Frank McGahon, over at Internet Commentator, points to an interesting story. Javier Zanetti, captain of the Italian soccer giants Inter Milan, convinced his teammates to donate 5000 Euros (US$6300), an ambulance and the captain's No 4 black and blue team shirt to one of the last strongholds of the ragtag Zapatista army in a gesture of solidarity for the indigenous people of Chiapas in southern Mexico, reports The Guardian. The Argentine also talked his club into donating its changing room fines for late arrival or using mobile phones to help villagers rebuild after the village of Zinacantán was reportedly attacked by government military forces in April.
One of Frank's objections is a justification made by Zanetti, "We believe in a better world, in an unglobalised world, enriched by the cultural differences and customs of all the people." Frank rightly points out the absurdity of an Argentine playing in Italy on the same team as Brazilians, Serbs, Uruguayans, a Paraguayan, a Dutchman, a Nigerian, a Greek and a Turk complaining about the evils of globalization.
However, Frank goes a little overboard when he bemoans those soccer players who suffer from the same delusion as academics and Hollywood celebrities who imagine that their prominence in one field confers a wisdom on affairs in another unrelated field which eludes the rest of us poor rubes.
Zanetti believes in this cause, however misguided Frank may think it is. He convinced his teammates to support that cause. How is this arrogant or presumptuous?
I donate money to Big Brothers/Big Sisters, a mentoring organization which I also volunteer for. My academic training is in mathematics, not social services. Does this mean I'm under the delusion that my prominence in math confers wisdom on affairs in social services which eludes the rest of you poor rubes merely because I donate my time and money to this cause?
I understand Frank's contempt of celebrities backing "trendy" causes like Tibet, when it seems there are far more urgent causes that could benefit from star power. I'm pretty skeptical of trendy causes myself. But silly rhetoric aside, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with Zanetti's action. He convinced his teammates to donate money to rebuild a destroyed village. The actual cause aside, Frank's complaint seemingly would have it so no one ever donated money or took any interest in any cause outside their specific area of training.
Do he object to Liberian soccer great George Weah's work with War Child, a group that works with demobilized child soldiers in Africa?
3 comments:
Thanks for the link!
As I said in the comments I don't have a problem with Zanetti's personal opinions per se. My beef is that he is abusing the prestige of Inter for his personal hobby horse - one on which it could be reasonably assumed that Inter fans might differ. As for Weah, I doubt too much whether fans of his would disagree with the aims of his charity so the issue doesn't really arise.
I think footballers would do well to consider the possibility that they might have fans with a wide range of political opinions. And further that those fans might prefer to leave those opinions at the door, so to speak, when they turn up at a football match. Put it this way, I would be just as annoyed to see the United team at Old Trafford unfurl a banner in favour of the Iraq war as I would if they unfurled a banner against it.
My academic training is in mathematics, not social services. Does this mean I'm under the delusion that my prominence in math confers wisdom on affairs in social services which eludes the rest of you poor rubes merely because I donate my time and money to this cause?The difference is that a lot more people know who Zanetti is than know who you are. I don't intend to make some sort of argument for professional expertise. For one it would be hypocritical: I'm an architect, yet I blandly pontificate on varying topics unrelated to architecture. The argument is that fame confers a certain profile and for those who have acquired that profile it is often the case that they confuse the profile with a mandate to speak on unrelated matters.
So essentially famous people shouldn't speak on anything unrelated to their profession???
Listen, I have no problem with Hollywood yahoos yammering on about Tibet or the NRA. I don't consider their opinions on the topic anymore highly than my next door neighbor. But I'd never suggest they shouldn't talk at all.
They're free to talk about whatever they want (just like you and I). You and I are free to ignore them.
Essentially, it seems like you think celebrities are free to have his personal opinions so long they don't actually express them. I don't see why being in a particular profession generally imposes a gag order on citizens in that profession.
They have freedom of speech. You have the freedom to say they're full of it.
Post a Comment