International Federation of Association Football (FIFA)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in Soccer

      The Gaps Get Smaller as the World Cup Gets Larger

      by

      Expanding the Women’s World Cup was a good idea. Just not for the reasons FIFA thinks.Given where the journey had started and where it had led, it was no wonder that watching the Philippines win a game at the Women’s World Cup felt as if it defied rational explanation, even to those involved.Not quite two years ago, the Philippines had toiled to beat Nepal in a qualifying game just to earn a place in a low-profile regional tournament. Now that same team had beaten New Zealand — on home soil, no less — and with the whole world watching.For those who were part of that journey, the distance traveled and the ground traversed seemed too great to be feasible. It was impossible to imagine that a team that had been there could ever be here, and vice versa.“Overwhelming, crazy,” said Sarina Bolden, the live-wire forward who had scored her country’s first goal at a World Cup. Her coach, Alen Stajcic, found it hard to pitch his hyperbole. He started out at “staggering” and went from there, cycling through “miraculous and unbelievable” before landing on “mind-blowing.”The emotion, the euphoric instinct to attribute the wondrous to the divine, was understandable. The Philippines had entered the World Cup as a rank outsider. “No one expected us to win,” Bolden said. “We’re used to that.” Its team had never won a game at the tournament before. That was not desperately surprising: It had previously played only one, and that was last week. Just a few months ago, it was ranked outside the world’s top 50.The Philippines went out of the World Cup, but not before leaving its mark on it.Marty Melville/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe thing about miracles, though, is that their mechanics can be a little more mundane than they may first appear. The Philippines might have left the tournament precisely as anticipated — after the group phase, eliminated thanks to an unceremonious 6-0 defeat to Norway — but not before it left an indelible mark.Its victory against New Zealand was the greatest surprise of a World Cup brimming with them. It is just that, beneath the surface, it was perhaps not that much of a surprise at all.To watch the first 10 days of this tournament has been to experience the sensation that the world is simultaneously expanding and contracting. The Philippines beat one of the World Cup’s co-hosts, and Nigeria overcame Australia, the other.Morocco, the first North African team to reach the finals, beat South Korea. Colombia scored in the 97th minute to beat Germany, Europe’s great powerhouse. Jamaica held firm to take a point against France, a result the country’s coach, Lorne Donaldson, described as “No. 1” in its history, “for men or women.”Most of those nations will, of course, follow the same arc as the Philippines. Nigeria and Colombia apart, it is unlikely any will make it as far as the knockout rounds. The phosphene imprint of their brief, dazzling moments in the spotlight, though, will last.And so, too, will the fact that even in defeat, most of those teams making their debuts on this stage have emerged with credit. True, there have been a couple of shellackings: Germany against Morocco, both Spain and Japan against Zambia, Norway against the Philippines.Top women’s players no longer see a gap between themselves and stars from bigger nations because they know one another from club play.David Gray/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThose, though, have been isolated cases. Haiti lost only narrowly to England. Ireland has run both Australia and Canada close. The United States scored only three against Vietnam. Nobody has conceded 13 in a single game. Nobody has been humiliated. The horizons of women’s soccer are both broader and closer than ever before.“We’ve been saying this all along,” said Vlatko Andonovski, the coach of the United States. “Whether it’s Nigeria or Jamaica, South Africa and the Philippines: These are the teams that actually show how much women’s soccer has grown.”Regrettably, at some point, FIFA will seek to take credit for that. Effect will be mistaken for cause. Four years ago, with what appeared to be suspiciously little warning, global soccer’s governing body decreed that the Women’s World Cup — previously contested by 24 teams — would expand to 32, the same size as the men’s tournament (for now).At the time, the idea was met with considerable skepticism. The move was announced only a few weeks after Thailand had conceded more than a dozen goals in a game against the United States. Many suspected the expansion would turn an exception into a rule. “A lot of people were worried