Uruguay, the best of all countries great and small

I had never heard of that player who helped stuff Man City in the Uefa Champions League, scoring two goals for Napoli, which as good as ruined Man City's chances of progressing. Edinson Cavani? Hmm, the surname sounded Italian but his first name hinted of Anglo connections. Now that I look him up, I see he is 24 and has been with Napoli since 2010. In September, he scored a hat-trick against Milan. Comes from Uruguay. Should have guessed. What is it with Uruguay?

They are ranked fourth in the Fifa world rankings - which doesn't say a huge amount, as England have somehow crept in at five, after those boring wins against Spain and Sweden. This year, Uruguay won the Copa América - beating Paraguay in the final, held in Argentina, which was a triumph, especially when you realise how titchy Uruguay is. Its population is only 3.5 million - compared with Argentina's 40 million and Brazil's 192 million. Uruguay have 42,000 registered players to choose from, compared with 332,000 in Argentina and 2.1 million in Brazil. How do they do it ?

One of the factors is history. We, over here, like to think that we gave football to a grateful world, which is true in most senses, as we created the rules in 1863 and invented the idea of competitive leagues in 1888. But the other big event in the history of world football is the World Cup - which we couldn't be arsed to enter till 1950. The first World Cup was held in Uruguay in 1930. They won it and again in 1950 - beating Brazil, in Brazil - so they have won twice as many World Cups as England.

Before that, Uruguay won the gold for football at the Olympics in 1924 and 1928. And they were already dominant in the Copa América, which began in 1916. They won it that year and 14 other times since.

So, football has been part of their national DNA: what they do, what they have always been good at. It is their game.

However, being very small, the country has had lean spells, unlike a giant such as Brazil, which has consistently produced world-class players.
In the 1990s, Uruguay twice failed to make the World Cup finals, in 1994 (as did England) and in 1998, and fell to 54 in the world rankings.

In the past five years, Uruguay have zoomed up again, reaching the semis of the World Cup in 2010, mainly thanks to their inspirational manager, Óscar Wáshington Tabárez - note the Anglo-Saxon influence in his name. He transformed youth training - insisting that all young players had to continue their education. If you didn't study, you weren't in the team. Their training has become so highly regarded that young players now don't leave the country in their teens for Europe, as they used to in the old days, very often before they were mature enough to survive.

Forlán around

Today, there are Uruguayans playing in all of Europe's top leagues - such as Diego Forlán. OK, he didn't make it at Man United but he's been a star in Spain and now in Italy with Inter and, in 2010, was voted the best player at the World Cup. In England, we have Luis Suárez and Sebastián Coates at Liverpool. And Gus Poyet doing a fine job managing Brighton.

Hmm, you are thinking, well done, Uruguay - but what about that other little country, with 50 per cent more people than Uruguay, Scotland, population 5.2 million? Why are they so rubbish? Good at producing managers who do well in England but useless at producing players for the top teams, here or abroad, and appalling when it comes to international competitions. They haven't qualified for the World Cup since 1998 and are currently languishing at 49 in the world rankings.

Yet Scotland has a long history as a passionate football country, with star players once known all over Europe, such as Denis Law, and teams like Celtic, who won the European Championship before any club in England. I dunno. I'm only observing and weeping into my porridge. No use telling ourselves, hopefully and pathetically, that these things come in cycles. I suggest that the Scottish FA gets on the plane to Montevideo. And take some notebooks . . .

Hunter Davies is a journalist, broadcaster and profilic author perhaps best known for writing about the Beatles. He is an ardent Tottenham fan and writes a regular column on football for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 05 December 2011 issue of the New Statesman, The death spiral

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

What's to be done about racial inequality?

David Cameron's words on equal opportunities are to be welcomed - now for some action, says Sunder Katwala.

David Cameron made the strongest, clearest and most high profile statement about ethnic inequalities and the need to tackle discrimination ever yet offered by a British Prime Minister in his leader’s speech to the Conservative Party conference in Manchester.
“Picture this. You’ve graduated with a good degree. You send out your CV far and wide. But you get rejection after rejection. What’s wrong? It’s not the qualifications or the previous experience. It’s just two words at the top: first name, surname. Do you know that in our country today: even if they have exactly the same qualifications, people with white-sounding names are nearly twice as likely to get call backs for jobs than people with ethnic-sounding names? … That, in 21st century Britain, is disgraceful. We can talk all we want about opportunity, but it’s meaningless unless people are really judged equally”, said Cameron.
While the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, this was a powerfully argued Prime Ministerial intervention – and a particularly well-timed one, for three reasons.

Firstly, the Prime Minister was able to root his case in an all-but-universally accepted appeal for equal opportunities. It will always prove more difficult in practice to put political energy and resources behind efforts to remedy discrimination against a minority of the population unless a convincing fairness case is made that values cherished across our whole society are at stake. Cameron’s argument, that any party which tells itself that it is the party of the ‘fair chance’ and ‘the equal shot’ must have a response when there is such clear evidence of discrimination, should prove persuasive to a Conservative Party that has not seen race inequalities as its natural territory. Cameron argued that the same principles should animate responses to discrimination when it comes to race, gender and social class. Put like that, wanting job interviews to be fair – by eradicating conscious and unconscious patterns of bias wherever possible – would strike most Britons as offering as clear a case of the values of fair play as wanting the best baker to win the Great British Bake-Off on television.
Secondly, Cameron’s intervention comes at a potential "tipping point" moment for fair opportunities across ethnic groups. Traditionally, ethnic discrimination has been discussed primarily through the lens of its impact on the most marginalised. Certainly, persistent gaps in the criminal justice system, mental health provision and unemployment rates remain stark for some minority groups. What has been less noticed is the emergence of a much more complex pattern of opportunity and disadvantage – not least as a consequence of significant ethnic minority progress.

