The English Premier League and International Inequality

In his book How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization, author Franklin Foer briefly touches on how the clubs Juventus and AC Milan in Italy’s Serie A explain the new oligarchies forming in such a globalized economy.  However, despite discussing power and its ability to manipulate the playing field in favor of the powerful, Foer directs his focus on the powerful individuals capable of media manipulation rather than the powerful states capable of status manipulation.  As globalization increases at an increasing rate, logic dictates that resources should be more evenly dispersed among states as comparative advantage and free trade flourish.  Similarly, economically, militarily, and culturally valuable technology should become more readily available to developing states in need of it as information is exchanged more quickly, accurately, and freely.  However, in terms of which countries possess the most wealth and influence and which countries do not, very little has changed despite the communication breakthrough of the internet.  Interestingly enough, soccer (football) in Great Britain does a brilliant job illustrating the roadblocks facing developing countries attempting to ascend into the higher order of international actors even with the aid of globalization.

The English Premier League, or EPL, was established in 1992 in the United Kingdom.  It is comprised of 20 teams, has the highest revenue of any football league in the world, and operates within the English football league system (Barclays Premier League 2014).  The English football league system operates by promoting teams to higher leagues based on success and relegating teams to lower leagues in the presence of failure (Patrick 2014).  Under this system, it would seem as though any team could ascend into the highest levels of English football or descend into the bottom-most trenches, however this has not been the case.  Even though 3 clubs are promoted to the Premier League every year, only 2, Swansea and Stoke, have remained in the league following their promotion.  Swansea has only played 3 seasons while Stoke has only played 6 (Rundle 2014).  9 of the current 20 EPL clubs have never been relegated to a lower league (Manfred 2014).  Only Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester City and Blackburn Rovers have ever won the EPL title with Manchester United having won an unprecedented 13 (Barclays Premier League 2014).  From the 1999-2000 season until the 2009-10 season, the “Big Four” English football clubs of Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea occupied 38 of the 44 available top 4 finishing spots that qualify an EPL team for UEFA Champions League competition (Barclays Premier League 2014).

There is obvious stagnation at the top of the English football pyramid, but why?  The answer is the same reason why countries have such a difficult time ascending in international status despite globalization.  The top English football clubs, like the top countries of the world, maintain a disproportionate amount of the resources in terms of money, influence, and visibility in comparison to the lesser football clubs.  50% of the £1.782 billion in wages spent by EPL clubs in 2012-13 was spent by the Big Four plus Manchester City, who was recently purchased by the extremely affluent Abu Dhabi United Group for Development and Investment (Sedghi 2014).  The story is no different when discussing the countries of the world.  The top 19 countries out of 190 cataloged by the World Bank were responsible for 74% of global GDP in terms of purchasing power parity (World Bank 2013).  The disproportionate resource allocation in the EPL and in the world itself allow for the teams and countries at the top to operate massive economies of scale and manipulate comparative advantage in their favor.  As long as the wealth gap between states persists, it will remain impossible for an outside state to rise to elite status regardless of the positive effects resulting from globalization.

Barclays Premier League. "History." Barclays Premier League. Premier League, 2014. Web. 1 Dec. 2014. <http://www.premierleague.com/content/premierleague/en-gb/about/history.html>.

Manfred, Tony. "17 Things You Never Knew About The English Premier League." Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 13 May 2012. Web. 1 Dec. 2014. <http://www.businessinsider.com/premier-league-trivia-2012-5>.

Patrick, Seb. "10 Things You Should Know About the English Premier League." BBC America. BBC Worldwide Americas Inc., 15 Aug. 2014. Web. 1 Dec. 2014. <http://www.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2014/08/10-things-know-english-premier-league/>.

Rundle, Richard. "Football Club History Database - Stoke City." Football Club History Database. Public Domain, 2014. Web. 1 Dec. 2014. <http://www.fchd.info/STOKEC.HTM>.

Rundle, Richard. "Football Club History Database – Swansea City." Football Club History Database. Public Domain, 2014. Web. 1 Dec. 2014. <http://www.fchd.info/SWANSEAC.HTM>.