with the expansion that we weren’t ready for it on the women’s side,” said Randy Waldrum, the Nigeria coach.FIFA’s president, the never less than bombastic Gianni Infantino, was unmoved. “The astounding success of this year’s FIFA Women’s World Cup in France made it very clear that this is the time to keep the momentum going and take concrete steps to foster the growth of women’s football,” he said. He said he believed more countries would invest in their women’s teams if they had a “realistic chance of qualifying.”From his vantage point — on the Cook Islands, the sun-kissed paradise where for reasons that are not entirely clear he has spent a considerable part of the early stages of the tournament — Infantino would doubtless claim he has been vindicated.Morocco, like the Philippines, posted its first World Cup win in its first trip to the tournament.Brenton Edwards/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesWould the Philippines have moved to appoint the experienced Stajcic, the former coach of the Australian women’s team, if it had not seen the World Cup as a realistic target? Without his presence, would his players have garnered the “tournament experience” — in a parade of competitions in both Southeast Asia and Asia as a whole — and “maturity” that Stajcic felt allowed them to hold off New Zealand last week in Wellington?“The commitment level in terms of who they brought in as a coach and the things they’re putting into the program are paying dividends for them,” Waldrum said of the Philippines. “I think that’s why we are seeing the growth.”More than anyone, though, Waldrum is well aware of the holes in Infantino’s logic. His team, after all, is still locked in a pay dispute with its national federation, which has so far withheld the players’ win bonuses; Waldrum himself has previously complained that he has been “very frustrated by the federation and the lack of support.”Donaldson, in charge of a Jamaica side that might yet qualify for the tournament’s knockout phase, could make a similar case. At least some of the expenses associated with bringing Jamaica to the World Cup were paid for by a fund-raising campaign arranged by the mother of one of its players.The expansion of the World Cup has, instead, worked despite the national associations — still, in many cases, chronically lacking in both money and commitment — rather than because of them. And it has done so because of a host of factors that have little, if anything, to do with the tournament itself.The increased professionalization of the game, particularly in Europe, has led to vast and rapid improvements in everything from conditioning to diet to tactical sophistication. The coaches, on the whole, are more experienced, more adroit, more suitable to the talent of their players.“Our preparation is a little bit better this time around,” Donaldson said. “Just the ability to have proper coaching, proper diet and the understanding of what’s going on in world soccer” had helped his team to compete despite a colossal resource gap to the game’s bigger, richer nations, he said.Haiti has left an impression on bigger nations despite not posting a win.Dan Peled/ReutersAt the same time, the whirlwind growth of the game has led to the players themselves being granted more opportunities to play competitive, elite soccer, as the clubs of the surging European leagues — as well as the National Women’s Soccer League in the United States — cast their nets ever wider in the hunt for talent.Waldrum’s squad with Nigeria, for example, contains a host of players employed in France and Spain, including Asisat Oshoala, the Barcelona forward. Ireland’s team is drawn, in large part, from the teams of England’s Women’s Super League.As many as 14 of Haiti’s squad currently play in France — not all for clubs like Lyon, as the teenage midfielder Melchie Dumornay now does, but professional, committed clubs nonetheless. Even the Philippines, the ultimate underdog, has called up only three players from its domestic league. The majority of its team plays, instead, in Sweden, Norway and Australia.“Some of these players are getting a chance now to go and play in some of the top leagues, and they’re taking it,” Donaldson said. “You can see it, the Jamaican players, the Haitian players. They’re developing.”And as they do so, the players they have encountered — the ones who might once have seemed so distant — become just a little more familiar. They know they belong on the same field, because they have done it before. The horizon, the one that seems so broad, is far closer than it might appear. What looks, at first glance, like a miracle, a bolt from a clear blue sky, is really nothing more than the landfall of a gathering storm. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Soccer