Most strikingly of all, in educational outcomes, historic attainment gaps between ethnic minorities and their white British peers have disappeared over the last decade. In the aggregate, ethnic minorities get better GCSE results on average. Ethnic minority Britons are more likely, not less likely, to be university graduates than their fellow citizens. 

As a result of that progress, Cameron’s intervention comes at a moment of significant potential – but significant risk too. Britain’s ethnic minorities are the youngest and fastest-growing sections of British society. If that educational progress translates into economic success, it will make a significant contribution to the "Great British Take-Off" that the Prime Minister envisions. But if that does not happen, with educational convergence combined with current ‘ethnic penalties’ in employment and income persisting, then that potential could well curdle into frustration that the British promise of equal opportunities is not being kept.  Cameron also mirrored his own language in committing himself to both a ‘fight against extremism’ and a ‘fight against discrimination’: while those are distinct challenges and causes, actively pursuing both tracks simultaneously has the potential, at least, depolarise some debates about responses to extremism  - and so to help deepen the broad social coalitions we need for a more cohesive society too.

Thirdly, Cameron’s challenge could mark an important deepening in the political competition between the major parties on race issues. Many have been struck by the increase in political attention on the centre-right to race issues over the last five to ten years. The focus has been on the politics of representation. By increasing the number of non-white Conservative MPs from two to seventeen since 2005, Cameron has sent a powerful signal that Labour’s traditional claim to be ‘the party of ethnic minorities’ would now be contested. Cameron was again able to celebrate in Manchester several ways in which his Cabinet and Parliamentary benches demonstrate many successful journeys of migrant and minority integration in British society. That might perhaps help to ease the fears, about integration being impossible in an era of higher immigration, which the Home Secretary had articulated the previous day.

So symbolism can matter. But facial diversity is not enough. The politics of ethnic minority opportunity needs to be about more than visits to gurdwaras, diversity nights at the party conference fringes and unveiling statues of Mahatma Gandhi in Parliament Square. Jeremy Corbyn’s first speech as Labour leader did include one brief celebratory reference to Britain’s ethnic diversity – “as I travelled the country during the leadership campaign it was wonderful to see the diversity of all the people in our country” – and to Labour bringing in more black, Asian and ethnic minority members - but it did not include any substantial content on discrimination. Tim Farron acknowledged during his leadership campaign that the Liberal Democrats have struggled to get to the starting-line on race and diversity at all. The opposition parties too will no doubt now be challenged to match not just the Prime Minister’s rhetorical commitment to challenging inequalities but also to propose how it could be done in practice.

Non-white Britons expect substance, not just symbolism from all of the parties on race inequalites.  Survation’s large survey of ethnic minority voters for British Future showed the Conservatives winning more ethnic minority support than ever before – but just 29 per cent of non-white respondents were confident that the Conservatives are committed to treating people of every ethnic background equally, while 54 per cent said this of Labour. Respondents were twice as likely to say that the Conservatives needto do more to reach out – and the Prime Minister would seem to be committed to showing that he has got that message.  Moreover, there is evidence that ethnic inclusion could be important in broadening a party’s appeal to other younger, urban and more liberal white voters too – which is why it made sense for this issue to form part of a broader attempt by David Cameron to colonise the broad centre of British politics in his Manchester speech.

But the case for caution is that there has been limited policy attention to ethnic inequalities under the last two governments. Restaurateur Iqbal Wahhab decided to give up his role chairing an ethnic minority taskforce for successive governments, unconvinced there was a political commitment to do much more than convene a talking shop. Lib Dem equalities minister Lynne Featherstone did push the CV discrimination issue – but many Conservatives were sceptical. Cameron’s new commitment may face similar challenges from those whose instinct is to worry that more attention to discrimination or bias in the jobs market will mean more red tape for business.

Labour had a separate race inequalities manifesto in 2015, outside of its main election manifesto, while the Conservative manifesto did not contain significant commitments to racial inequality. The mid-campaign launch in Croydon of a series of race equality pledges showed an increasing awareness of the growing importance of ethnic minority votes - though the fact that they all involved aiming for increases of 20 per cent by 2020 gave them a slightly back-of-the-envelope feel. 

Prime Ministerial commitments have an important agenda-setting function. A generation ago the Stephen Lawrence case opened the eyes of middle England to racist violence and police failures, particularly through the Daily Mail’s persistent challenging of those injustices. A Conservative Prime Minister’s words could similarly make a big difference in the mainstreaming of the issue of inequalities of opportunity. What action should follow words? Between now and next year’s party conference season, that must will now be the test for this Conservative government – and for their political opponents too. 

Sunder Katwala is director of British Future and former general secretary of the Fabian Society.