by Ethan Johnson
April 9, 2008

Back in the days when I had ready access to WSCR AM (Chicago), someone was about to ask Norm Van Lear (former Bulls player) about college basketball, and then stopped short, assuming that he'd only want to discuss pro teams. "Basketball's basketball," he replied, and the conversation resumed.

Years later, when I took an interest in soccer, I bought some used books about soccer technique and conditioning to get a better understanding of the sport. Not to be a player, but a more educated fan. There is no play-by-play announcer at the game, so having a working knowledge of who should be where, why, and what ought to happen next has been a big help for me.

What impressed me most about these soccer how-to books is that ultimately, after the players reach a certain age or skill level, soccer is soccer. The field (pitch) is regulation-sized, the ball is a regulation size, the net is a regulation size, and so forth. There are no distinctions drawn about male or female players. The ball, field, net, and so forth does not change because of who is on the field. Men and women all kick and chase the same size ball, on the same sized field, and aim for the same sized net. Contrast this with basketball or golf.

Soccer has been called the world's game. This may be true to a large extent, but soccer, while universal and unifying, can also be an instrument to call attention to other aspects of the world. To wit:

"My concern was do we want to, almost contribute to, maybe in a way validate it by coming in here as women athletes and play in a city where all this has happened. We're talking about human rights and women's rights and the optics of it in a city like this."

No, the interviewee wasn't talking about Beijing. But she could have.

The Edmonton Sun ran an article about assaults and murders of women in Juarez, Mexico, site of the CONCACAF Olympic qualifying tournament for women's national soccer teams. Team USA is favored to advance to the Olympics, as the men's team did last month.

I do not know why Juarez was chosen as the site for the tournament. It's sad, to say the least, that the site has a record of human rights abuses as concerns are being raised about China's human rights record in advance of the 2008 summer Olympics. But this isn't the first time that human rights or other concerns have taken a back seat to the attention and money that international soccer brings.

I recalled the preparations that were made in Ghana in advance of the 2008 African Cup of Nations:

As the nation prepares for the 2008 Cup of Nations, it seems the Ghanaian government doesn't want the visiting supporters and journalists to see the horrible poverty in their cities.

Their answer to getting rid of the poverty? Bulldoze it away. And if that doesn't work, use a flamethrower.

Which brings us to the obvious question:

But as one article commentator said online, "Why do we treat fellow human beings this way? Is football so important to the extent that people will lose their livelihood without a blink of an eye from officialdom?"

I had a similar yet different argument with my father in the 1990s when the Clinton administration announced a "pragmatic" (their word) approach to trade with China: Money talks, human rights walks. I hit the proverbial ceiling, but Dad's view was that capitalism and trade would necessarily drive change in repressive countries/regimes because they can't repress jeans and Diet Coke forever - and therefore a "western way of life" might take root. That's a lot of human suffering to give Levi Strauss or Coca-Cola a boost to their bottom line under the guise of democracy and freedom. Sure, a billion potential customers isn't something a company will shy away from in the name of decency or human rights. But I think it is fair to ask tough questions of our lifestyles and business decisions when millions and billions of people are negatively affected. And it is important to note that repression and human rights abuses are not regulated by capital markets. It just means that somebody made a sale.

In these United States, it's very easy to lose a sense of empathy about the rest of the world because the bad stuff isn't happening to you. By and large, we don't worry about being killed by suicide bombers or mistakenly shot to death at a checkpoint. We're not languishing in jail cells without charges and without being able to contact family members or lawyers.

This sense of empathy may also be lost in the stands of the soccer stadium.

I don't have any easy answers to the question of human rights abuses in China or Mexico. I agree that awarding China the Olympics is akin to rewarding bad behavior, but they're too economically significant to turn down. When a country boasts a potential customer base of over a billion people, money talks, human rights walks. The Olympics might be an opportunity to raise awareness about a great many things, but awareness is no guarantee of change.

The Women's Olympic qualifier is today, and is not being televised locally in North Texas. So much for raising awareness about, well, anything, least of all women's soccer. <EM>