      Australian TV Deal Has World Cup Viewers Asking: Where Are the Games?

      by

      When FIFA sold Australia’s World Cup broadcast rights to a streaming service, it made it harder for casual fans to find the matches.The Women’s World Cup is by most estimates the biggest sporting event to be staged in Australia since the Sydney Olympics. FIFA, the tournament’s organizer, has trumpeted record ticket sales, and it has hailed the event both as a celebration of the popularity of women’s soccer and as a way to carry it to new fans and new markets.But while viewers in Australia could watch all 64 games of the recent men’s World Cup played in Qatar on a free-to-air network, FIFA struck a deal for the broadcast rights to the Women’s World Cup — as it did when the tournament was played in France four years ago — with the cellphone operator Optus, which has placed the bulk of the matches on its pay television network.For viewers in Australia, that has meant the majority of games can only be watched via subscription, making it harder for viewers living in one of the tournament’s host countries to watch the tournament than it has been for fans in places like Europe and the United States.“It’s very disappointing to not have the coverage the women deserve,” said Beth Monkley, who was in Brisbane with her daughter this week to follow Australia’s team. “It’s a fantastic sport for everyone, so inclusive. And for some reason Australia has decided not to show all the games free to air.”Legislation in Australia means the entire event cannot be placed behind a paywall, since games involving the men’s and national women’s soccer teams are considered of such significant importance that they are on a list of protected events that must be broadcast for free nationwide. The World Cup final also has a place on that protected list.This year, 15 tournament games will be available on Channel Seven, a free-to-air network authorized by FIFA and Optus to sub-license some rights. (Optus separately said it would offer to stream 10 games for free to users who sign up for its platform.)But the uncertainty about which games will be on the air, and when, has led to significant frustration among soccer fans, but also casual fans in sports-mad Australia, where soccer lags behind the country’s most popular sports, rugby, cricket and Australian rules football.On Thursday morning, Andrew Moore and his wife joined the throng of visitors to a FIFA fan park set up on the banks of the Brisbane River to watch the most eagerly awaited game of the group stage, a clash between the United States and the Netherlands. The Moores stood out.While most of the crowd were outfitted in the yellow and green of the Australian team that would play later in the day against Nigeria, the Moores were wearing matching maroon and golden jerseys of their favorite rugby team, the Brisbane Broncos, which was scheduled to play at the same time as the Matildas’ kickoff against Nigeria.While Australia’s matches are easy to find on television, the same is not true of all teams.Dan Peled/ReutersMoore said all the pretournament advertising and promotion had led him believe that all the games would be broadcast on Channel Seven, a network familiar to Australian sports fans. So a day after he watched Australia and New Zealand play their openers on free television, he settled in to watch the next round of games.But when he grabbed his remote control and flicked to Channel Seven, and then to its subsidiary channels, he could not find a game. “I thought there was something wrong with the television,” he said.Moore said for casual soccer viewers like his family, which already has several pay television subscriptions, signing up to Optus to watch the Women’s World Cup did not make sense, particularly since the sports he favors are on other networks. In Australia’s fragmented television market, most domestic sports rights are split across a number of pay and free-to-air networks. Fans seeking telecasts of major soccer leagues and tournaments from outside the country often must turn to more networks and more subscriptions.That has left FIFA trying to defend disparate priorities: its desire to attract new fans to women’s soccer, and a new commercial approach that seeks to maximize revenue for a tournament that it hopes will eventually grow closer to the popularity of the men’s event, which is the most-watched tournament in global sports.FIFA declined to comment on the rationale for its broadcast agreements in Australia beyond issuing a statement saying that both Optus and Channel Seven “have committed significant resources to covering and promoting the tournament” and claiming that their “combined efforts have led to record viewership figures for the FIFA Women’s World Cup in the region.”That record, experts said, was always likely to be met, given Australian and New Zealand’s host nation status and a favorable time zone for the games. David Rowe, a professor at the Institute for Culture and Society at Western Sydney University, described the lack of the type of blanket coverage that the men’s tournament typically enjoys as a “missed opportunity.”Optus, reacting to the outcry from viewers, has pointed out that broadcasters’ rights fees “are key to ensuring the continued growth and equality of women’s sport, and contribute to everything from grass roots momentum to salaries for our national players.”Soccer’s place within Australia’s sporting landscape has always been a precarious one, said Rowe, an expert on sports and media in Australia. He said the sport was for decades viewed with suspicion by a population grappling with a wave of migration after World War II.“Football got a reputation as foreign at time when there was a lot of suspicion toward people who were not British in the early days of multiculturalism,” he said.He credited the relative success of Australia’s women’s team in establishing itself as one of the best in the world as helping boost the sport’s appeal at home, much as victories and championships by the United States women’s team had popularized the sport in America.That popularity has been visible in the tournament, with record attendances and packed stadiums for Australia’s first two games.FIFA’s sale of the broadcast rights in Australia comes as it tries to promote the women’s game more broadly. Darrian Traynor/Getty ImagesStill, for FIFA, the Women’s World Cup is not close to being the cash cow that the men’s event has become. The estimated $300 million it will earn from selling broadcast rights to the women’s tournament is only about a tenth of what the organization brought in for the rights to the Qatar World Cup in 2022. FIFA and its president, Gianni Infantino, have accused broadcasters in Europe of undervaluing the tournament, and at one point even threatened to not sell rights in key territories — essentially imposing a blackout — if the offers were not increased. As the tournament neared, FIFA eventually backed down on that threat.With FIFA’s coffers swelling with reserves of $4 billion and forecasts of more to come with the next men’s World Cup estimated to generate $11 billion, there was little urgency to sell domestic Women’s World Cup rights to the highest bidder, Rowe said.“It’s chump change for FIFA,” he said. “I do think it’s a lost opportunity.”In Brisbane, as Matildas fever gripped the Queensland capital ahead of the Nigeria game, the sense of a missed opportunity appeared to be near universal.By the time Monkley got to Brisbane with her daughter this week to follow the Australian women’s team, she had been forced to fashion an unusual routine to watch other games in the tournament, by connecting a cable between her phone and her hotel television to stream the games.In Melbourne, where Australia now faces a must-win game against Canada, Alyssa Birley and her husband, Cameron, had traveled across the state so their children could watch the match. The family even booked the same hotel as the Australian team so that their children could get even closer to their heroes. But they said that they have not shelled out for an Optus subscription.The result, Alyssa Birley said, was that her children could not follow other top nations.“It’s inspirational, especially for young girls, to see these top tier athletes and it should be accessible to them,” Cameron Birley said. “Where else can they get that?” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Soccer

