Viewing entries tagged
World Cup

Comment

but are we all Aztecas, really

More on the World Cup. (I realize that I'm stretching relevance here, but: marketing + international relations + it's my blog.)

Among the many, many things that fascinate me about the World Cup is the creation of team slogans. Partly because they reflect the event's ability to create a (somewhat) equal ground for countries that otherwise differ dramatically in global power, and partly because they are awesome.

The Washington Post did a pretty good roundup of the slogans, but I beg to disagree with a few of them. For example:

 

  • Australia: "Socceroos: Hopping Our Way Into History!"
    • Washington Post says: C+
    • Hillary says: A-. How can you not admire their commitment to something so profoundly dumb? Also, it's kind of fun, and games are supposed to be fun, the last time I checked.
  • Cameroon: "A Lion Remains a Lion"
    • Washington Post says: A- ("smacks of laziness")
    • Hillary says: A++++++. This is arguably the toughest and most menacing slogan I have ever heard, for anything.
  • Chile: "Chi Chi Chi Le Le Le! Go Chile!"
    • Washington Post says: B+
    • Hillary says: D. I'm pretty sure that this is just a thing you say, and not a slogan per se.
  • Ecuador: "One Commitment, One Passion, Only One Heart, This is for You Ecuador!"
    • Washington Post says: B (too earnest)
    • Hillary says: B-, for different reasons. I am actually a big fan of their sincerity, but much like Chile's "slogan," I don't think this one really qualifies. I mean, look at its length alone.
  • Ghana: "Black Stars: Here to Illuminate Brazil"
    • Washington Post says: B, for cheese
    • Hillary says: A+. It references the nation both symbolically and literally (black star on the flag), and it factually describes the behavior of stars. Plus it strikes a nice balance between being threatening and being terrifying. They're not going to eat you, like Cameroon! They're just going to show you how it's done. They'll show you the light. The black star light.
  • Greece: "Heroes Play Like Greeks"
    • Washington Post says: D, although they admit bias
    • Hillary says: Are you kidding? A++. It's not as breathtakingly baller as Cameroon's slogan, but it's in the same arena. Bonus points for the mythological allusion.
  • Mexico: "Always United, Always Aztecas"
    • Washington Post says: B+
    • Hillary says: D. First of all, why does Mexico get credit for its historical reference, when Greece does not? Secondly, this is not even accurate, as there were a multitude of pre-Columbian civilizations in Mexico, including the Toltec, the Mixtec, the Purepecha, and the Maya, all of whom could very well have been good at soccer. We don't know, because colonialism. And now we're even erasing them from our team slogans. 
  • Netherlands: "Real Men Wear Orange"
    • Washington Post says: C-
    • Hillary says: B. I don't know, I kind of like it. There's another historical callback in there, and also orange is not a color that America traditionally associates with masculinity. 
  • Portugal: "The Past is History, the Future is Victory"
  • Russia: "No One Can Catch Us"
    • Washington Post says: B+ (basically: too soon)
    • Hillary says: A, for chutzpah. Also, it's short and descriptive, which is how a slogan should be. (Are you listening, Ecuador?)
  • South Korea: "Enjoy It, Reds!"
    • Washington Post says: B-, for reduced expectations
    • Hillary says: B. They really nailed the essence of most of the English that gets translated from Korean - technically clear, but still a little puzzling.
  • Uruguay: "Three Million Dreams...Let's Go Uruguay"
    • Washington Post says: B+, because it accurately reflects Uruguay's overall position coming in
    • Hillary says: B+, but again, this is a concurring opinion. I like that it sums up the World Cup's importance as a global stage. But "Let's Go [team]" is not a slogan. I don't know how many times I have to say this. 

Anyway. I do agree with the Post that America's slogan ("United by Team, Driven by Passion") is stupid and probably better suited for a Chevy truck commercial. How about "At Least Our Country Is Kind of Paying Attention This Time"? Another option: "We're Still Not Calling It Football." Team USA, if you're listening, I am available as a brand consultant. Just saying.

 

Comment

Comment

it's your party

"Axel Witsel" is such a great name.

"Axel Witsel" is such a great name.

I love being in DC for the World Cup. It's probably because of all the international organizations that are based here, but my fellow citizens are approximately 1000x more excited about this event than people anywhere else I've ever lived.* And even though I'm not much of an athlete, or even much of a sports fan, I dig it; I think it's the global nature of the event, the fact that fans are sort of required to know about things that are happening in Croatia or Ghana, even if they're only related to soccer. And in a way, it feels more globalized even than the Olympics - maybe because there's only one sport, so the country-level fandoms are way more focused and intense (as opposed to the Olympics, where there are so many sports and affiliated politics that it's easy to lose track).

I'm also really interested in sports and global integration from another angle - the idea of one sports team as a unifier of diverse fans. Which brings me to the point of this post: a fascinating article by Sam Knight in Grantland that explores whether or not the diversity of the Belgian national team is leading to greater "Belgitude" - an attitude roughly analogous to national pride, with a dose of "I guess this country shouldn't split up after all" in the mix.  The idea is that, while many Belgians are permanently annoyed that they live in the kind of country that can go for multiple years without a government, the diversity of younger generations has led them to appreciate Belgium for what it is: a weird place, but not necessarily a bad one. For example:

...(T)he article also put forward the idea that the country’s newest citizens might be the first to truly accept Belgium on its own eccentric terms. Leman believes that theory has come true. “How to explain?” he said. “Our national discussions are internal discussions, and very domestic, and these guys coming from outside look at Belgium and they say, ‘Why destroy this country? With its nice system?’”**

As a person who has seen the Mighty Ducks movies,*** I know the trope of sports as common ground is a bit simplistic, but I also think there's something to it - maybe because it's simplistic, actually. Sports fandom is a little bit primal; as much as we might like to imagine that it comes from our head, I think it's probably based in the heart and the gut. Which means that even though there are a million political and economic differences that a sports team will never bridge, that instinctive aspect of being a fan lets us circumvent all of that and, for a moment, find common ground with someone else. It's not everything, but it's also not nothing.

And what's even more interesting about cases like the Belgian team is that, if this analysis holds up, they're actually taking the idea of sports-based unity to the next level by not only bringing people together, but by creating a new reality in order to do so. (Granted, that reality can best be summed up as "This isn't so bad," but again, you've got to start somewhere.) I'll be interested to see if it holds up, and to consider the implications of this narrative creation for the future - after all, as divided states go, Belgium is probably among the tamer examples.

Also, I am kind of obsessed with Stromae and his video about the Red Devils' official song, "Ta Fête" ("Your Party").

*With the possible exception of South Korea, but everyone there would have been cheering for one team.

**A sentiment that reminds me of Tina Fey's turn as Blerta, the Albanian addition to Girls. ("I have roof over head. For this, I thank God.")

***QUACK QUACK QUACK

 

 

 

 

Comment