CONNECT: With or without Roy Keane, today 's game against Cameroon was always going to decide Irish attitudes towards this World Cup. By now, you'll know whether the result has vindicated, albeit temporarily, Mick McCarthy. But why did the media repeatedly reduce a great World Cup story to Beazer Homes League status? asks Eddie Holt.
'Gardai are set to warn Roy Keane that he cannot return to Ireland without a police escort amid fears crazed fans could try to kill him," reported the Sunday People on page four. Got that? Ireland is now breeding crazed killer fans. Dear, oh dear! Mind you, a page three headline blared "Keano is greatest Irishman ever, says Sir Alex", even though the back page screamed "DISGRACE", adding an explanatory sub-head, "Fergie didn't want Keane at World Cup".
The prospect of "crazed fans" murdering the "disgraceful" Alex Ferguson's "greatest Irishman ever" is, I suppose, dramatic. It is also, of course, idiotic and insulting. Who are these crazed killer fans? Since when did Alex Ferguson become an authority on Ireland and Irish history? Don't all managers of wealthy clubs dislike their players competing in international games, especially for "small" countries? The Keane story was sufficiently dramatic that it didn't need to be cast as a potential murder story, a kind of inverted O. J. Simpson yarn, in which the star footballer is the victim.
Sure, it received excessive attention, but that's another argument. People were fascinated and the media dramatises stories to make money. Fair enough: dramatic is better than dull. But given the ingredients of the Keane story - World Cup, best player, hard-bitten manager, history of friction between the two, foul language, a messianic, sports-mad, "fixer" Taoiseach allegedly on standby, disappointed (some even distraught) fans, practically everybody holding an opinion, unprintable rumours - sensationalising it further could only demean it.
It did. A genuine World Cup story was repeatedly reduced below Beazer Homes League status. By the time you read this, Ireland's opening game against Cameroon will probably be over. Its result will determine Irish attitudes towards this World Cup.
Of course, whether Roy Keane played or not, that's how it was always going to be. Win and Mick McCarthy is, at least temporarily, vindicated; lose and he's an inept, bullying schmuck; draw and, depending on Mark Kinsella's performance, there's unlikely to be much change in the national mood.
A Kinsella goal - especially a winner - or a commanding job in midfield couldn't help Roy Keane. A Kinsella stinker and McCarthy can expect abuse. With Keane as well-known in Britain as in Ireland, the story was sure to be mangled by sordid and stupid Fleet Street-ish sensationalism. But crazed killer fans simply doesn't ring true. Rather than heighten drama, which presumably was the intention, it reduces an engaging, even arguably fascinating story, to the level of codswallop.
We know that Colombian full-back Andreas Escobar was murdered in 1994 when he returned home after scoring an own goal against the United States. A cocaine and gambling outfit was responsible. English yobs threatened David Beckham after he was sent off against Argentina in 1998. No doubt there were nutters who would attack him, but murder, in spite of the guff, was unlikely. Drama is fine, even melodrama has its place (although sport is being polluted by it), but ridiculous excess is ridiculous excess.
COMMENT on the Keane v McCarthy rumpus has sought to cast it as emblematic of the wider culture. Given its elements, perhaps most conspicuously the clash between managerialism and individuality, that's not surprising.
Most people have experienced prats in power and most managers have encountered troublesome individuals. The row strikes a note almost all of us recognise. Yet who knows enough about both Keane and McCarthy to know for sure the rights and wrongs of their clash? Certainly (assuming that published reports have been accurate) Keane's verbal abuse was gross and unacceptable, even in a hard-bitten, laddish sport. On the other hand, McCarthy's decision to hold a communal meeting appears to have been unwise. But to call it a trap or a set-up is probably unfair. After all, McCarthy presumably wants the best players in his team in order to boost his own reputation and future. That, at least, would be the normal position of a football manager seeking success.
Anyway, there are larger contexts to be considered. The hucksters of FIFA brought the World Cup to the Far East to carve out new markets and new profits for soccer and themselves. It's marketing, not football, that matters to the money merchants.
Football itself has been puffed up to a ludicrous, albeit bogus significance. Sure, it can be a magnificent sport, but it's owned by television and footwear companies and its traditions are being flushed down the toilet. The market has room for just a few dominant "brands".
As captain of one of the world's dominant brands, Keane is the epitome of competition. Uncompromising, relentless, even ferocious, he exemplifies the will-to-win mentality beloved not just in sport but propagated by business as the cardinal virtue. As such, he is portrayed as a gladiator not just of competition but for competition. Of course, the market rewards him extremely well for his talent and efforts. However, it also uses him to promote its own self-serving and ruthless ethic.
If there is a morality tale (beyond the obvious one of media disproportion) within this World Cup brouhaha, the clash must not be removed from its context. Beside death, illness or penury, it is insignificant. With India and Pakistan "competing" over Kashmir, the blanket coverage has arguably been obscene. Perhaps it's hectoring, po-faced and tedious to say as much, but what the hell? The embarrassment felt by many people over their reactions to Diana Spencer's death may be replicated in the Keano affair. We'll see.
CONSIDER it this way. Marketing and technology (principally satellite television) have created a decade of football boom. In particular, the premium brands have benefited. But already there's a tiredness from television overkill. Early rounds of the Champions League attract fewer viewers every year. This year's FA Cup Final, despite such brand names as Arsenal and Chelsea competing, pulled in just more than seven million viewers. It used to draw 20 million. Even the staple of the English Premiership is losing its gloss.
Below such levels, many clubs are facing bankruptcy, not just in Britain but throughout Europe. South American club football is a shambles, raped by political and business corruption. Italy's Serie A has been rocked by drugs scandals as well as by its traditional match-fixing allegations. The French national side may be the world and European champions, but the country has little tradition of, or passion for, club football. German football is not what it was and Scotland, despite continuing and passionate support, is at an all-time low.
If current trends continue, fans will tire of watching the same few premium brands play each other more often. Even the World Cup's hitching of football to the atavistic, albeit human passions of nationalism, won't generate traditional appeal indefinitely. The tournament that opened yesterday is the 17th World Cup. The scale, spectacle and, with luck, the quality of play may well make it fascinating, but you never know. For what its worth, Italy look impressive.
Meanwhile, advertising has hitched itself limpet-like to the tournament. Football is in the general consciousness of the world just now, so advertisers are exploiting that. Some of their ads are clever, most are cheap. A 12-year-old told me he'd love to see a game between Nike and Adidas. Watching the stellar players advertising these outfits, you can see his point. But you can also see the nightmare 21st-century prospect of a World Cup between corporations.
Even the alleged crazed killer fans are more attractive than that.