      Norway’s Lise Klaveness Is Calling Out FIFA From the Inside

      by

      Lise Klaveness was only a few weeks into her post as the president of Norway’s soccer federation last year when she decided to start saying the quiet parts out loud.Rising from her seat among the delegates at FIFA’s annual congress in Qatar, Klaveness strode purposefully to the raised dais where officials had, for the better part of an hour, offered little beyond perfunctory comments about the men’s World Cup that would be staged in the Gulf country later that year. There had been talk of procedural matters, and updates on the financial details.Klaveness, one of the few women in soccer leadership, had other themes on her mind. Addressing matters that for years had dogged FIFA, soccer’s world governing body, she spoke about ethical questions, about migrant workers, about the rights of women and gay people. She spoke of the responsibility of the (mostly male) officials in the room to ensure that soccer hold itself to a higher moral and ethical standard when it chose its leaders and the sites for its biggest competitions.By the time Klaveness had finished about five minutes later, she had, in typically direct style, issued a challenge to FIFA itself.But she had also made herself a target.Almost as soon as she had returned to her seat, an official from Honduras asked to speak. He bluntly told Klaveness that the FIFA Congress was “not the right forum or the right moment” to make such remarks. A few moments later, she was assailed by the head of Qatar’s World Cup organizing committee, who told her she should “educate yourself” before speaking out.“Ever since that speech in Doha so many people, and powerful people, want to tell me to calm down,” she said, describing how on several high profile meetings where she, and the Norwegian federation, have been obliquely and open criticized in a manner that she contends is a calculated effort to muzzle her.Lise Klaveness, the president of Norway’s soccer federation, walking through a crowd of men in March 2022 after addressing a FIFA congress in Qatar.Hassan Ammar/Associated PressFar from being cowed, Klaveness, who played on Norway’s national team before becoming a lawyer and a judge, has continued to speak, and continued to challenge soccer’s orthodoxy that sensitive matters should remain behind closed doors.“Politically it made me a bit more exposed, and maybe people want to tell me, ‘Who do you think you are?’ in different ways,” Klaveness, 42, said in an interview before the Women’s World Cup. Openly raising questions about human rights and good governance, she said, also “came with a price.”She also believes her positions reflect those of her federation, and her country. And she says she will not stop pressing them. “I’m very motivated,” she said, “and the day I’m not, I’ll quit. I have nothing to lose.”Klaveness’s style — so out of step with soccer’s conservative traditions — has been questioned even by some of her closest allies.“It’s maybe not the most strategic because it was very confronting,” Gijs de Jong, the secretary general of the Dutch soccer federation, said of Klaveness’s speech in Qatar. De Jong has worked closely with Klaveness over the past two years, and he said he shares many of the same frustrations over FIFA’s record on following through on its stated commitments, particularly when they concern human rights.But while he acknowledged soccer could afford to face a few hard questions, he suggested a more diplomatic approach was what produces results.“I learned in the last six, seven years that you have to stay connected,” he said. “And the risk of bringing such a confronting speech is that you lose connection with the rest of the world. And I think that’s the danger of this approach.”Klaveness said she has been told “not to exaggerate at least a thousand times” by other soccer leaders. They have encouraged her to speak in what she describes as an “indoor voice,” to be more diplomatic, to work differently. But she said that is difficult “when you have 100 years of proof of no change.”Klaveness, center left, played on Norway’s national team before becoming a lawyer and a judge.Feng Li/Getty Images“I think she is very, very popular in Norway because she never hides and she never lies and she speaks a language that everyone can understand,” said the coach of Norway’s men’s team, Stale Solbakken. “I think also that football needs voices that can dare to confront the men’s world that football is.”Earlier this year, Klaveness decided to challenge convention again by standing in elections for a place on the governing board of UEFA, European soccer’s governing body, against male candidates, instead of seeking election the one place reserved for women. She was soundly beaten, but afterward preferred to see the positives from the votes — 18, from Europe’s 55 member nations — she received.