Everyone is affected by politics. Everyone loves football. Owing to its popularity, the world's most watched sport often finds itself tangled with political sentiment and conflict. The world's sporting stage provides an excellent platform to invoke nationalism among citizens. At times, it is not strange for viewers to become caught up with the politics of certain football matches, and not focus on the match itself. Occasionally, what happens off the pitch has far more meaning than what happens on it. With an appreciation of the omnipresence of politics in the footballing world, we reel off three case studies in which the match at hand was far more than a kickabout.
Honduras vs El Salvador (1969) - The "Football War"
The power of football can never be understated, whether for better or for worse. Politics ultimately carries far more importance than football in dictating everyday life. That said, Pope John Paul II was quick to remind us that “amongst all unimportant subjects, football is by far the most important.” Therefore, when football and politics become interlinked there are significant consequences, and in 1969 the matches between Honduras and El Salvador played a major part in escalating the tensions between the countries at the time. This is the story of how a football match became the symbol of a war that took the lives of over 3,000 people.
Although football was vital in exacerbating existing political divisions, there was an underlying context and range of factors which led to tensions politically between the two countries. A key starting point is the difference in population, where El Salvador had 900,000 more people living in their country compared to Honduras, even though Honduras was significantly bigger in size. Naturally, this led to the mass migration of illegal immigrants from El Salvador to Honduras in search for land, but also jobs. In fact, by 1969, 300,000 illegal immigrants from El Salvador had crossed the border and settled in Honduras.
Given the nature of the president Oswaldo Lopez Arellano’s rise to power - which was as a result of a military coup in a regime plagued by corruption - he decided to shift the blame of the growing problems in Honduras away from himself. Arellano blamed the El Salvadorian immigrants for stealing land and the jobs of Honduran people, which he felt in turn ruined the country socially and economically. This led to Arellano passing a land reform act in 1967 and forcing the mass deportation of El Salvador settlers, which further increased tensions.
During all this political uncertainty, Honduras and El Salvador were due to play each in the semi-finals of the CONCACAF World Cup qualifiers. The fact the countries met was pure coincidence, but a Mexican sports journalist noted its significance, “It didn't help. Football here [in Latin America] is very, very passionate - for good and for bad." The first two games were played in the capitals of the respective countries, with the home team coming out on top in both matches. These matches were so important to the people of both countries, that a young El Salvadorian fan named Amelia Bolaños shot herself as she was unable to bear her country’s defeat. Bill Shankly once said that football was much more than a matter of life and death, but nobody thought he really meant it.
Although football was vital in exacerbating existing political divisions, there was an underlying context and range of factors which led to tensions politically between the two countries. A key starting point is the difference in population, where El Salvador had 900,000 more people living in their country compared to Honduras, even though Honduras was significantly bigger in size. Naturally, this led to the mass migration of illegal immigrants from El Salvador to Honduras in search for land, but also jobs. In fact, by 1969, 300,000 illegal immigrants from El Salvador had crossed the border and settled in Honduras.
Given the nature of the president Oswaldo Lopez Arellano’s rise to power - which was as a result of a military coup in a regime plagued by corruption - he decided to shift the blame of the growing problems in Honduras away from himself. Arellano blamed the El Salvadorian immigrants for stealing land and the jobs of Honduran people, which he felt in turn ruined the country socially and economically. This led to Arellano passing a land reform act in 1967 and forcing the mass deportation of El Salvador settlers, which further increased tensions.
During all this political uncertainty, Honduras and El Salvador were due to play each in the semi-finals of the CONCACAF World Cup qualifiers. The fact the countries met was pure coincidence, but a Mexican sports journalist noted its significance, “It didn't help. Football here [in Latin America] is very, very passionate - for good and for bad." The first two games were played in the capitals of the respective countries, with the home team coming out on top in both matches. These matches were so important to the people of both countries, that a young El Salvadorian fan named Amelia Bolaños shot herself as she was unable to bear her country’s defeat. Bill Shankly once said that football was much more than a matter of life and death, but nobody thought he really meant it.
The Honduran team in June 1969 before one of the qualifiers against El Salvador
Many accounts of the games recall that the second game was far worse for fan hostility and tensions between the two countries. A polish journalist named Ryszard Kapuściński depicted the treatment of the Honduran players in a hotel in El Salvador in the lead up to the second match in his book ‘Wojna Futbolowa’. “Rotten eggs, dead rats and stinking rags were tossed through the broken window of the hotel where the Honduran players were staying.” Football had become the outlet for political discontent. To make matters worse, El Salvador raised a dirty rag instead of the actual Honduran flag prior to the game to signal such discontent at the actions of the government and people of Honduras. As a result of this, the manager of Honduras was not upset with the 3-0 defeat, stating that “they had their minds on getting out alive. We’re awfully lucky that we lost.”
Given that either side had won a game each, this culminated in the ultimate play off match between the two countries in Mexico City. This match would decide who would take their place in the final of World Cup qualifying. In the 12 days that separated the second game from the third game, tensions had further escalated. Hondurans were brutally attacking El Salvadorian settlers. Violence and arson became commonplace, leading to over 10,000 Salvadorians fleeing Honduras.