Sedghi, Ami, and Tom Wills. "Premier League Finances: Turnover, Wages, Debt and Performance." The Guardian 1 May 2014. Guardian News and Media Limited or Its Affiliated Companies. Web. 1 Dec. 2014. <http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/may/01/premier-league-club-accounts-debt-wages>.

World Bank. "GDP Ranking, PPP Based." The World Bank. The World Bank Group, 2013. Web. 1 Dec. 2014. <http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/GDP-PPP-based-table>.

Globalization

Dictionary.com says that globalization is the act of globalizing or extending to other or all parts of the world. Franklin Foer’s book How Soccer Explains the World, explains globalization to his readers with soccer.

The first two chapters of the book were the most interesting for me. Soccer is played all over the world. The first chapter called “How Soccer Explains the Gangster’s Paradise” showed how Arkan bought his own soccer team, Obilic, to legitimize his newfound wealth. The team instantly became successful under his leadership but how? Instead of using henchmen to make people submit to his rule he used his soccer team. The opposing teams can be seen as Serbians who disagree with Arkan and Obilic as Arkan’s supporters. Arkan may have been able to use his soccer team to get people who did not agree with him to submit to him, but his ways of submission were useless once he came upon the European teams. The Europeans would have none of his tricks of submission. Once the non-Arkan supporters, other Serbian soccer teams, saw other stand up to him, they decided to band together and defy Arkan. The non-supporters of Arkan were able to stand up to their aggressor.

In chapter two, “How Soccer Explains the Pornography of Sects”, the hatred for Catholics and Protestants still runs deep, and it can be found when the Celtics and the Rangers play each other. Some places enjoy soccer more than others, but everyone enjoys a good rivalry. You would think that sports rivalries in America could be intense, but the Rangers and Celtics take it to a whole different level. Sports, like soccer, is usually a way to bring together lots of different people to enjoy a fun event together. But I believe that bringing globalization to soccer is not going to end this deeply embedded rivalries. Foer points out how globalization has failed in the world of soccer. For example, Foer mentions, “Karl McGraorty, twenty years old, shot in the chest with a crossbow leaving a Celtic pub. Liam Sweeney, twenty-five years old, in a green shirt, beaten by four assailants in a Chinese carryout. Thomas McFadden, sixteen years of age, stabbed in the chest, stomach, and groin – killed after watching the game in an Irish pub” (37). Of the three people mentioned, two people were killed over some rivalry between the Rangers and the Celtics. The rivalry is deeply rooted which soccer only seems to be making worse in Glasgow. Like globalization, soccer is a way to connect and bring people together, but these two teams only become a projection of the hatred that the Catholics and Protestants feel towards each other. When Celtic soccer player Mo Johnston signed with the Rangers, it was supposed to help break down the wall between the two teams. He was supposed to be the Jackie Robinson of Scottish soccer, but it was not meant to happen.

A common theme between these two chapters is that soccer not only seen as a team, but also as a side to take on cultural differences. Globalization has failed to bring the people of Glasgow together. The people there still identify as themselves either Celtic or Ranger fans, and they are not worried about globalization taking away their identity. So far, Glasgow and Serbia explained by soccer have not been affected by globalization and refuse to embrace it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/globalization

Foer, Franklin. How Soccer Explains the World. New York: HarperCollins, 2004. Print.

Globalization and American Culture Wars

If you Google the word “globalization” you can find this definition: a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology. But what does that definition mean exactly? In Franklin Foer’s book, “How Soccer Explains the World,” one can find a more simple way to understand globalization – through soccer.

I found the last chapter of Foer’s book, titled “How Soccer Explains the American Culture Wars,” particularly interesting. I found it easy to understand how globalization can explain American culture wars when Foer explained it through soccer. Feelings regarding the sport of soccer in America can almost be separated into two categories: those who love soccer and those who despise it. In this chapter, Foer uses soccer in America to argue that the American culture wars are a result of globalization.

I agree with Foer in that globalization is the strongest explanation for the American culture wars. Other explanations for American culture wars include social class or political ideology. However, people in different social classes, who then tend to have varying political ideologies, can still both agree on protecting American culture from globalization or the opposite. A wealthy Republican business owner and a lower-class Democratic mechanic may not see the same way politically, but the two could see the same on how globalization could destroy American identity or shape it.