“I see it as one-third of the presidents of UEFA want change — 18 of them voted for this,” she said. There remains significant resistance from soccer’s top leaders to her priorities, she said, “but underneath them there are a lot of people reaching out.”Soccer remains infused by what Klaveness described as “a culture of fear,” a chilling effect that keeps officials, aware they could be ostracized and lose prestigious and often well-paid roles, from speaking out. For Klaveness, the conversation is still worth having.The plight of migrant workers in Qatar, for example, continues to be a concern. In March, FIFA promised to study whether it had any ongoing responsibilities in policing soccer projects if its statutes on human rights had been breached. European officials enlisted Klaveness and De Jong to join a FIFA committee on the matter, but now months have passed without any confirmation about how the committee will operate, Klaveness said. Letters and messages for updates, she said, are met with a now familiar response: “Let me get back to you.”Klaveness rejected the idea that any of the stands she has taken make her an activist, as some claim, or detract from her role as a soccer leader, something that will undoubtedly attract increased scrutiny should Norway’s national teams continue to struggle on the field.Migrant workers and other spectators watching a men’s World Cup match at a cricket stadium on the outskirts of Doha, Qatar, in November.Mads Claus Rasmussen/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesNorway’s men’s team, blessed by a talented generation that includes Erling Haaland and Martin Odegaard, could not take part in protests at the Qatar World Cup because it failed to qualify. The women’s team, which features the former world player of the year Ada Hegerberg, was humbled, 8-0, by England at last year’s European Championship,and opened the World Cup last week with a loss to New Zealand, which had never won a game in the tournament.Rather than distract her, Klaveness said the issues and platforms she an Norway’s federation and teams have championed are directly related to the game, particularly when it comes to questions about inclusivity.She said she is trying to set an example, to show other soccer leaders that they can be more than what the world has come to expect of them, more than the sea of men in suits that usually fills the hotel lounges and conference halls whenever FIFA comes to town.She has traveled to New Zealand with her wife, and three young children all under 10, and has told other officials in the Norwegian contingent that they can bring their families with them, too.“It’s a big issue for me and us at Norway federation,” she said, explaining how the travel commitments inherent in soccer’s leadership roles have made it hard to recruit women, and made it “easy for people to say women don’t want the job.”Klaveness, whose term as federation president expires in March 2026, knows her time is limited. She is not prepared to hang onto the role for the sake of staying in soccer, she said. But while she is there, she will continue to speak up. And that continued this week.Her current focus is the prize money at the Women’s World Cup. Before the tournament, FIFA announced that participating players would be guaranteed 30 percent of the $110 million prize money on offer, and a minimum of $30,000 per player. Some national federations, including England’s, appear to be using FIFA’s offer as cover to withhold supplemental bonus payments. And last week FIFA’s president, Gianni Infantino, declined to guarantee the money would eventually get to the players. Per FIFA rules, he said, the money will be paid to the federations, suggesting the proposed bonuses were a recommendation and not a guarantee.“He could and should be clear that it’s an obligatory payment,” Klaveness said. “Why would you ever say it’s not that straightforward?” More

