Football, grassroots and politics

At the World Cup experts say countries from the Americas are ascendant. They say it’s because of the grass in Brazil. Patchy, rough and rolling fields, it is argued, are pitch-perfect for Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, Mexico, Uruguay and the United States. Grown from a mixture of European and South American seeds, the grass in Brazil is coarser than the smooth level playing fields Europeans are used to.

In politics the number of grassroots supporters is important. And a level playing field, too. Ironically, one of Kayode Fayemi’s initiatives was modeled after Brazil’s Bolsa Familia (Family Support) programme which involves making direct cash transfers to poor citizens if they meet certain conditions. This helped reduce poverty in Brazil and won the ruling party grassroots support.  An observer note notes that the grassroots support that won Ayo Fayose victory at the Ekiti State elections last Saturday preferred the instant gratification of being handed fish rather than been taught how to fish.

However, it’s not clear if the pitch in Brazil is an advantage for the national teams from the Americas: 53 percent of the 230 players play for European clubs. But if any country will benefit from the grass in Brazil it’s probably Mexico – 15 Mexicans are home-based compared to 3 in Argentina and 4 in Brazil.

The number of people in the stands, chanting, cheering, singing your national anthem, wearing your national colours is a boost. The millions of boisterous fans from the Americas are a probable reason why their teams are thriving at the World Cup. As at June 5 (a week to the World Cup) 1.7 million of the 2.96m available tickets had been sold to football fans from the Americas: Brazil, US, Argentina, Colombia, Chile and Mexico.

Fans of this six countries are among the top ten who bought most of the tickets, others are from the US, Germany, England, Australia, and France. With 90 percent of the tickets in the hands of fans from the Americas it’s no wonder that all the 74,738 seats in the Maracanã stadium were filled when Argentina played Bosnia on 15 June. And why, two days later, when Brazil played Mexico at the Castelão stadium, there were just six fans short of 60,348 capacity.

As at 23 June, 1,841,922m fans had watched 36 matches at the 12 stadiums. Is this why most of the countries from the Americas are performing well? How about the referees? Poor calls by referees have been made – one referee denied Mexico two goals. FIFA, the organizers, have sent a couple of referees packing. Brazil, like Nigeria, were lucky when referees allowed and dismissed offside goals. Referees make sure the rules are kept and the game isn’t rigged. Despite the home advantage and huge grassroots support, the referee, and his assistants, is there to level the playing field.

Last Saturday, Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (Inec) conducted elections in Ekiti state as an unbiased umpire. This is commendable. Still, few Nigerians are satisfied with democracy although 69 percent support it. Of the five countries representing Africa at the World Cup, Nigerians are the second-least satisfied with democracy. Institutions like Inec are important if people are going to have their say, if the rising demand for democracy amid a falling supply is going to be delivered come 2015.

Tayo Fagbule