Turning The Bus Around

Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.  Give someone a whiff of the stuff and they think they can do anything.  This is how politicians are born.  If you have a craving for being in the public eye, just surround yourself with the proper media consultants and you can quickly rise far above the sphere of your capabilities.

Sarah Palin is probably the most recent example of this phenomenon.  She, of course, has handled her inadequacies in a unique fashion.  Palin actually gave up her office and the power it held, to travel the public speaking circuit.  Now she is no longer accountable to anyone but herself and is able to say whatever she pleases, while being paid in the six figure range each time she does.  Freedom from responsiblility  in exchange for financial independence, if you’re willing to say what’s on your mind?  Ms. Palin may not be as ignorant as her many detractors seem to think.

Doonesbury

Most politicians, however, are reluctant to leave office and relinquish the influence and perks their power brings.  Instead, when their constituents begin to realise they’re not fulfilling their campaign promises, they employ diversionary tactics.  Members of the US Congress knew what to do when they began taking heat for their inability to agree on a healthcare plan or explain why all that stimulus money was being used to pay bonuses to bankers.  Never mind that the unemployment rate continued to rise and mortgage refinancing was more difficult than ever to secure.  They quickly reconvened the steroid hearings on baseball and summoned NFL executives to Washington to address concerns about the high rate of head trauma being suffered by their athletes.  Much posturing and scolding of both leagues’officials ensued and the media and public ate it up.  Representatives and Senators were seen to be doing their jobs.  All was well with the world.

Could this be the image that inspired Wyclef Jean to run for office in Haiti?

It’s much the same in other parts of the globe, as well.  Surely, Nigeria has larger issues to address (and Goodluck to them) than the failure of their national football side to advance in the World Cup?

France certainly does.  In a secular state, where the ruling caste suddenly sees its power base shrinking with the ever increasing influx of people of Islamic faith, a trend that is mirrored by the roster of their own national team, the wearing of burkhas (and any other fashion which covers the face) has been outlawed.  France, as a nation, looks back with pride on its own revolution, not to mention their participation in the American one. To the French, ideology is a vital organ.  The curtailing of religious freedom, even in the face of terrorism, is a development that does not bode well.

Political tensions, therefore, are high, and the popularity of the current batch of elected officials is low.  For a public servant, that means it’s a good time for the old bait and switch.   French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Minister of Sport, Roselyne Bachelot, have employed a little sleight of hand and, as a result, owe most of their current approval ratings to the immature behaviour of Nicolas Anelka and the complete ineptitude of former national team manager, Raymond Domenech.

Oui, Sepp. I know she acts like it but, mon dieu, she is not my wife!

Thankfully, FIFA has a very powerful politician of its own and one who knows how to protect his own patch.  Sepp Blatter may not have a strong military, to keep him in power, but he knows how to use what he has.

When a large part of the voting constituency of  any and every local government, attempting to intervene in the affairs of soccer,  has a vested interest in the game, that gives you a lot of leverage.  For FIFA, the fulcrum to apply that leverage exists in the form of Article 13.1 (g) of the official rulebook, which states that national football federations are obliged “to manage their affairs independently and ensure that their own affairs are not influenced by any third parties.”

Essentially, if FIFA feels the need, as on occasion it has, it will completely suspend a nation from participation in international football.  That means that the national and club teams, as well as referees, cannot participate in international competitions and that all financial assistance from FIFA will be withheld.  Being handed a global timeout doesn’t usually sit well with soccer fans and as they are a sizable chunk of the voting block, politicians are usually quick to do an about face, when Herr Blatter objects to their meddling.  Usually, a politely worded letter, containing a more flowery version of “back off, or else!”, is enough to settle matters, which was the case for both Nigeria and France.

Still, as Sepp is aware, it’s impossible to completely shut down the meddlers.  There are plenty of back doors, of which any thwarted politico, with his/her dander in a fluff, is capable of making use.  That was evident in the actions taken yesterday by the FFF, in banning Anelka for eighteen matches, former captain Patrice Evra for five, Franck Ribery for three and Jeremy Toulalan, for one.

There is no evidence, of course, that Bachelot or Sarkozy had a direct hand in the matter, because they would have been foolish to do so.  Having just been awarded the lucrative 2016 Euro Championships, they have no wish to see France suspended by FIFA.  Still, the French are nothing if not proud and you can be sure that Sarkozy’s statement that those responsible should “draw the conclusions” was followed up on, out of the public eye.

With his foot firmly in it, Escalettes could do nothing but employ the famous Gallic shrug

The resignation of FFF president Jean-Pierre Escalettes was obviously not enough to satisfy those who sought retribution for the national embarrassment.  Mr. Escalettes, who was very emotional in the aftermath of his failure to talk the players off the team bus and onto the practice pitch, may cut a sympathetic figure but he knows well his own responsibility in the matter.