    • 213 Shares179 Views

      in Soccer

      Even if U.S. Doesn’t Win the World Cup, Its Players Will Take Home the Most Prize Money

      by

      The Canadian women’s soccer team has been demanding that its soccer federation agree to equal pay and equal working conditions for the men’s and women’s national teams for over a year. Players from England are frustrated that their country’s federation won’t offer performance-related bonuses. And the Nigerian team discussed boycotting its opening game over money […] More

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in Soccer

      Why Does Every Women’s World Cup City Have Two Names?

      by

      A concerted effort to say Indigenous names correctly, and tell the stories behind them, will show up in stadiums in New Zealand and Australia.When soccer fans land in New Zealand this month ahead of the Women’s World Cup, they may find themselves welcomed not to Auckland or Wellington, but to “Tāmaki Makaurau” (“Tah-mah-key Ma-kow-row”) or “Te Whanganui-a-Tara” (“Tay Fung-a-noo-ee a Tah-rah”).Those names — what the cities are called in the country’s Indigenous language, te reo Māori — are reflected in the official documents for this year’s Women’s World Cup, which has placed Indigenous languages and imagery unapologetically at the forefront.Every city that will host a match is listed with its English and Indigenous names, and FIFA announced this month that it would fly First Nations and Māori flags in every stadium. The effort came after soccer and government officials in the host nations pushed for a more inclusive approach, and it “will mean so much to so many,” the head of Australia’s soccer federation said.In New Zealand, the decision reflects an ongoing conversation about the nation’s identity. For decades, many New Zealanders routinely mangled and mispronounced the Māori names of the country’s cities and towns. Taupō (“Toe-paw”) was pronounced “Towel-po.” Ōtāhuhu (Oh-tah-hu-hu) was “Oter-hu.” And Paraparaumu (“para-para-oo-moo”) was sometimes simply referred to as “Pram.”More recently lawmakers, broadcasters and much of the general public have cast out those mispronunciations as part of a concerted national effort to say the names correctly. At the same time, many are choosing to use their cities’ original Māori names over their English alternatives. Last year, a formal petition to rename the country altogether and restore all Māori names was signed by more than 70,000 people.“Before, it felt like a choice to say the names right,” said Julia de Bres, a linguist at Massey University in New Zealand. “And now it feels like a choice not to.”Visitors should absolutely use those names, as well as the common greeting “kia ora” (“key ow-rah”), said Hemi Dale, the director of Māori medium education at the University of Auckland.“Once you grasp the vowels, you can get your tongue around most of the words — long sounds, short sounds, the macron,” the horizontal line above a vowel that indicates a stressed syllable, he said.The Māori flag outside Te Papa museum of New Zealand.Marty Melville/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images(A note: New Zealanders overseas — of any descent — will often permit themselves an internal wince at how foreigners say the word “Māori.” The correct pronunciation is closest to “Mao-ree,” and never “May-or-i.” The plural is simply “Māori,” without an “s,” which does not appear in the language.)The championing of Māori place names is visible throughout New Zealand life: Increasingly, New Zealanders call their homeland Aotearoa, the Māori name that is often translated as “land of the long white cloud” and that has been used by Māori to refer to the country for decades, if not centuries. Māori and English names are used by the country’s weather forecasting service, on newly released official maps and on signs on the nation’s roads.The changes are an effect of a decades-long movement to revitalize a language that risked being extinguished by colonialism, said Rawinia Higgins, the country’s Māori language commissioner.As English-speaking settlers became the dominant population, Māori and their language were sidelined and suppressed. As late as the 1980s, Māori children were beaten at school for speaking the language, and many adults chose not to pass it on to their families.Starting in the 1970s, the Māori language revival movement has led to te reo’s being adopted as one of the country’s two official languages, alongside sign language, and the establishment of nearly 500 early childhood schools in which Māori is spoken exclusively.Many non-Māori New Zealanders have embraced the change, and there are long wait lists for Māori language courses. The government aims to have one million New Zealanders — roughly one-fifth of the population — speaking basic Māori by 2040.But for a small but vocal minority, a bicultural society is viewed as divisive rather than inclusive.Last year, after the chocolatier Whittakers temporarily changed the packaging on its milk chocolate bars to read Miraka Kirīmi (Creamy Milk), some in New Zealand called for a boycott of the brand. The question of bilingual road signs has taken on outsize importance ahead of this year’s general election, where questions of racial politics have become a feature of the center-right’s rhetoric.Place names, as some of the more visible examples of the shift, have become caught in the fray. Lost in that debate is the reality that the country’s colonial names often had little to do with the places they related to.Christchurch, for instance, was named to recall a college at the University of Oxford, while the name Auckland was bestowed as a thank you to George Eden, the Earl of Auckland. Eden was the boss of a former governor of New Zealand, William Hobson, who chose the name. Eden never set foot in the city.By contrast, Māori place names reflect location-specific information, including important stories or where food might be found, said Hana Skerett-White, a Māori teacher, advocate and translator who has worked with artists such as the singer Lorde.“The Māori names tell us stories,” she said. “They speak of our history, of important events, and they actually act as pockets of knowledge, which is how we transmit information from generation to generation.“When those names are taken away, so too are our knowledge systems disrupted in the process.”A view of Tāmaki Makaurau, or Auckland in English.Catherine Ivill/Getty ImagesEnglish translations for Tāmaki Makaurau, as Auckland is known in Māori, vary. One version indicates that the city, with its palm-fringed harbors and volcanoes, is a place desired by many. Another tells the story of Tāmaki, a beautiful princess, and her many admirers.From a Māori perspective, each understanding is equally valid, and individual tribes, or iwi, may approach it differently, said Pāora Puru, a Māori language advocate and a co-founder of the Māori social enterprise Te Manu Taupua.“People have their own interpretations, their own meaning,” he said. “I liken it to an invisible umbilical cord that connects you to that place, and to your ancestors’ traditional connection, association, occupation or use of that particular area.” More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Soccer

