If I didn't know better, I might agree with some (prone to excesses of imagination, no doubt) who see the World Cup as a sportive restaging of international war. I suppose the comparison is plausible. Armies of all nations arrayed against each other on a no-man's land, kicking the proverbial ball of destiny back and forth, as empires crumble to the ground. With the exception of the latter ludicrous assertions, there is something to be said about the World Cup and World War, but only on the shakiest of ground.
Despite appearances, the World Cup is not the final refuge of nationalism in a globalized world. It is not, strictly speaking, even nationalistic. Any loyalist can assure you that soccer clubs comprise athletes not only from their own country, but those of others, as well. Observe the number of foreign players in England's Premier League, for example. To be sure, the recruitment of foreigners to national teams is motivated by the desire to optimize team performance rather than foster international solidarity. Though it may achieve that incidentally.
The fact of international cooperation in a so-called nationalistic match is not the only contradicting factor. A mass media sensation, the World Cup is streamed live to televisions, radios, computers throughout the world, boasting millions of spectators. This phenomeneon, coupled with globalization, stimulates widely scattered allegiances, most notably in countries with diasporic cultures, like America or France. Correspondingly, the games generate an enormous amount of money, akin to multi-national corportations writ large--the emblem of globalization.
Demythologizing the World Cup, however, does not deny the nationalistic impulse involved in watching it, only the legitimacy of its claims.