Though globalization has helped spur economic development, the worldwide expansion of different values also has the ability to deteriorate a country’s identity. The most common culture war in America is the conflict between those values considered traditionalist or progressive.  Or put differently, a culture war between those who believe globalization is ruining American cultural values and those who believe globalization is opening America up to new ideas and bettering the nation.

Foer accurately used soccer as a way to persuade readers that globalization is the cause of American culture wars. Those who accept soccer as a sport and play it, are on the progressive side of the American culture war. Despite soccer having originated in Europe, these people are able to accept soccer as a sport for Americans as well. They do not see soccer as a threat to American culture. On the other hand, those who dislike soccer do not accept because it is not a ‘traditional’ American sport. These people believe football, basketball, and baseball are the true American sports. The group who likes soccer is more open to the affects of globalization, while the second group believes globalization could be destroying traditional American culture and trying to preserve it.

Soccer is not the only American culture war that can be explaining by globalization. However, this particular culture war does help explain the larger picture. Many culture wars are not a result of varying social classes and political ideologies, but instead are results of those trying to embrace the affects of globalization and those trying to prevent them.

http://www.academia.edu/1210302/Globalization_Culture_Wars_and_Attitudes_toward_Soccer_in_America_An_Empirical_Assessment_of_How_Soccer_Explains_the_World

The Old Firm

One of the key themes of Foer's book How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization is the failure of globalization. In the country of UK, there are two rivalry teams. They are so deeply rooted against each other politically, religiously, culturally, and ethnically that sectarian violence often results from their soccer games. Which ironic because they both play soccer and living in the same country. The Celtic team represents the Catholic, the Irish, and more Republican ideology. While the Rangers team represent the more Protestant, the English, and more Conservative ideology.

The name Old Firm represents the old rivalry of these two soccer teams since the late 1800's. I agree with Foer that soccer is a failed medium to globalize the two rivalry clubs. For over a century of playing against each other, they still haven't hate each other any less, and fans had to get the Parliament to pass the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act to regulate religious hatred and hooligan violence in football games.  Oddly enough, the games actually makes UK citizens want to hate each other more. If one were to attend one of Old Firm's games, you will instantly see the Celtic side of the stadium waving the Irish flag and the Rangers side of the stadium waving the Union Jack flag. The rivalry is so political that you have no choice but to choose side, and by doing so you make yourself an eternal enemy of the opposite team. It's really hard to find a middle ground, unless of course you are an atheist independent American. In which case you will probably be hated by both side.

I don't think soccer is the globalization solution to this rivalry problem between the Catholic Irish and the Protestant English. In fact, it actually entices it. Soccer in this circumstance actually removes some of the nationalism feelings and intrigues tribalism for the sake of entertainment by media corporates. The media is always finding and fueling conflicts such as these sport rivalries to makes money off viewers who pays money to watch these sorts of violent entertainments. It pulls uninvolved fans of soccer into a sectarian conflict. Unlike the Olympic Games and the Super Bowl which kind of brings people of diverse backgrounds together, the Old Firm divides the people of UK. When we watch the Olympic Games on NBC, we see athletes of different countries have friendly but very competitive matches against one another. They always smile, shake hands, and enjoy playing or competing against each other for their country. Sometimes they hangout and explore the hosting country’s fun venues together.  The Old Firm however, games occasionally end up in brawls or riots; revenge violence for losing the game or offensive slangs.  Bar fights and vandalism; can’t believe all this comes from soccer.  It’s the exact oppose of the Super Bowl.

But that’s no reason to hate soccer, it’s still a fun sport, just don’t expect it to make peace between the Celtic fans and the Rangers fan.  

United Nations, The Best Institution Ever Created by Man

History have seen many alliances, many confederations, and many coalitions for many political purposes. Such as the League of Nations to prevent another World War, NATO to prevent spread of Communism, European Union to prevent European economic collapse, Peloponnesian League to prevent Persian invasion, Holy League to prevent Islam invasions. But none as great and awesome as the United Nations. There is WHO, the World Health Organization, which combats global diseases, there is UN Security Council that addresses global wars, there is the UN Declaration of Human Rights that proclaims the standard for general human liberties and rights, there’s the HNCHR that deals with refugee problems, DESA that address global economic and social affairs, etc. The United Nations is the single greatest achievement in international collaboration. No other organizations or corporations have the resources nor the logistics to do the amount of good the United Nations does.