I’m referring to the decision to keep Raymond Domenech on as manager through the end of the competition, despite the side’s awful performance in the qualifying stages.  It was evident then that Domenech had lost the respect of most, if not all, of his players and that, as a result, the team was fragmented.

The federation had its eye on two French coaches, Didier Deschamps, of Olympique Marseille,  and the man who eventually succeeded Domenech, Bordeaux’s Laurent Blanc.  Not wishing to disrupt the continuity of the program, and with neither candidate willing to leave his club at a critical point in the season, it was, from one perspective, an understandable decision to leave Domenech in place.  Still, when Blanc was named to the post, every effort should have been made to convince the new man to take over with immediate effect, at the conclusion of the Ligue 1 campaign, even if that meant compensating Domenech.  Escalettes was correct to accept the responsibility for allowing the situation to degenerate to the point that it did.

Beyond his resignation, though, what was there to be done?   Domenech resigned his post immediately after the side returned from South Africa, and then tried to lay blame on everyone but himself.  Blanc assumed command and let all concerned know that it would not be business as usual during his tenure, by suspending every member of the World Cup squad for their upcoming match versus Norway.

Anelka, as Napolean did in his time, will serve out his exile on a tiny island.

Other than Anelka, all of the players, including Evra, admitted publicly that they had gotten caught up in their frustration and anger with Domenech, had lost sight of the bigger picture and now regretted their actions.  They accepted Blanc’s punishment with grace and sincerity.  To an impartial observer or a French supporter, it seemed that the unrepentant Chelsea striker was the only outstanding issue to be handled and otherwise, it was time to move forward.

There is no question that Anelka, both by his actions in South Africa and his subsequent lack of regret, is deserving of the eighteen match ban.  Unfortunately, it’s truly galling that his assessment of the process was pretty much dead on:

‘The so-called punishment has no relevance whatsoever because, for me, the French national team was an issue which ended on June 19 when I was kicked out of the training centre at Knysna.  This is just to entertain the public, to turn the page because Laurent Blanc needs to be able to work in peace.  These people are clowns. I am dying with laughter.”

That he refused to appear before the federation, to take responsibility for his part in the affair, doesn’t detract from the truth contained in his statement.  Sadly, for Anelka, his arrogance only allows him to view the matter from his own point of view.

Five. Three. One. The fleecing of the sacrificial lambs.

Evra did get into an argument, himself, with his former manager that he allowed to spill over into a confrontation with a trainer.  For that, he has been relieved of his captain’s duties and a further one or two match ban may have been justified.  Five is quite harsh, however, both on him and the French side’s hopes for the upcoming Euro ’12 qualifiers.

It’s impossible to prove, but Ribery’s three games likely have more to do with his upcoming trial, involving his alleged relations with an underaged prostitiute.  Minister Bachelot has been open about her disappointment with his and Karim Benzema’s continuing involvement with the national team.  As with most politicians, the concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’is only applied selectively, most often when they themselves are caught up in scandal.

“I respect what Laurent Blanc will do. These men are innocent (until proven guilty) but it makes it very difficult if someone under investigation can be selected in the France team.  I will not set out a process – I will simply say that there is the judiciary procedure on one side and the France team on another.” Roselyne Bachelot, Politics 101:  Speaking out of both sides of your mouth

Whatever the truth might be, the reason given for the further punishments is that Evra, Ribery and Toulalan, as veterans, were the ringleaders in the mutiny.  If that is the case, then I would humbly submit that punishment was the last thing that the trio should have been given.

Now that I've figured out why everyone says I have a lot of balls, maybe i can discover where the players have gone...

After all, in at last rebelling against the reviled Domenech, they instantly returned to the side what had been completely eroded under the lame duck manager:  team unity.  Every single player was on that bus.  It was a unanimous decision.  Whether younger players were unsure and had to be convinced, if true, only proves my point further.  Evra, Ribery and Toulalan provided leadership that had been previously lacking.

But even so, I prefer the simpler explanation.  Those youngsters were just as unhappy with the man in charge as the veterans and, thus, needed very little, if any, convincing.

Sorry, I don't know why Raymond isn't here to pass on the torch... Pardon? Noise coming from the closet? I don't hear a thing, next question.

Thankfully, from Blanc’s point of view, the most irreplaceable of the group, Lyon’s Toulalan, in central midfield, will only be lost for one more match.  Evra will be missed, yet he is not as essential, at left back, and the French have already become accustomed to the absence, through frequent injury, of Ribery.

With a healthy supply of young strikers, such as Benzema, Hatem Ben Arfa, Andres-Pierre Gignac, Guillaume Hoarau, Yoann Gourcuff and Loïc Remy, Anelka’s eighteen game ban will be the least felt of all.  Given all the chances he’s been given by various clubs, as well as his country, his continued lack of both humility and loyalty warrants that no coach even considers handing him the shirt of Les Bleus, ever again.

Perhaps, when his career is all said and done, Anelka’s own laughter will sound as hollow to him as it does to the rest of us.