FIFA in the face of European anger over the “One Love” bracelet

A symbolic gag of the German players, ministers wearing the rainbow bracelet in the box, threat of legal action: in the midst of the 2022 World Cup, the FIFA faces a rebellion by a handful of European federations, in a new stage of the politicization of sport.

Northern Europe, a militant minority

Scrutinizing the positions of his 211 member associationsin particular of the 32 teams participating in the 2022 World Cup, the soccer body might think that a tournament was going to be free of scares: most of them did not express any public criticism of Qatar or reproach it for the criminalization of homosexual relations .

The FIFA President Gianni Infantinovery vehement on Saturday to point out Western “lesson preachers”, is not exposing himself to big risks: he is heading towards a re-election for a third term next March, when he will be the only candidate in the running, with a system in which each federation has one vote, whether it is Germany or Trinidad and Tobago.

However, the Zurich-based organization, questioned daily about the case, finds it difficult to justify the coherence between the “inclusivity” of which it boasts and the refusal to allow the captains of seven European teams (Germany, Denmark, England , Belgium, the Netherlands, Wales, Switzerland) can wear the anti-homophobia bracelet “One Love”.

Amenazas “softly”

The affected federations have regretted the decision, but it is above all the form that has unnerved them: requested for months to authorize or not that red bracelet, FIFA did not give any clear answer before the tournament.

By mail, its president Gianni Infantino spread a mixed message, exhorting the 32 participants in the World Cup to “concentrate on soccer” without letting the beautiful game “be drawn into every ideological and political battle.”

And we had to wait until Monday for the seven federations that wanted to wear the bracelet to finally throw in the towel: revealing that they had been threatened with sporting sanctions that had never been made public, they wanted to avoid that risk for their teams.

However, the leaders and players of the aforementioned countries, in addition to their personal convictions, come up against “a social pressure that leads them to show their conformity with current trends,” estimates Pim Verschuuren, specialist in sports geopolitics at Rennes II University.

each his symbol

It is not surprising, then, the variety of responses adopted since Monday, the most spectacular being that of the German players on Wednesday, who covered their mouths with their hands in the traditional team photo before their match against Japan (Asian triumph then by 2- 1).

“With social networks, we have an instantaneity of the political gesture. In a few minutes, the German one was seen by several million people,” observes Pim Verschuuren.

No other team has followed suit, although the Welsh unfurled a rainbow flag on Wednesday at their base camp in Doha, and their fans wore multicolored beanies during the Wales-USA match on Monday, confiscated in some cases by stadium security.

On the political side, the German Minister of the Interior, and later the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs, wore the “One Love” bracelet in the presidential box on Wednesday.

Towards a legal proceeding?

For FIFA, however, the most serious threat is brewing behind the scenes: the German Football Federation (DFB) indicated on Tuesday that it is preparing an appeal against the ban on bracelets before the Court of Arbitration for Sport, an initiative contemplated by its English counterpart and closely followed by other countries.

But what is at stake goes beyond the bracelet, and even football: the debate affects the freedom of expression of athletes, traditionally very restricted on the pitch, but increasingly claimed by prostrating one knee on the ground or with gestures and statements of athletes.

And all sports bodies know how risky this path is: “It is not the organizations that write the rules, it is the world associations, which must manage enormous religious, social and political differences. Until then, apoliticalism was their best argument for sell the competitions”, says Pim Verschuuren.