A Football Report: The AFR team is sharing its diverse perspectives on the drama that unfolded yesterday in Switzerland in a series of posts throughout the next day or so. The series features perspectives from our writers who call places like Montreal, Paris, Kuala Lumpur, Sydney, London, Manilla, Boston, and Lisbon home. We continue with the perspective of Soraya Soemadiredja, a recent graduate of the University of Toronto now living in Manila. She didn’t hold back. Enjoy.
Russia and Qatar? “YES! FIFA proves once again they’re all about the money!” And, more specifically: “Are you surprised your general culture of neo-liberalism has destroyed your own shot of hosting a World Cup in favour of two countries about which you westerners have unjustified and generally unfair stereotypes and generalisations?”*
Ever since the Confederations Cup started, the vuvuzela has been a source of controversy for some inexplicable reason. So many people think they should be banned and while this came up as a point of discussion for 2010 prior to the beginning of the Confederations Cup, FIFA said it would not be banned if they were not used as weapons or projectiles. However, because there has been complaints from media, foreign spectators and footballers, FIFA might have to revisit the issue.
I must respectfully disagree on the arguments for banning the vuvuzela. FIFA takes a risk every four years in granting nations host status but they have to accept that each nation is different and will inevitably bring to the global stage new additions to our vernacular football culture. The vuvuzela is one of them, and distinctly South African. While the vuvuzela was developed later on in South African sporting history, it is no less culturally significant for South African football fans, as evidenced by its heavy presence in the stadium, a fun, cheap way for the fans to show their loyalty toward their teams.