The Global Sociology Blog

After my previous post on sport and stigma regarding L’Affaire Henry, commenter Pat wrote the following (bumped from the comments):

“Football is a global business with huge vested interests.What we are looking at in France’s case,via vi Henry, is a commodity brand who generates massive revenue streams,via its lucrative fanbase in Asia and beyond.

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.”

Quite so. It is correct on all counts:

• Celebrity players are brands on their own
• The football world is a field in Bourdieu’s sense with power plays, dominant and dominated actors, and a dominant doxa
• This field is not separate from the global capitalist system

And sure enough:

FIFA | World Cup 2010 | Thierry Henry via kwout

See also my previous article reviews on globalization and sports:

• Multi-layered Spaces of Sports
• The Rise of the Global Corporate Sports Media Complex