gay.” It’s OK to acknowledge that racism is bad. But sexism and homophobia? Not fit for print. He says that he is an advocate for social inclusion and participation, but that commitment does not extend to the words one uses in such a “conversation” about said advocacy.

There is no reference in this FIFA Weekly article to Russia’s psychotic anti-gay laws, not one use of a word associated with homosexuality (e.g. “gay,” “anti-gay”) in the FIFA Weekly story on boycotts and the Olympics. Not one. Furthermore, in this piece of half-hearted propaganda, FIFA editors almost exclusively reference the US/Soviet Olympic boycotts as evidence of how boycotts don’t work. There is not one mention of the most famous boycott movement of the twentieth century, one which had a big impact on both the Olympics and the World Cup – and, indeed, the make-up of FIFA: the boycott and divestment movement against apartheid South Africa. Members of the Confederation of African Football and the Asian Football Federation boycotted the 1966 World Cup in response to FIFA’s aggressively colonialist policies limiting African and Asian participation in the tournament; CAF nations in particular also linked their boycott to FIFA’s apologist behavior toward South Africa and Rhodesia. (See, for example, Two Hundred Percent‘s overview of this period.)

That boycott moved African and Asian participation in the tournament forward, and it brought about the end of apartheid South Africa’s recognition by FIFA. This movement was led not by government leaders, but by the people – by students and activists all over the world. South Africa’s invitation to participate in the 1968 Olympics was one of the platforms for the Olympic Project for Human Rights (and that invitation was revoked, in response to political pressure). That movement led to one of the most enduring images in all of sports history (the raised fists and bowed heads of Tommie Smith, John Carlos at the 1968 Olympics). Black athletes in 1968 were fighting for human rights – boycotting events in South Africa, and divesting from South African institutions and companies was a major part of that.

How anyone could have a conversation about boycotts and not mention South Africa is beyond me. That Blatter would describe boycott movements as cowardly (as “running away from the problem”) is despicable. Read that “presidential note” if you want a refresher course on why, whenever Blatter appears in a tournament stadium, crowds unite in a chorus of jeers.