« | Home | »

There’s only one Eduardo


Many eyes tonight will be on Eduardo da Silva, the Brazilian who plays for Croatia (and the man Arsenal fans will remember as one of their most promising strikers until he suffered a terrible leg break that almost ended his career). By all accounts, if he starts, Eduardo will sing both national anthems before the opening match: one for the place he grew up in (he was born and raised in Rio) and one for the place he adopted as home in his late teens (he moved to Zagreb when he was 16). He took up Croatian citizenship at 19 and made his debut for the national team two years later. He is Croatia’s second highest international goal scorer, with 29 goals in 63 appearances.  

What’s interesting about Eduardo is that, as Cameron said to Blair, he was the future once. Around ten years ago it looked as though national football teams would see more and more of this sort of carpet-bagging, with players switching national identity to find a convenient home where they could be sure of a international career. Wouldn’t everyone soon have a Brazilian or two to flesh out their national teams with a bit more firepower? It hasn’t happened. If anything, the trend has gone the other way. Though players move around from club to club with more freedom than ever, national sides have remained remarkably homogeneous. The Brazilians in this tournament are almost all playing for Brazil. Most European national sides consist of homegrown talent, even though their domestic leagues are stuffed with players drawn from all over: look at England (it’s true Raheem Sterling was born in Jamaica but he moved here when he was five). There was a half-hearted attempt to recruit Man U’s boy wonder Adnan Januzaj but in the end he went for the country he was born and brought up in, Belgium. The current ‘golden generation’ of Belgian footballers that makes them one of the most exciting teams in the tournament – Kompany, Fellaini, Dembele, Mirallas, Hazard, Lukaku – is a wonderfully diverse ethnic mix. But every one was born in Belgium.

It’s not just football. The England cricket team that takes the field today for the First Test is more English than for many years, now Kevin Pietersen is gone and Jonathan Trott is hors de combat. Five years ago it was more like a hybrid English-South African side (or as the South Africans said, more like their second eleven). British tennis, bar Andy Murray, is in such a parlous state because Greg Rusedski didn’t herald an age of interlopers wrapping themselves in the Union Jack for convenience. We are stuck trying to make do with the talent we’ve got, which is not a lot. Most sportsmen and women still seem to want to represent their country of origin.

What’s the moral? Well, I hesitate to draw too many parallels between sport and politics (though I don’t suppose that will stop me as the tournament goes on). But people who believed that the age of globalisation would herald the erosion of national identity are clearly wrong. Yes, it’s easier to move around and sell your labour wherever the rewards are greatest (those Belgian players I listed all play in the English Premier League). No, that doesn’t mean the pull of the mother country is dead. That, for better or worse, is why this tournament still matters.

Comments on “There’s only one Eduardo”

  1. Harry Stopes says:

    Something to add to this which you don’t make clear with reference to football (though allude to in the case of cricket), is that where a player’s national affiliation seems otherwise unambiguous, he’ll only switch to another national team if either a) he’s not good enough for his ‘proper’ nation (see Eduardo) or b) the team to which he switches is generally a lot stronger, giving him much more chance to succeed in international football.

    I would imagine Sterling never gave much thought to the idea of playing for Jamaica. If their side was a lot better, or England’s a lot worse, I guess he would have considered it. Similarly, Januzaj is good enough to play for Belgium, and the Belgian side is better than the English. Why would he bother making a switch?

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • name on Who is the enemy?: Simply stating it is correct doesn't make it so, I just wish you would apply the same epistemic vigilance to "Muslim crimes" as you do to their Hebrew...
    • Glen Newey on Unwinnable War: The legal issue admits of far less clarity than the simple terms in which you – I imagine quite sincerely – frame them. For the benefit of readers...
    • Geoff Roberts on The New Normal: The causes go back a long way into the colonial past, but the more immediate causes stem from the activities of the US forces in the name of freedom a...
    • sol_adelman on The New Normal: There's also the fact that the French state denied the mass drownings of '61 even happened for forty-odd years. No episode in post-war W European hist...
    • funky gibbon on At Wembley: If England get France in the quarter finals of Euro 16 I expect that a good deal of the fraternity will go out the window

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Edward Said: The Iraq War
    17 April 2003

    ‘This is the most reckless war in modern times. It is all about imperial arrogance unschooled in worldliness, unfettered either by competence or experience, undeterred by history or human complexity, unrepentant in its violence and the cruelty of its technology.’

    David Runciman:
    The Politics of Good Intentions
    8 May 2003

    ‘One of the things that unites all critics of Blair’s war in Iraq, whether from the Left or the Right, is that they are sick of the sound of Blair trumpeting the purity of his purpose, when what matters is the consequences of his actions.’

    Simon Wren-Lewis: The Austerity Con
    19 February 2015

    ‘How did a policy that makes so little sense to economists come to be seen by so many people as inevitable?’

    Hugh Roberts: The Hijackers
    16 July 2015

    ‘American intelligence saw Islamic State coming and was not only relaxed about the prospect but, it appears, positively interested in it.’

Advertisement Advertisement