The whole commercialization / commodification of sports is an integral part of the competitive organization.

And indeed, I don’t know what the expected revenues are for the World Cup but they are probably humongous.

It is no coincidence that FIFA(football’s governing body that includes the former French player,Platini) broke competition conventions to ensure that Portuagal(brand:Christiano Rinaldho),and France(brands: Henry and Anelka)were in the world cup play-offs.For to lose the aforementioned brands would be to lose a potential global audience of 1-2 billion people.

In contrast, a non-celebrity football team like Ireland has no financial benefits for FIFA.

Whilst the game itself was dictated by the Bourdieuian ” rules of the game”,so to speak,the power dynamics were ultimately driven by the hegemony of teams like Portugal and France. In other words,despite the denigrating rhetoric,people had to stubbornly consent to Frances inclusion in the competition.

In Bourdieuian terms,France and Portugal are implicted in powerful global fields with the required economic ,social and cultural capital to legitimate a game like the world cup.

In the Irish context,the scandalous vilification of Henry is a good example of “ritual scapegoating”.For René Girard such scapegoats help to resolve social tensions produced by conditions of ontological insecurity and existential crises.