Think Forward.

HYBRID VIGOUR 7712

You may remember that quaint old adage, ‘Keep Politics Out of Sport’. It had its heyday among apologists for the South African government at the time of the sporting boycott of the apartheid era. There has probably never been a dumber slogan. It would be like Castor without Pollux or Laurel without Hardy. Politics has as much relevance on the playing field as in Parliament, in the dressing room as in the boardroom. I don’t doubt that the boycott of sports-mad South Africa contributed substantially to the end of racial separation. And thanks to the collision of the European Athletics Championships in Rome and the Europe wide elections - save in that isolated outpost of the once Roman Empire, Great Britain & Northern Ireland – you cannot have failed to notice that a preponderance of countries represented here in the Stadio Olimpico feature, well, a lot athletes of colour. Even ignoring, for example, that Britain’s crumbling National Health Service would fall apart completely, were it not for immigrant labour, from surgeons to janitors, what better antidote than this parade of multi-racial excellence to those people and parties who are lurching to the right if not the far-right, driven by anti-immigration policies? Other nations in Europe have long been used to British and French teams fielding athletes whose parents, one or both, hail from colonial outposts. But, gradually other European countries’ immigrants or their offspring began to make their presence felt if not in all walks of life, then certainly on the sports field. Countries from Sweden in the north to Portugal and Italy in the south, to Ireland in the west and Romania in the east have joined in as is apparent in Rome; and that includes conservative Switzerland where women only secured the vote in 1971. I am reminded of a fascinating hour or so I spent with Lee Evans in Athens 40 years ago. Evans was the first man to run under 44 seconds (43.86sec) when he won the Olympic 400 metres in Mexico 1968. A Fulbright scholar and a vocal proponent of racial equality, Evans and his fellow US medallists Larry James and Ron Freeman wore Black Panther berets on the victory rostrum in Mexico, emulating with less clamour the black-gloved salute of their 200 metres colleagues Tommie Smith and John Carlos. Aussie silver medallist Peter Norman sported a badge of the Olympic Project for Human Rights in sympathy. Following his relegation to third by Norman, Carlos incidentally made a comment, maybe tongue-in-cheek, but which still resonates today, ‘I didn’t know a white guy could run that fast!’ When Norman died in 2006, Smith and Carlos repaid the compliment; they flew to Melbourne to be pall-bearers at his funeral. But, back to Evans: we had been invited to an Olympic symposium in Athens in the mid-1980s, he for his celebrity and subsequent teaching and coaching career in Africa, me since I had managed to con my way into a job on a newspaper which still had a vestige of prestige around the world. I don’t know how we got on the subject, and I was very wary of saying the wrong thing, but Evans had no such constraints. He lectured me on ‘hybrid vigour’ or cross-pollination, a term better known in botany, and something that racists would call miscegenation, ie inter-marriage and procreation. Evans had no qualms, citing several leading athletes of mixed race from that period four decades back, including Daley Thompson, a product of a Nigerian father and Scottish mother, who had recently won his second Olympic decathlon title. Evans claimed that humans are nothing special, and although he didn’t use the term, he argued that we, like animals and plants are simply part of the same eco-system, responding to the same dynamics; whence his championing of hybrid vigour. The evidence of his thesis is manifest in the continuing rise of rainbow nations on the track and field of endeavour called Athletics.
Pat01Butcher Pat01Butcher

Pat01Butcher

Pat Butcher has been one of the leading authorities on Track & Field Athletics for over 40 years.