Many correspondents would argue that the United Nation is all name no power. Take for example, the number of useless members in the United Nations Security Council: Chad, Chile, Jordan, Nigeria, etc. they are barely even a development nation let alone be considered be a regional power. For if either China or Russia decides to veto a military action from being passed, the entire UN cannot do a thing about it such as the wars in Syria, in Iraq, or about North Korea. The UN have no official military force, it has to use volunteer troops donated by member countries to enforce its proclamations. Have no taxes, UN gets majority of its funding from the U.S. government. And the UN have no sovereignty, its buildings and employees are all in a member country and under that country’s local jurisdiction.

Why is it so great then? Because it built the foundation for any global co-operation that will include almost every country on Earth. The United Nation is very similar to NATO before the Warsaw Pact, NATO back then was a purely diplomatic relationship organization with post-war European nations now it became a military alliance that includes majority of Europe and North America. The function of NATO changed during the Cold War. It had to militarize itself and its members to combat the threat of the Soviet Union. The United Nations can and would likely to militarize its functions and powers if such a threat is present against the people of this planet. Threats such as potential global epidemic such as Ebola, natural disasters that arise from climate change, economic threats such as rampant refugees or stock market collapse, planetary threats such as meteors and big asteroids, etc.

I believe the UN could one day become another NATO instead of another League of Nations. Its current functions are essential to maintain global peace and prosperity. Even If we do ever find ourselves facing an enemy that is more powerful than the U.S., such as Ebola on Black Plague scale or Skynet, the United Nations is the organization that the people of the world will look towards to for help. And the United Nations will deliver it.

Wilde, Robert. "NATO." 2014About.com. About Education. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.
"Functions and Powers." United Nations Security Council. UN.org. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.
"United Nations." Wikipedia. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.

Does MAD Still Apply?

Mutually assured destruction, or MAD, claims that nuclear weapons have so much potential for destruction and such a large capacity to inflict death upon an enemy that actors possessing nuclear weapons will resist using them knowing that they would likely be destroyed by their enemies’ nuclear weapons as well (Shermer).  Fundamental principles of MAD are that the actors are rational and that both actors involved in the conflict have second strike capability, or the ability to deliver a nuclear strike after already having been the victim of a nuclear attack (Shermer).  Mutually assured destruction has held true since the inception of nuclear weaponry, the only nuclear strike ever delivered being the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Japan by the United States at the end of World War II.  Even in that scenario Japan possessed no second strike capability, nullifying a founding principle of MAD (History Channel).  However, as times have changed and the variety of legitimate actors has changed, does MAD still hold true?

On the one hand, no nuclear attack has occurred or appears anywhere near imminent, so MAD holds up.  Even the most unstable leader with nuclear capabilities in the world today, Kim Jong-Un of North Korea, has only threatened to attack the United States for various perceived indiscretions and has failed to pull the trigger (BBC "North Korea Threatens War on US over Kim Jong-un Movie."). 

However, on the other hand, many more actors exist in the world today that, if given the opportunity to use a nuclear device, may in fact do so based on little possible ability for effective retaliation.  The most glaring examples of such actors are terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.  The animosity towards western culture by and ideals of organizations such as these is well publicized and documented by not only western states but by ISIL and Al-Qaeda themselves.  Al-Qaeda organized and conducted the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, while ISIL has threatened President Barack Obama and the families of United States servicemen and women (BBC "In Full: Al-Qaeda Statement.", Ernst, Scarborough).  The motivation to attack a western state with nuclear capabilities, specifically the United States, is clearly present.  The problem with MAD in the cases of these two actors, along with any decentralized actor, is that finding a location to strike with a nuclear device in retaliation is impractical at best and impossible at worst. 

Should ISIL or Al-Qaeda strike a nuclear capable state with a nuclear weapon of their own, where should the state fire back a second strike and how effective would said strike be?  In the case of ISIL, should the fired upon actor return fire on Mosul, a city of 1.8 million largely innocent civilians (Sydney Morning Herald)?  Despite succeeding in eliminating a large contingent of ISIL militants, this retaliatory nuclear action would mostly slaughter innocent civilians and appear inhumane among the rational states of the world.  Additionally, actors like Al-Qaeda and ISIL are extraordinarily difficult to neutralize through conventional military means or even a nuclear attack because they are not rooted in the ground on which they stand or in the important leaders an attack might successfully exterminate.  They are instead rooted in ideas and extreme ideologies that can be passed on from person to person and likely can never be fully eradicated.

