As a commentator on international politics, it is naturally tempting to draw some trite geopolitical lesson from the World Cup. There are those who believe that the unexpected early elimination of France and Italy at this year's tournament is a parable of the decline of Europe. A commentator in El País, a Spanish paper, claims that England's loss to Germany over the weekend reflects Thatcherism's demoralising effects on the English proletariat. (And there was I thinking that it had something to do with lumbering centre-backs and a disallowed goal.)
In fact, the nice thing about international football is that it actually does not track political or economic trends. Instead it provides a sort of parallel universe with its own world order. Brazil is the “sole superpower”. The Security Council of countries that have won the World Cup more than once is completed by Argentina, Germany, Italy and Uruguay. The US is a middle-ranking power, much admired for its sense of fair play. Japan is not in decline, but flourishing. China and India – the rising powers in the real world – are nowhere to be seen, since they have not qualified for this World Cup. On Planet Football, the rising powers are largely from Africa, such as the “Black Stars” of Ghana who saw off the Americans on Saturday.
The World Cup clearly offers a safe way to express nationalism and act out conflict. England-Germany games have an extra edge for reasons we need not dwell on. But, even so, George Orwell's over-quoted aphorism that “serious sport” is “war minus the shooting” misses the most important point.