Skip to main content

England!

Why is that when the Olympics roll around, Team GB competes for these isles, but at the equivalent World Cup, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (the UK "nations") have their own potential teams. This seems odd, if not wrong. Surely, a British football team would make more sense, - in terms of sure-footedness. There is no English parliament, and no England seat at the UN. France, Brazil, Spain, South Africa, the US of A - all teams. There is no Texas team. England maybe should be its own nation state, just as Scotland and Wales could be (should be?) - but in the meantime, let's consider this - if all four of the great nations of the UK played together in the beautiful game's greatest contest, they'd quadruple their chances of raising the trophy high.

Comments

Surely Todd, being a British-Canadian-irish person, you'd be able to articulate these cultural subtleties?
EYEWEAR said…
Ha! Yes, true. My multiculturalism comes from a Canadian context, I suppose - where fierce inter-provincial rivalries tend to stay within the country's borders - competitions abroad are as a Team Canada, not Team Quebec (the size of England and more) or Team Alberta (ditto).
Sheenagh Pugh said…
Because football's more tribal than that? A lot of fans don't look beyond one team, let alone one country, and "Britain" only has a discernible identity to some. A lot of English people use it synonymously with England, while for many Scots, Welsh and Irish it symbolises either, again, England/imperialism, or something nebulous and invented that they don't feel part of.
David Floyd said…
While things would have been different 20 or even 10 years ago, I don't think England's chances would increase much if Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland joined them in a British team now.

It's possible no Scottish, Wales or Northern Irish players would get in the squad. At the very most there would be two or three.
Alan Baker said…
There may be a more prosaic reason for the separate teams; historically, separate Football Associations evolved, and that's what FIFA bases its 'nationality' on. However, I think the creation of a Scottish parliament - even with its limited powers - has helped, paradoxically, to create a sense of English nationalism that didn't exist last time England won the World Cup (the flag of choice then was the Union Jack).
EYEWEAR said…
Alan, thanks for that cogent explanation!

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".