New Zealand v Norway – on the equality indices

With New Zealand due to kick off against Norway today in the Women’s Football World Cup, looking at their rankings in the Women’s Peace & Security Index, Norway come out on top, while New Zealand is 13^th in the index (and 9^th among those appearing in the Football World Cup. See the rankings here.

HOWEVER, in the alternative Women's Workplace Equality Index, New Zealand comes up third (after Australia and Canada) with a 93.6/100 score based on a range of measures such as Accessing institutions, Building credit, Getting a job, and Protecting women from violence (where NZ scores poorly actually). This measures the formal legal obstacles to women’s economic participation, not actual participation. "While there is often a large gap between laws on the books and their implementation, formal legal equality is a critical first step to closing the gap between women and men in the economy." 

However, for a close match on the gender equality front – go to the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index 2021 which has Norway and New Zealand at 3^rd (84.95) and 4^th(84%) respectively – after Iceland and Finland (not represented at the World Cup).

On the sporting front, I’d be looking for a close game between NZ and Norway tonight, two of my favourite countries, and with many similarities. But NZ must come out on top!

Women's World Cup 2023 - Ranking the countries on the status of women

Five days out from the opening kick-off in the FIFA Women’s World Cup, below is a table showing how the 32 countries in the tournament rank against each other, based on their standings in the 2021/22 global Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) Index, put out by Georgetown University at https://giwps.georgetown.edu/the-index/ . Nothing to do with football, the index gives an insight into women’s status and empowerment in different countries – and that no doubt influences women’s ability to play and perform at international competitions.

I could have chosen a number of different indexes, but chose this one because it seems the most recent and comprehensive in the range of factors taken into account. Other possibilities include the World Economic Forum and the US-based Council on Foreign Relations for Foreign Relations. These both rate New Zealand much higher, so don’t accuse me of national favouritism!

THE RANKINGS:

Country WPS Ranking/170 countries
1 Norway 1
2 Denmark 4
3 Switzerland 6
4 Sweden 7
5 England* 9
6 Netherlands 10
7 Germany 11
8 Canada 12
9 New Zealand 13
10 Spain 14
11 France 15
12 Portugal 18
13 Ireland 19
14 United States 21
15 Australia 24
16 Italy 28
17 South Korea 33
18 Japan 35
19 Jamaica 43
20 Costa Rica 47
21 Argentina 49
22 Philippines 61
23 South Africa 66
24 Brazil 80
25 Panama 83
26 China 89
27 Colombia 90
28 Vietnam 107
29 Zambia 116
30 Nigeria 130
31 Morocco 138
32 Haiti 142
* = UK rank; no separate entry for England

(By the way, credit for the idea of ranking sports contest countries on social justice measures goes to the World Development Movement’s “Who Should I Cheer For?” in the 2010 Mens Football World Cup, and Caritas Aotearoa for its Rugby World Cup 2011 focus on inequality through “Level with Me”. Both blogsites have been taken down now, but you can read about them here: https://globaldimension.org.uk/articles/world-cup-2010-who-should-i-cheer-for/ and https://cathnews.co.nz/2011/09/09/social-justice-week-fairness-an-equal-chance-of-success/ )

 

FIFA World Cup in Qatar 2022 - some Pre-Tournament Analysis

Launching the Playfair Qatar campaign in 2014:
Paul Nowak &  Frances O’Grady. From www.tuc.org.uk

A day before the controversial 2022 Football World Cup kicks off in Qatar, here's a range of comments and opinions on the morality of hosting it there, and whether to boycott – or not.

PlayFairQatar recently posted an update on the campaign that 5 years ago, managed to persuade Qatar to massively overhaul its labour laws and end the abusive sponsorship system for immigrant workers. Five years on, what has happened? Mixed results, according to a report by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) of Britain, is that, "Legally speaking, the landscape faced by workers applying the finishing touches to the World Cup infrastructure is utterly different to the one faced by Qatar’s original workforce of trapped and coerced migrants."

"But labour laws are only as good as their enforcement, and … the picture on the ground did not reflect the progress on Qatar’s statute books. …the Qatari system was still chewing up and spitting out workers, leaving them burdened with enormous debts."

"Workers are still paying a shockingly high price to deliver the most expensive World Cup in history."  