100

0

Football: When Passion Kills the Game in Impunity and Tolerance.. 536

Football (Soccer for Americans) is first and foremost a matter of emotions. By its very essence, it is an open-air theater where human passions play out in their rawest, most primal form. It generates joy, anger, pride, humiliation, and a sense of belonging. From the stands of Camp Nou to those of the Diego Armando Maradona Stadium, through the fervor of the Mohamed V sport Complex in Casablanca, the vibrant enclosures of Stade Léopold Sédar Senghor in Dakar, or even the Parc des Princes in Paris, the Vélodrome In Marseille, and the Bernabeu In Madrid, football transcends the mere framework of the game to become a total social phenomenon. But this emotional intensity, which makes football's beauty, also constitutes its danger. For without rigorous regulation, it quickly tips into excess, then into violence. Today, it must be acknowledged that the rules exist, but they are too often circumvented, stripped of their substance, or applied with disconcerting leniency. On the pitches as in the stands, excesses are multiplying: insults toward referees, provocations between players, systematic challenges, physical violence, projectile throwing, pitch invasions, xenophobic remarks, racist offenses. What was once the exception is tending to become a tolerated norm. Astonishingly, we are starting to get used to it. Recent examples are telling. In Spain, in stadiums renowned for their football culture, racist chants continue to be belted out without shame, targeting players like Vinícius Júnior. Most recently, it was the Muslim community that was insulted. And yet, Spain's current football prodigy is Muslim. An overheated crowd that has doubtless forgotten it wasn't so long ago that it was Muslim itself. Among those chanting these remarks, and without a doubt, some still carry the genes of that recent past... In Dakar, just a few days ago, clashes escalated, turning a sports celebration into a scene of chaos. In Italy, incidents involving supporters who invaded the pitch, during a friendly match, no less, endangered players and officials, recalling the dark hours of European hooliganism in the 1980s. These episodes are not isolated; they reflect a worrying normalization of violence in and around stadiums. Even at the highest level of African football, behavioral excesses are becoming problematic. The 2025 Africa Cup of Nations final left a bitter taste. What should have been a moment of celebration for continental football was marred by behaviors contrary to sporting ethics. Pressures on refereeing, excessive challenges, and game interruptions have become commonplace. When a coach manipulates a match's rhythm to influence a refereeing decision, it is no longer strategy but a challenge to the very foundations of the sport. Despite international outrage, the sanctions imposed on teams, clubs, or players involved remain often symbolic, insufficient to eradicate these behaviors. A very surprising phenomenon: rarely have clubs or federations clearly distanced themselves from such crowds. They accommodate them, and when they condemn them, it is half-heartedly, in a muffled, timid tone with no effect. The problem is twofold. On one hand, disciplinary regulations exist but lack firmness. On the other, their application suffers from a lack of consistency and political courage. Bodies like FIFA, continental confederations, and national federations hesitate to impose truly dissuasive sanctions such as point deductions, prolonged closed-door matches, competition exclusions, or even administrative relegations. Yet without fear of sanction, the rule loses all effectiveness. It suffices to compare with other sports to measure the gap. In rugby, for example, respect for the referee is a cardinal value. The slightest challenge is immediately sanctioned. In athletics, a false start leads to immediate disqualification, no discussion. Football, meanwhile, still tolerates too many behaviors that should be unacceptable. This permissiveness has a cost. It undermines football's image, discourages some families from attending stadiums, and endangers the safety of the game's actors. More gravely, it paves the way for future tragedies. History has already taught us, through catastrophes like the Heysel Stadium disaster, that violence in stadiums can have tragic consequences. It is therefore urgent to react. Regulating football does not mean killing its soul, but rather preserving it. It is not about extinguishing passions, but channeling them. This requires strong measures, exemplary sanctions against offending clubs and players, accountability for national federations, increased use of technology to identify troublemakers, and above all, a clear political will from national and international governing bodies. Football cannot continue to be this "market of emotion" left to its own devices. For by tolerating the intolerable, it risks losing what makes its greatness and its ability to unite rather than divide. If FIFA does not decide to act firmly, the danger is real: that of seeing football sink into a spiral where violence triumphs over the game, and where, one day, tragedies exceed the mere framework of sport. The long-awaited decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in the 2025 AFCON final case should confirm rigor and integrity in the application of rules, at least at this level, thereby strengthening the credibility of the pan-African competition and football in general.