By Boaz Rakocz

In Israel, they have a saying; “We live from one Saturday to the next”, and it has nothing to do with the holy ‘Shabbat’ day of rest. Saturday is match day of the soccer major league and most sport-loving families either go to the stands or sit at their homes in front of their television sets, rooting for their beloved teams.

So far, nothing here is peculiar and it can fit the weekend habits of almost all soccer fans, whether in Sao Paulo, Glasgow, Madrid, Istanbul, Belgrade, Tel-Aviv or Cairo.

While soccer has long served the purpose of bringing people together, it has also been a forum in which many of the world political tensions have been played out. Many fans around the world will be able to say that they have witnessed at least one soccer match brawl based on socio-political, racial, religious, or ethnic content.

Is the high incidence of violence during soccer matches attributed to the sport’s intense physical contact? Or to the socio-political and national movements the sport traditionally developed along side in many countries? And if athletic vulgarity or team rivalries are factors in this phenomenon, how come there are rarely violent incidents between Rangers and Devils, or Yankees and Red-Sox fans in the U.S., while Buenos Aires, Manchester, Rome and Munich produce hooliganism almost on a weekly basis?

As always, the answer is- it’s the politics, stupid!

Last week, after 100 years of blood-shed and fluctuating levels of conflict, the leaders of Turkey and Armenia have agreed to initiate diplomatic relations between both countries.Only a few days later, the Armenian President announced that he planned to attend a soccer match between the two national teams.

This is not the first time in history a political leader has made an appearance in a sports competition, yet it seems this soccer match is a special occurance.; Not only does it represent the new relations between the countries, but the Armenian President’s presence enables fans to endorse the agreement between the countries.

Nevertheless, the question remains, have European or Latin American stadiums, teams and fan-clubs historically been instruments or platforms in the hands of political parties or social movements? It is seemingly so.  For example, teams like Red-Star Belgrade or S.S. Lazio (Rome, Italian Serie-A) have been, and still are, known for their fans’ political standings and socio-economic positions. In fact, they have been utilized by political movements through campaigning, exposure and aggressive ‘street-support’.

This does not appear to be a postmodern social phenomenon. The existing tradeoff between sympathizing with a soccer team and supporting a political party, or a social or national movement has been, for many years, deeply rooted in the cultural history of European and Latin American soccer teams. This is illustrated by the image of Liverpool F.C. having a proletarian following, or F.C. Barcelona having a Catalonian nationalist image.

Another example of a soccer-related national rivalry is between Argentina and England. ; After many years of athletic competition between the two teams, the Falklands War in 1982 turned the sports rivalry into a multi-layered conflict.

The armed conflict between the countries has created a long lasting strife among supporters from both sides; one that surfaces during matches and reaches violent measures on a regular basis.

When both national teams met four years after the war, during the 1986 World Cup quarter finals, and Diego Armando Maradona scored a goal to beat the English – termed ‘the hand of god’ incident – a new era of bitter competitiveness between the teams was officially created, and still remains today.

Yet, if armed conflicts are an important and contributing factor, how come there are no such features to U.S. Northern-Southern sporting rivalries? Is it because American patriotism stops at the gates of the stadium, or is it because of general cultural differences? American sportsmanship appears to go a long way; it is the fair game that comes first, and not your team’s jersey.

Worldwide, there appears to be a different interpretation of fair game that applies to soccer.