In the lead-up to the competition, a German-based "Boycott Qatar" site has been calling on athletes, officials and TV viewers for an all-out boycott. Their call to action asks football fans to send FIFA mass mailings to signal their protest, boycott products bearing the World Cup logo and companies actively sponsoring the Football World Cup, not travel to Qatar, and not participate in any public broadcasts of the games.

The Guardian newspaper in Britain put the question of boycotting the World Cup to its international readers, and got a range of views. A few excerpts below:

I am boycotting. I haven’t watched a single minute of the qualifiers and I am about to suspend my football podcast feeds – about eight podcasts a week, from the Guardian and other places – to avoid World Cup chat.

Qatar’s human rights record is appalling but, as someone born in Nigeria, I have a different view of who the bad guys and good guys are in global affairs. While Qatar could do so many things better, I find the idea of boycotting Qatar, when I would have no qualms traveling to England or France, quite laughable. On the list of culprit countries in my mind – that is countries who have historically meted (and are currently meting) out unspeakable atrocities on my kind – Qatar does not register in the top 20.

and one that best reflects my sentiment:

I don’t think my boycott will make a difference. Enough people will watch that it will not be noticed. But I find my unease has grown so strong, my distaste so impossible to ignore, that I simply wouldn’t enjoy it. … No World Cup could better reflect the corruption at the heart of international football than this one. It is both an absolute indictment, and perfect definition, of what Fifa is.

And finally, a German sports promotion organisation called IPSO has tried to "Find the Balance: Boycott the 2022 World Cup in Qatar - or Not?", in looking at arguments for and against boycotting the Cup, including the view – held by FC Bayern München – that change can be effected through dialogue (they didn't convince me on that one). However, Amnesty International does not support a boycott: "We want to take advantage of the international attention at the World Cup. It is now important that the reforms lead to long-term improvements beyond the World Cup."

A sentiment shared by former German national player Toni Kroos "I think we should try to give the tournament the biggest possible stage to draw attention to the grievances in the country. But please not only before and during the tournament, but also afterwards …The media interest in Qatar must not fall away when the footballers leave again. That is important."

Cultural values: Sweden v England

With the upcoming match for third place at the Women's Football World Cup between Sweden and England, I thought I would look at some of the ‘core values’ of those respective countries and wonder how that may play out on the football field. According to the (Australian-based) Cultural Atlas:

Contemporary Sweden prides itself on championing human rights and equality, as manifested in its social welfare system. Additionally, concepts such as ‘lagom’ (‘the middle way’) and modesty are cornerstones of Swedish culture. ....

According to Hofstede Insights (2017), Sweden is a ‘feminine society’ in which balance, inclusivity and consideration for others are core components of the social structure. The notion of ‘folkhemmet’ (‘the people's home') is a metaphor for the nation of Sweden as a family household. This idea symbolises social democratic ideals of equality and mutual care, which form the foundation for a society mediated and supported by social welfare. 

So, will we see teamwork, sharing the ball and consideration for others on the football pitch tomorrow morning?

On British culture (no separate entry for England), the Cultural Atlas says of the British (including England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland):

They strongly value fair play, believing everyone should have equal opportunity to better their circumstances regardless of their background. Fair play also translates into a respect for order. …. People pride themselves on a capacity to ‘grin and bear it’ whilst being diligent and respectable. The British have earned a reputation for remaining stoic through tough times, rarely letting their emotions show, though they might complain in private. 

The cultural atlas also says, “The British are generally quite reserved.” – perhaps not on the playing field, whether its men or women playing.

I leave you with a distinctly unfeminine rallying call for English footballers, intended for the English men’s team - a legacy of the late Rik Mayall, and football fan:

Fairness, justice and women’s football

With the Women's Football World Cup underway in France, and about to conclude this weekend, thought it was time to pull together some interesting facts and links about women's struggling path to glory in 'the beautiful game'.

Gender inequality in football is more entrenched than in politics, business, medicine and space exploration, according to a worldwide salary survey of male and female footballers. (But then, is it fair to pay people to play sport? That’s another question)

Latin American sides don’t fare so well as their male counterparts, in part due to greater sexism, neglect, and corruption in the football organisations of those countries. Read about the Argentinian women’s side road to Paris; and a fascinating Time article by Shireen Ahmed on how corruption and abuse stops women all around the world from participating fully in the sport. Ahmed is a writer, public speaker and activist focusing on Muslim women in sports, and the intersections of racism and misogyny in sport.

Rose Reilly played for Italy in the 1970s because her home country Scotland would not recognise female players – and thereby paved the way for other women footballers from that bonnie (and now fairer) land.