ISIL and Al-Qaeda are extremely decentralized and possess no ideal location for which to execute a nuclear strike.  Even if a strike were executed on ISIL or Al-Qaeda and it somehow did manage to eliminate every participatory militant, the extreme ideologies the organizations were founded upon will remain for others to emulate and recreate.  For these reasons, should ISIL or Al-Qaeda attain a nuclear device, it would be highly likely for them to violate the MAD doctrine and use said device in a strike against the west.  Therefore, in the 21^st century, MAD does not entirely hold true.

BBC News. "In Full: Al-Qaeda Statement." BBC News. BBC, 10 Oct. 2001. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

BBC. "North Korea Threatens War on US over Kim Jong-un Movie." BBC News. BBC, 26 June 2014. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

Ernst, Douglas. "‘We’re Coming for You, Barack Obama’: Top U.S. Official Discloses Threat from ISIL." The Washington Times 23 July 2014. The Washington Time, LLC. Web. 9 Nov. 2014. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/23/isil-threatens-obama-top-us-official-discloses/>.

History Channel. "Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." History.com. A&E Television Networks, LLC, 1 Jan. 2014. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

Scarborough, Rowan. "U.S. Military Ordered to Hide Identities, Change Routines to Avoid Terrorist Attacks." The Washington Times 29 Oct. 2014. The Washington Times, LLC. Web. 9 Nov. 2014. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/29/pentagon-issues-islamic-state-warning-to-staff-rem/>.

Shermer, Michael. "Will Mutually Assured Destruction Continue to Deter Nuclear War?"Scientific American 1 June 2014. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

Sydney Morning Herald. "ISIL's New Rules for Captured City of Mosul." Sydney Morning Herald 13 June 2014. Fairfax Media. Web. 9 Nov. 2014. <http://www.smh.com.au/world/isils-new-rules-for-captured-city-of-mosul-20140613-zs783.html>.

The United Nations

Many people have lots of criticisms of the United Nations with some questioning their relevance to the world. I believe that the United Nations is still relevant but they need to fix some issues.

            First of all, I think it would be a bad idea for the United Nations to add more permanent members to the Security Council. If too many countries are added to the original five permanent members, then it gives more countries the power to veto. Too many countries with the power to veto could lead to the United Nations getting absolutely nothing done and becoming irrelevant to the world. For example, if four more permanent members were added to the Security Council, it would become hard to get everyone to agree to intervene in a crisis. It can already be hard enough for the United Nations to intervene in some situations with just five members; more than that would only make matters worse.

            Secondly, I think the United Nations president should be able to get more of a say than he already does. Maybe if the President could be more a part of the decision to intervene in a situation, then the United Nations would get more involved on certain issues. Even if the President could override a veto whatever decision the Security Council made or if he had more power, then people may be less critical of the United Nations with them being able to be active on more pressing issues.

            One thing the United Nations needs to do is to avoid ending up like the League of Nations. The League of Nations had too many people with veto power and many countries decided to leave before it was dissolved in 1946. Similar to the United Nations, the winners of World War One were the founders of the League of Nations. In addition, too many members of the League of Nations had veto power which ended up causing some problems for the organization. Woodrow Wilson, United States President, may have been the creator of the League of Nations, but the United States wanted nothing to do with it and that was another problem for the organization. Without American help, it was destined to fail. If the United States were to leave the United Nations, other countries could follow which would lead to the fall and irrelevance of the United Nations. Right now the United States is committed to the UnitedNations and is the major source of funds. The main goal of the League of Nations was to prevent another world war, but unfortunately, it was unable to do so. Even with the criticisms of the United Nations, at least the organization has been able to prevent another world war so far.

            In one situation, for example, Kosovo, the United Nations should have been stricter with their ceasefire demands, but the United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization stepped in without United Nation approval and resolved the crisis.

            The United Nations can become better if the President is given more power; then they might be taken more seriously by some critics. They are still relevant to the world, and it will be around for a long time.