True Fandom

I don’t know much about football –or sports in general—but I have noted how fans can groan of their team’s continued awful performance; flood social media with outrage and disappointment; throw things in disgust at losing a game, but all the while maintain allegiance to their team. Once, I approached my grandfather and sought an explanation for these seemingly contradictory behaviors. He replied that one ought not be a “fair-weather fan;” a good fan supports his/her team even when performance is low. Even as a young child, I found this concept interesting given that support for other communities was dependent upon that community’s performance. It seemed weird to me that my grandfather was a Cowboys fan simply because he was a Cowboys fan –not necessarily because of the Cowboys’ performance.

I couldn’t get through the first chapter of Franklin Foer’s book How Soccer Explains the World without noting the violent fandom that characterized the soccer matches he described between the Serbs and their opponents. Foer explains that across the world “violence had become apart of soccer’s culture (13).” He goes on to detail violence as a consequence of citizen's commitment to their national soccer teams. However, Foer never attributes this allegiance --so strong that it routinely translates to violence-- to the performance of the teams. Instead, it appeared allegiance stemmed only from ethnic identity. In some conversation, this sort of rationale might be considered faithful, loyal, or even characteristic of a “true fan,” but ultimately this rationale is a dangerous sense of blind idolization.

Fans’ blind idolization to sports teams is similar to the idea of nationalism. In fact it is so similar to the idea of nationalism, that Foer lists experiences where “war had been a metaphor for sports (21)” and as a result the two concepts blur. Foer provides an example of Serb nationalism and explains it as “the idea that Serbs possess a morality and character superior to their non-Serb neighbors (34).” Serbs were supporting their country, to the extent of civilian-on-civilian violence, without reflecting on the performance, ideals, or goals of their country. This ideology exposes a damaging and stifling sense of egoism that Foer occasionally (but unfortunately) labels “dignity (10).” If countrymen support their countries with the same logic they use to justify their support of sports teams, they stifle the benefits of globalization.

In class, we defined globalization as the increased interconnectedness of the world, and we identified that one of the benefits of globalization is the opportunity for cultural exposure and growth. But, how can a country experience these benefits if it blindly idolizes its actions, and its countrymen support this behavior? Rather than value globalization as continued opportunity for learning and improvement, an egotistical country (which is a common country) will only regard globalization as an opportunity to be bossy “gangsters,” polluting even more of the globe with pompous, unchecked, unjustified perspective.  The result will not be increased interconnectedness, only increased egoism or “international isolation” (28) --the opposite of ideal globalization. Countries who allow the spirit of nationalism to distract them from the benefits of globalization do themselves a disservice. This disservice might be unnecessary bloodshed (as the case with the Yugoslavs/ Serbs), or the disservice might be more abstract, such as missing opportunities to better understand equality. This idea is reflected in the above political cartoon.

Therefore, it is imperative that countries set aside their “gangster-like” egos and recognize globalization as an opportunity to learn from the globe --rather than an opportunity to spread their influence. This requires countrymen to reflect on their country’s actions and support them only with careful review. We must only be “fair-weather fans.”