      Women’s World Cup: FIFA Will Allow Rainbow Armbands

      by

      Captains will be offered choices reflecting several anti-discrimination efforts. The rainbow-colored design is similar to one banned at the men’s World Cup in Qatar.UPDATE, Friday, June 30: FIFA on Friday confirmed the rules for the armbands team captains can wear at the Women’s World Cup described in this article. One design includes a rainbow-colored design, but FIFA took pains to differentiate its from a familiar pride design some teams have worn for years. This article has been updated to note the approved slogans and designs.FIFA will allow teams to wear rainbow-colored armbands that promote inclusivity at this year’s Women’s World Cup, reversing a policy that specifically outlawed a similar armband featuring the same colors at the men’s World Cup in Qatar last year.In November, FIFA threatened teams and their captains with serious punishments in its effort to silence a long-planned anti-discrimination statement only hours before the start of the World Cup, leading to a breakdown in relations between soccer’s governing body and several competing nations.But this week, after months of discussions between soccer’s leaders and national federations that are intent on allowing their players to highlight causes that are important to them on women’s soccer’s biggest stage, FIFA sent a letter outlining its armband rules for the 32 teams that will participate in the tournament.The participating national soccer federations received the letter on Friday, around the time FIFA announced its plans on social media.The agreement that appears to have been reached will allow captains of teams that want to participate in efforts to promote inclusivity — a FIFA-approved message scheduled to be the theme for the first round of games — to wear armbands featuring rainbow colors during matches at the monthlong event in Australia and New Zealand.The single multi-colored design, similar to the so-called One Love version banned in Qatar, would be reminiscent in its colors to the well-known flag that serves as a symbol of L.G.B.T.Q. pride, but purposely not identical to it.FIFA will allow individual nations to decide whether or not to wear the rainbow armband, and it will offer captains and teams who opt out choices highlighting other social justice words and phrases on a solid blue armband, or a neutral FIFA armband bearing the message “Football Unites the World.”In the tournament’s later rounds, FIFA and the national teams will promote themes beyond inclusivity like gender equality, peace, education and violence against women, among others. The co-host Australia had pushed for an armband that highlights the rights of Indigenous citizens; that was also approved. (In a related decision, FIFA plans to hang Indigenous flags at World Cup stadiums in Australia and New Zealand in a show of support for an issue of particular interest to both host nations.)Getting to a consensus on armbands has not been easy. At one stage of the months of sometimes contentious talks between FIFA and the teams, there was a growing sense that the rainbow-colored armbands sought by supporters of the inclusivity campaign would not be permitted. As recently as March, a top German official said her team had been told directly by FIFA that the rainbow armbands its players have worn for years would not be allowed at the Women’s World Cup.Players on several Women’s World Cup teams have spoken about their intention to highlight support for the L.G.B.T.Q. community at the monthlong tournament, which will feature dozens of players who are gay. A handful of teams already wear rainbow armbands in many of their matches, and other players and teams have used armbands and wristbands in the past to highlight issues such as sexual abuse, gender equality and gun control.FIFA may be just as eager to take the issue off the table after the pushback, public protests and online scorn it received over its ban on rainbow armbands in Qatar, a country where homosexuality is outlawed.“We all went through a learning process,” FIFA’s president, Gianni Infantino, said of the armband battle during a visit to London in March. “What we will try to do better this time is to search for a dialogue with everyone involved — the captains, the federations, the players, FIFA — to capture the different sensitivities and see what can be done in order to express a position, a value or a feeling that somebody has in a positive way, without hurting anyone else.“We are looking for dialogue and we will have a solution in place well before the Women’s World Cup,” he predicted at the time. The tournament opens on July 20. More

