I think one of the great challenges we face as we move into the twenty-first century is an inadequate vocabulary. Applebaum reminds us that nation-states are not what they seem, and she's versed enough in European history to know they never were. There was never a single people occupying a contiguous area of land with a common culture enjoying political unity. To her credit, Applebaum has avoided the worst word possible -- "globalization" --to describe the international makeup of teams. That word implies that our confusions of countries are somehow new, yet Europe has long experienced massive shifts of population (most of current Poland was once Germany; most of former Polant is not Russia). One finds, and has always found, an uneasily multicultural continent.

So Podolski's predicament shouldn't be a surprise. It's not even particularly new. What's tough is finding the right words. We need a way to describe people that puts the nation state in its place. Worlds like "multi-national" and "multi-cultural" don't really do the trick, as they imply not that nation states are a bad way of categorizing people, but merely that people can be torn between two nation states. Podolski's problem isn't that he's Polish living in Germany; it's that somebody decided to organize the tournament in terms of categories that ill-suit his experience. In club football, nobody cares who you are. It's the fiction that you represent a nation that raises all these questions, when the real question should be about the fiction itself.

I like sports like bike racing and club football where the usual mode of play has nothing to do with countries. I've come to hate the Olympics for the same reason. Soccer, however, is also the exception to my general rule. I love European Cup and World Cup, and watch all the games I can. Here again, my vocabulary fails me. I don't have the words to explain why I love it so much.

august:

Where anne misses the point is that this is not unusual. A Pole playing for Germans. An African playing for France. Beckman playing in the US. Fussball has always been an international sport with no boundaries and tem members intermingled.

On mainland Europe, has there ever been a border that has not been corrupted? The Huns, Romans, Moors, the French, the Austrians, the Turks, etc. Europe is a mix of cultures and always has been. I do not see it as unusual for different nationalities to play on different teams. What is suprising is to see the boundaries of pre WWII countries emerge once again similar to the Hapsburg Empire. And you are right, the team matters and not the country.

Most of what is now Poland was not Germany. I'd say, no more than 1/3 of it is after WWII, when the entire country was shifted to the West. However, you could say most of other countries (such as Lithuania) were once Poland as well, as it's been much larger in times, and has even disappeared completely off the map.

On another note, I see the countries in the EU gradually becoming more like states in the U.S.

Ha! That (correct) observation that Euro countries are shaping up like US states in many ways got me thinking.

What if the US had an AMERO CUP? A team comprised of people from each state! It would be a sort of self-deprecating joke here, when games like Rhode Island Vs. Montana are played out with sub-par play and an interminable 50 team tourney.

I think the phenomenon you point out is especially pronounced in the case of the tournament winners, Spain. Outside of perhaps the capital, many "Spaniards" consider themselves first and foremost Catalans, or Basques, or Andalusians, or Galicians, etc. It's interesting to note that during the post-match celebration, Jorge Ramos, Spain's right back, wrapped the flag of Andalusia around his waist.

The basic point is that at no point in the history of Europe would it be unusual for a person of y ethnicity to be part of an x army/team/etc in opposition to the state of y.

European countries as U.S. states. I'm not sure. It's been a long time since I lived in Europe, but in the past I've had a tendency to underestimate nationalism (roughly -- I think nationalism is kind of silly, and so I tend to downplay it without giving enough recognition to the fact that most folks care a great deal about it). I'd definitely be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on the subject.

I lived in Germany when it was still divided, and I was struck that a lot of loyalties seemed to be primarily to states, partly because of the depressing history of German nationalism. I was in Bavaria, so perhaps I had too much of a bias for that reason. Anyway, German unification took me totally by surprise. I had no idea the Westerners would be so willing to pay for state-building.

That said, I love the anecdote about the Andalusian flag. I also wonder, in the years that were bad, if the Real fans didn't blame the Catalonians and the Barca fans blame the Castillians.

As I was waking up this morning I was fantasizing of a world divided around urban centers. Instead of the United Nations, with the basic unit the nation state, you could have the Global Federation of Cities, with the basic unit the democratic polis. At a minimum, it would make for great football tournaments.

I don't see the Hapsburg connection. What does feel nineteenth century to me is that there are certain states that seem to feel they have legitimate spheres of influence extending in Europe, Middle East, and Africa. France sees Chad as something of a client state. Russia clearly feels it should remain the dominant voice in Central Europe. The Anglo-US alliance has complicated global commitments. I guess that should have been my response to the European countries/US states comparison. US states don't seem to me to attempt the same kind of argument about spheres of influence/interest.

I just love soccer. Xabi is a guy I love to see play. I was supporting Germany, but this Spain team was a joy (except against Italy, but you can't have everything). What they did, twice, to a solid Russian team was incredible.

Opposable thumbs separate humans from other primates. Americans prefer sports that incorporate the use of that important evolutionary feature.

Redsyk,

Remember that evolution is dynamic, so those who choose to celebrate the past advances often miss out on the possibilities of the future.

If you learn soccer and see some of these top-notch national teams play with strength, creativity, and fluidity, you'd start to appreciate the weaknesses the soccer players are shoring up for the gene pool. I've seen teams play in focused silence with perfectly-timed runs and a collective ability that's so well-synchronized, you'd think futbollers today will be the forefathers of ESP tomorrow. It can be beautiful, uncommunicated cooperation, and what an evolutionary advantage that would be (plus 4 interchangeably-usable appendages?!).

Sure, thumbs are great, and soccer players still use them all the time (usually to grab the hips of your girlfriend).

I forgot to mention this yesterday but, touching further on the point I made, the day after Spain won the cup, one of the columnists in El Diario Sport (a Barcelona daily) wrote something to the effect that "red [as in the color of the Spanish jersey] isn't my color; blaugrana [in reference to the blue-and-wine colored Barcelona jersey] is."

There are many also who viewed the exclusion of Raul (current captain of Real Madrid and sometime captain of Spain), although initially wildly unpopular among the Madrid set, as one of the reasons behind the success of the team. As a supremely nationalistic figure, it's been theorized that Raul's presence on past teams has only served to further deepen the cultural divide among some of the players.

Grab my girlfriend? They're thumbs tire from folding and wrapping burritos all day.