I see the point. However, the insult certainly has an ethnic root. Today, it is not a question of happenstance who we happen to call "son of a terrorist whore". At least not in the West. Such an insult is most likely to be aimed at a Muslim or Arab, or someone with a North African background – and I am sure that Zidane interpreted it as such.

Regarding an earlier post: Yes, we cannot know for sure that Materazzi consciously "lay a dirty trap". But I certainly am inclined to think so. His escalation of insults definitely seem designed to provoke.

I don’t go along with the idea that what is shouted or said between two players in the heat of battle on a football pitch is "a private conversation". That’s preposterous.

To be perfectly clear: Whatever was said, or why – there is no excuse for Zidane’s behaviour. He received the red card he deserved. He should have been man enough not to take the bait.

The question is to what degree Materazzi should be censured, and what consequence, if any, that should have for him as a player or the Italians as a team.

Thankfully, FIFA has launched a full investigation. I am sure they will do their utmost to clarify exactly what happened – and act appropriately.

-------------------------------

Phil: I was most impressed by the American’s team performance against the Italians. When they were at their peak, America was on par with the best! :)

Pray tell, why saying it was private is preposterous? Since there are no microphones aimed at the field, only cameras, why saying a conversation is private negates common sense? I continue to maintain that an unrecorded conversation between two people is private even it happens in front of the eyes of a huge crowd.

This morning the Hartford Courant reports an interview with the former coach of the US Women Soccer Team (winner of the world cup, the one only Americans care about sadly) in which he recalls how he specifically warned his players never to fall for any taunt or provocation, ever and he clearly makes the point that whatever was said a player at that level there is no excuse for falling for it and reacting. I agree with him, but I have to disclose that he is my daughter's coach so I am certainly inclined to agree with him. On the other hand, he did coach at international level, and none of us did.

ArticStones, the only preposterous statement is yours: you keep saying that there shall be a consequence for the Italian team.

There will be no such thing, because any consequence will create a huge and incredibly stupid loophole for every team in every sport: if you are loosing, hit somebody - but hard, please!- and act offended and hurt, and we might have a shot at the game..

Time will tell, but it is so obvious to me that the consequences of any such ruling would be disastrous.

_____

On the individual Italian player I could care less, I am just against the thought police squads. I made my point in a previous post, nothing to add.

A guy admittedly insulted another guy and that guy hit back.
No thought police at work here.

Both insults and head-butts are aggressions, neither are a civilized way to communicate with one another and how exactly this will turn out remains to be seen.

If those were just two guys in a dark alley, that would probably be the end of the story.
In this case, there are game rules to be enforced, we'll see how that plays out. It is probably a good idea that verbal aggressions are forbidden by those rules as much as physical ones, even if it is a lot harder to arbitrate if the wording of the already admitted insult is contested.

I'm completely stumped anyway how all this is taken so seriously by grown adults who should understand that soccer is just another game.

Reaching for some chips and beer to prepare for the next episode ;) ...

Someone once put it rather succinctly:
"Football is not a matter of life and death – it is far more serious than that."
:D

Arctic, I'm afraid there are far more serious things to worry about these days.

Unfortunately, they tend to be complex, so people have to put some intellectual effort into forming an opinion and eventually act upon it.

Sadly panem et circensis still seems to work.
In spite of very alarming things going on worldwide, entertaining the masses with irrelevant "issues" simple enough for them to understand seems to be a technique that has not lost its impact since the Romans used it even though it did not prevent the decline of their Empire.

Another? Sorry but that would be baseball. In this solar system, soccer is THE game.

I don't know exactly what the criteria are. If sportsmanship is one of them, then he might very well be.
Personally, and considering the past history of this player who is no stranger to phisical assaulting other players, it does.
On the children: in his apology he said he apologized mostly to children but then he added he had no regrets which as an apology in my book pretty much sucks. Like the French Football Federation dragged him there and he said what he was told to say. His mother clarified the sentiments quite well in that context. I believe they should keep that in mind, a small way to repay the huge compensation they receive for their athletic talent, far superior to intellectual talent in our society. But they end up thinking they are above it all INMHO.

Give them bread and circus!
 

You’re absolutely right!
There really are some astounding things going on (good and bad), and you’ve brought many of them to light in the Forum.

Some years ago I visited Denmark during a major referendum on that country’s relationship to the European Union. The average man on the street, however, was far more concerned with the performance of the national football team!

To me the World Cup was a welcome escape from all the seriousness that fills the news and my workdays.

Yet I wholeheartedly agree – we must look beyond Bread and Circus. Each of us has a co-responsibility for our shared course. And when there is a Circus, it may be worthwhile to look in the opposite direction to see what decisions the powers-that-be are taking and trying to put into effect.

Well this is a Forum where political discussions are prohibited, so discussing this does not mean people don't care.

I quoted the Economist and the implications for the US for not caring about soccer which supports the perception of a country that does not care about the world, but nobody replied and I left it at that.

