Football is the best type of globalisation - better even than money.

You'll know by now, which I don't, whether Liverpool beat Inter Milan on Tuesday, in which case we'll have four out of the final eight in the Champions League. Even if only three English clubs go through, that's more than any other European country. Aren't we the greatest?

Then someone will point out, oh they have already, it's so fortunate being able to read columns before they are written, that none of the four managers is English. In fact, they are French, Spanish, Israeli and Scottish. Then they'll add that the Arsenal team are all foreigners, while the others have only a minority of English players. Oh, and three out of the four clubs are foreign-owned. So what's all this hurrahing for England, eh?

But I'll still say hurrah, and not just for England being rich and successful enough to afford the world's top players and managers, but for football. For football is the hope for the world, economically, socially and culturally. Oh yes.

When it all started, these foreign johnnies coming here, we were a bit suspicious, not to say snotty. Now we totally accept it. Even the lowliest of league teams have someone from a country we'd never heard of. The same thing happened elsewhere, if more slowly. Traditionally, Basque teams in Spain would not have anyone from outside their region. Now they're quite happy to have a Welsh manager, a Dutch defender, or a Turkish striker. Moldovan clubs field Nigerians, Moscow teams have South Americans. Who'd have thought it possible, just 20 years ago?

Now logically this should have wiped out local loyalties and pride, but it didn't. In London N5 or Milan, if you are playing for our local team, wearing our colours, you're immediately one of us, until you leave. Then we'll boo you, just as we always did.

This intermingling has weakened neither grass-roots support nor the game itself. Most agree that technique, tactics, diet have all improved with the influx.

But has it helped football on a global scale? Changed it, certainly. At one time, fans worldwide had this stereotype of English players as lumps who never gave up; the French were fancy-dans who gave in easily; the Italians were cynical and defensive; the Dutch and Brazilians, now they were the true creators.

You can't generalise any more. The world's top clubs play very much the same way. Switch on the TV, and at first it's hard to tell which countries they are from. Players come from everywhere, and managers copy the styles of the dominant clubs. This might be a loss in some ways, but the overall standard, in every major league, has probably gone up.

On the pitch, there are no races, no languages, no working or middle classes. Just players. Off the pitch we are all watching the same games - in Israel, Palestine, China, India. We don't see any boundaries or obstacles to understanding and appreciating. It's the same match, with the same language, same heroes, same joys, same despairs.

Now you can't say that about religion, any religion. On the whole, religion is a divisive force. Money is global, but the global economy, with all the international groups competing, brings divisions, poverty, corruption.

Football isn't perfect. Players are still homophobic, but then so is religion and so is the City of London. But, as an example of globalisation, football is the most successful - and the best, because it fosters unity and understanding. So, I think that calls for two loud hurrahs . . .

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website