    • 100 Shares169 Views

      in Soccer

      U.S. Will Host Club World Cup in 2025

      by

      A year before the World Cup comes to North America, an expanded soccer competition for the top global club teams will be contested in the United States.A year before 48 of the best men’s national soccer teams come to North America for the World Cup, 32 of the best club teams will arrive in the United States for the first edition of an expanded Club World Cup in 2025.The entrants will include the 12 top European teams based on their performances in the Champions League, including Chelsea, Real Madrid and Manchester City. Clubs from the rest of the world will qualify from their various continental club championships.The Seattle Sounders of Major League Soccer earned a berth by winning the 2022 Concacaf Champions League, and teams from Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Brazil and elsewhere have already qualified, with more than half the field still to be determined.FIFA announced Friday that the United States would host the event. The cities where games will be held and the exact format of the tournament have not yet been disclosed. The event is expected to be held in June and July.FIFA has long dreamed of a world championship for club teams that might someday rival the big international team events it holds. At one point, a 24-team version of the event was announced for China but was scrapped, in part because of the pandemic.Under the current format, started in 2005, the Club World Cup has been held annually in the winter months, with seven teams — one per continent and one from the host country. The expanded event, proposed long ago but delayed several times, is expected to be held every four years.Despite the global field, European teams nearly always win the event, and with 12 of 32 entrants in the new format, they seem likely to continue to do so. This means that the Club World Cup could become essentially a spruced-up version of Europe’s Champions League. It would also add to the nearly year-round schedule of games for top players.In part for these reasons, the European governing body, UEFA, some top club teams and representatives for players have been at times less than enthusiastic about the expanded event.J.T. Batson, the chief executive of U.S. Soccer, said he was excited about the coming event.Besides the 12 European entrants, the 2025 event will include six teams from South America; four each from Asia, Africa and the North and Central America and Caribbean region; one from Oceania; and one from the host country, in this case the United States.The expanded Club World Cup will come one year before the 2026 World Cup, which will hold the bulk of its games, including the final, in the United States, with some games in Canada and Mexico. In 2024, the United States will host the Copa América, the championship for South American national teams. More

    • 163 Shares139 Views

      in Soccer

      North America Got the 2026 World Cup. Now Who Will Get the Final?

      by

      A decision on which city will host the men’s 2026 World Cup final is expected in the fall. Leaders from the New York area are making their case, with Dallas and Los Angeles also in the running.It has been almost five years since a bid from the United States, Canada and Mexico beat out a proposal from Morocco to host soccer’s 2026 men’s World Cup. Now the competition has turned intramural.The stadiums for the tournament have been chosen, but FIFA, world soccer’s governing body, has not yet said which one will host the final game.Officials from New York City and New Jersey are starting a concerted push to land that final for MetLife Stadium at the Meadowlands, including an event in Times Square on Thursday morning with Gov. Phil Murphy of New Jersey and Mayor Eric Adams of New York.“Eric and I believe strongly that we have the most compelling case by far to get the best package, including the final,” Murphy said in a joint interview with Adams on Wednesday morning.At most other World Cups, there is an obvious choice for the final game. Moscow, Rio de Janeiro and Paris were always going to be chosen when their countries hosted the tournament. But there are several attractive candidates for the 2026 final, to be played July 19. (Though Mexico and Canada will host some of the tournament’s 104 games, the bidders agreed that the majority of the matches — and everything from the quarterfinals on — would be in the United States.)The only previous time the United States hosted the World Cup, in 1994, the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, Calif., got the final. This time, SoFi Stadium is the Los Angeles-area site on the list of stadiums for 2026. But that stadium was built primarily for N.F.L. football, and there is concern that the field there is too narrow for soccer, which would require removing some seats, and reducing capacity.Dallas has also emerged as a leading candidate, in part because nearby AT&T Stadium can potentially be expanded to offer over 100,000 seats for soccer.But Adams and Murphy are making their case that the New York City area outshines those places as the best spot for the game.“Yes, L.A. is known for its extravaganza and its appeal of Hollywood,” Adams said. “But I think New York is the largest stage.”Murphy said: “New York is the international capital of the world. With no disrespect to Dallas, we’re taking about New York.”The other contenders are not lying down. “We are making our case to the committee right now that we would be the perfect site for the semifinals and finals,” Dan Hunt, president of Dallas’s bid, told the local NBC affiliate late last year. “We have two great airports, we have the infrastructure, we have the hotels, we have AT&T Stadium. We have what it will take to host what I call ‘the Super Bowl on steroids.’”Kathryn Schloessman, head of the Los Angeles bid, said, “Our region is so fortunate to have a world-class stadium and infrastructure to be in consideration for hosting the final and other prominent matches.”The decision will ultimately be made by top FIFA officials, up to and including President Gianni Infantino, with input from the regional governing body, Concacaf, and U.S. Soccer. It is expected in early fall.Whether the New York region wins the final or not, there are likely to be about eight games at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J. “Eight games is like eight Super Bowls in six weeks, so no matter what the games look like it’s going to be a huge success,” Murphy said. “We’ll sell every one of them out; it doesn’t matter who’s playing.”“But clearly to get the final — and we think we’re in the best position to get the final — is the icing on the cake that is almost unparalleled in sports,” he added. “There is both prestige and I’m sure an extra boost to the regional economy.”If a “huge success” is coming either way, why is there such a hunger to land the final? Adams acknowledged another motivation: “I’m extremely competitive, and I want to beat other cities to have the final. We were chosen, now it’s time for us to bring home the Cup.” More