Meanwhile, closer to home – according to a Stuff rundown on equality – or lack thereof – in NZ sport Football NZ struck a landmark deal with their footballers when they granted the Football Ferns (women) and All Whites (men) equality in pay parity, prizemoney, equal rights for image use and travel. However, the lack of payment for both sides has seen this agreement labelled symbolic!

The previous NZ Football Ferns coach (he who shall not be named) resigned last year because of bullying behaviour and downplaying his players as almost destined to lose. Things have got a lot better in the NZ camp since then – I mean, they nearly beat the Dutch didn’t they!

More to come before the great US v Netherlands showdown on Monday morning (NZT).

Boycotting ... playing the long game

UK Prime Minister Theresa May has apparently confirmed that the boycott barring UK politicians and royal family members from attending World Cup football games in Russia will remain in place, even if England reaches the final. A good decision in my view, given that Dawn Sturgess has died from Novichok poisoning, possibly from touching a container associated with the March 2018 attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal - the poisoning incident that sparked the British political boycott in the first place.

I have to admit, I'm not so sure I'll stay firm in my resolve to boycott watching games with France vs Belgium coming up. For all the sparkling antics of the South Americans, there's something about good, solid (northern) European football - and the unpredictability of the French (in rugby as well as football).

But I'll almost certainly sit out the Qatar competition in four years time - unless that country makes dramatic improvements for the safety and working conditions of its migrant construction workers.

What I'm really hanging out for is 2026 - in a 'tri-nation' tournament hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico. Even though Donald Trump's "veiled threats" towards countries who might vote against North American bid led to Fifa reviewing guidelines on political interference; and doubts have still been expressed about the transparency of bidding processes by #NewFIFANow co-founder, Bonita Mersiades (“...when it comes to an issue of process versus culture, culture wins every time" she says); a lot can happen between now and 2026.

After all, the President of the Royal Moroccan Football Federation (who failed in their alternative bid), still congratulated the new FIFA President "for the conduct of this process and ... for what he has done in order to move things towards more transparency and more inclusion.”

And Donald Trump won't be leading America in 2026 either. So here's looking forward in hope to a better, fairer world' well on its way to bringing down carbon emissions, and sharing the goods so 2.66 million children aren't dying of hunger each year. Who knows, perhaps they'll be open borders and they'll be bussing some of those illegal immigrants (who only want a better life) to the games.

I have a dream ...

Footing it - let's be a bit more transparent

I started these blogs in response to injustice over Brazil's hosting of the 2014 World Cup and FIFA corruption in giving the 2018 and 2022 competitions to Russia and Qatar respectively. The campaign against Qatar continues, with an estimated 7000 workers expected to die in the construction frenzy Qatar is going through to host the Cup. However, public pressure has had an impact - the country did agree to a package of reforms in November 2017 to deal with some of the abuse.

This time around for Russia, I've just managed to make it into the football fray for the last week of play, but will be doing a blog a day on social and political dimensions around football. It won't change the world, but it will extend my education, raise awareness for any readers (are there any out there) and maybe entertain with a bit of word play.

Earlier in this tournament, when Japan got through to the final 16 on the back of fewer yellow cards, I was tempted to say 'fair play'' pays off. Perhaps it was reflective of the country, which topped societal 'fair play' rankings that Catholic social justice agency Caritas ran for the 2011 Rugby World Cup. But when I read how Japan played out their final quarter against Poland - to avoid goals as well as yellow cards, I decided it was just bad sportsmanship. And they got their just desserts in the next round, bowing out to giant killers Belgium.

So - if the present countries remaining were ranked on more important matters than football skills, or fair play on the field, where would they stand, or sit?

Well, seeing as we're talking about corruption, the easiest place to start is Transparency International's Corruption Index, which placed Sweden and the UK (as a proxy for England) on top among those remaining in the World Cup. Shame then that either Sweden or England will be eliminated in the next quarter final overnight. And it's also worth noting a team that should be there, but isn't: New Zealand (undefeated in World Cup finals since 1986) were actually no 1 overall on Transparency's Index.

Ranking in TI Corruption Perceptions Index:
Sweden - 6
United Kingdom - 8
Belgium - 16
France - 23
(then there's a long way to go to ....)
Croatia - 57
(and even further ...........  to)
Russia - 135  
....out of 180 states.

Mmm - there's room for improvement there, Mr Putin.