Personally, I have tried to look at the implications of what happened on the field and quoted Orwell and Bradbury a couple of times; the retort was I was taking it too far. Well, that might be but between the boundaries of the Forum and the lack of replies I shall continue basking in the championship. I know it was hard, but somebody got to be the champion...

PS circenses not circensis. Sadly they didn't let me play football all the time when I was a kid, and in Italy Latin is still taught with gravitas.

Not exactly, unfriendly behaviour is prohibited and political subjects are considered high-risk to evolve in that direction.

The Economist article is indeed quite interesting:

"Americans like to think of themselves as global trendsetters and standard-makers. But a raft of opinion polls since the Iraq war have demonstrated that America is not so much a trendsetter as an outlier—more individualistic, more religious, more nationalistic, more anti-government and more gung-ho about the use of force than other countries.
This evidence of American exceptionalism has provoked a fierce debate within the United States between “red” Americans, who are proud of their country's oddness, and “blue” Americans (mostly Democrats), who think that America should pay more attention to the rest of the world."

Initially, I didn't want to participate in this thread for the very reason explained in my second post, but precisely the use of Orwell quotes when it comes to investigate some insignificant sports event seemed pretty much out of line to me.
The expectation that insults made in a context that couldn't possibly be more public should be considered private strikes me as absurd.

But I definitely strongly oppose video surveillance, face recognition and automated lip-reading.
Unfortunately, these days we're getting terribly close with all that terrorist fear-mongering going on and it is perfectly fine to re-read 1984 from Orwell to see how far we've come.
At least, the german constitution prevented the completely-out-of-his-mind german minister of interior Schäuble to have the army in the streets during the championship.

Thanks for correcting me. I only got to learn living languages and naively assumed that WikiPedia got it right.

Don't you oppose them because they would be a breach of privacy? How could privacy be protected if the conversation wasn't private in the first place?

The conversation was private, like any conversation that takes place exclusively between two individuals, whether in a private or public place.

In spite of very alarming things going on worldwide, entertaining the masses with irrelevant "issues" simple enough for them to understand seems to be a technique that has not lost its impact since the Romans used it even though it did not prevent the decline of their Empire.

I've never understood this point. Who says what's irrelevant to whom, here? And what's wrong with people watching a soccer (baseball, basketball, etc.) game and then discussing the outcome? This does not, in itself, negate attention from "weightier matters," as one is free to turn attention to those at any time. Besides, most professional sports leagues aren't government sponsored. It's all part of the entertainment industry, so might as well paint the whole thing with the same judgment of banality while we're at it, no? But who wants to read news all the time? ;)

If you all will forgive me, simply wanted to reiterate a former point. Racism is not a small issue, no matter where it appears. Most historians believe that WWI was a result of nationalism, and they agree that WWII was started by WWI and a smatering of racism. If racism/national pride can start two of the bloodiest wars in history, I would defy you to say this topic is irrelavent. If we allow it in our major sports, on the worlds biggest stage, wouldn't that encourage it to the largest possible audience? Is there possibly a better place to take a stand and say, "no we think racism is wrong!" I doubt it.

If the comments are proven to be racist (though I still lean towards them not being) I hope appropriate action is taken. This sort of behavior cannot be tolerated because it leads to the infringment of whole socials groups basic rights.

lostduck, that question certainly needs careful examination.

It would be private if they had insulted and head-butted themselves in a private setting.

In the context of this case, I don't believe there is any reasonable expectation that any detail of their professional attitude (or lack thereof) would remain "private". But it's certainly a debatable subject.

Phil, seriously, you of all people pull a Straw Man on me ?
I'll go for it if you really mean it.

Zalister, of course racism is an extremely evil attitude and nobody here is saying that it was irrelevant. What seems completely out of proportion is the attention that football championships get in the public mindshare, but it looks like I "think different" on that topic. At least among two meditarrenean guys, insulting female members of their family is largely as offensive as any racist insult. Nonetheless, I certainly subscribe to your "no we think racism is wrong!".

My last sentence about reading the news all the time was straw mannish, to be sure, but your analogy between the World Cup and entertainment diversions used by the Roman Empire seems an extreme exaggeration, imo. The World Cup is every four years -- not exactly an ongoing distraction. It seems to be like the World Series in baseball or the Super Bowl in NFL football -- an event that even people who don't pay much attention to the sport tune into. All in good fun, it seems to me.

No desire to get into a debate about "Roman Empire tactics," however.

I can see the point of the conversation not being private, and I respect your opinion. I think we can agree that it was de facto private, since nobody else heard it.

My concern is that you start with the business of lip reading we'll never end, and it will go down the path I mentioned before (sister, one penalty, etc.). It's a dangerous path, and one that would damage football quite significantly for the reasons I stated above.

__________

From a practical point of view, since nobody heard them, there will be the problem to prove what was said. Sticky one at best. Whose word weighs more?