The day of the match on June 27, 1969 saw El Salvador sever all diplomatic ties with Honduras, declaring war and invading on July 14. El Salvador won the game 3-2 and eventually secured qualification to the World Cup of 1970. A U.S. news agency UPI wrote a report on the match the following day with the headline ‘Soccer War won by El Salvador 3-2.’ Although this was much more than a football match, the games that led up to the war were vital in further muddying the waters of a strained and fractured relationship. Eventually the organisation of American states forced a ceasefire to the conflict in a war that that only lasted four days. This story underlines the sinister side of football’s unique and substantial power, as it helped the overall process of tension and violence between Honduras and El Salvador gain momentum.
Given that either side had won a game each, this culminated in the ultimate play off match between the two countries in Mexico City. This match would decide who would take their place in the final of World Cup qualifying. In the 12 days that separated the second game from the third game, tensions had further escalated. Hondurans were brutally attacking El Salvadorian settlers. Violence and arson became commonplace, leading to over 10,000 Salvadorians fleeing Honduras.
The day of the match on June 27, 1969 saw El Salvador sever all diplomatic ties with Honduras, declaring war and invading on July 14. El Salvador won the game 3-2 and eventually secured qualification to the World Cup of 1970. A U.S. news agency UPI wrote a report on the match the following day with the headline ‘Soccer War won by El Salvador 3-2.’ Although this was much more than a football match, the games that led up to the war were vital in further muddying the waters of a strained and fractured relationship. Eventually the organisation of American states forced a ceasefire to the conflict in a war that that only lasted four days. This story underlines the sinister side of football’s unique and substantial power, as it helped the overall process of tension and violence between Honduras and El Salvador gain momentum.
A monument in Nueva Ocotepeque pays homage to those involved in the 100 hours war of 1969.
England vs Argentina (1986) - A new battleground
The 1986 World Cup quarter-finals pitted England against a familiar foe – Argentina – in a game that would symbolise the bitter tensions between the two nations. The game itself, was dominated by Diego Maradona and two of the most iconic goals football has ever seen. The opening goal came just five minutes into the second half and saw Maradona punch the ball over England goalkeeper Peter Shilton and into the back of the net. It would forever be known as the Hand of God. The second is dubbed rather more favourably. The Goal of the Century was an incredible solo goal from the little Argentine, as he skipped past most of the England team before coolly slotting home. However, whilst these goals define iconic moments in football history, it is the political rivalry between England and Argentina that intensifies the true spirit of this fixture.
The seeds of rivalry had been sown just twenty years prior, in another World Cup quarter-final. The setting was Wembley, 1966, and England progressed thanks to a goal from striker Geoff Hurst – which was claimed offside by the Argentines. The controversy, however, did not stop there. In one of the most bizarre turn of events, Argentina captain Antonio Rattín was sent-off and had to be physically removed from the pitch. The match would later be described as ‘el robo del siglo’ or ‘the theft of the century’.
Tensions undoubtedly reached their peak in April-May of 1982, in which a ten-week conflict broke out in the Falkland Islands. As Argentine troops invaded the British Overseas Territory, Britain responded with equal force. The unofficial war resulted in the tragic deaths of 907 people, including 19 civilians. Despite being publicised as a success in Argentina, the conflict is credited unanimously as a triumph for Britain – the islands remain a British territory, even though they are only 300 miles from the South American Patagonian coast.
So, when the Mexico World Cup drew the two countries against each other just four years later, the scene was set. The two nations, with the Falklands War still fresh in the mind, would battle once more – this time in the Estadio Azteca for just 90 minutes. For both countries, this was more than simply another game. For England, it was a matter of reasserting their dominance, and repeating the great feat of ’66. However, for Argentina, it was a chance for revenge.
The seeds of rivalry had been sown just twenty years prior, in another World Cup quarter-final. The setting was Wembley, 1966, and England progressed thanks to a goal from striker Geoff Hurst – which was claimed offside by the Argentines. The controversy, however, did not stop there. In one of the most bizarre turn of events, Argentina captain Antonio Rattín was sent-off and had to be physically removed from the pitch. The match would later be described as ‘el robo del siglo’ or ‘the theft of the century’.
Tensions undoubtedly reached their peak in April-May of 1982, in which a ten-week conflict broke out in the Falkland Islands. As Argentine troops invaded the British Overseas Territory, Britain responded with equal force. The unofficial war resulted in the tragic deaths of 907 people, including 19 civilians. Despite being publicised as a success in Argentina, the conflict is credited unanimously as a triumph for Britain – the islands remain a British territory, even though they are only 300 miles from the South American Patagonian coast.
So, when the Mexico World Cup drew the two countries against each other just four years later, the scene was set. The two nations, with the Falklands War still fresh in the mind, would battle once more – this time in the Estadio Azteca for just 90 minutes. For both countries, this was more than simply another game. For England, it was a matter of reasserting their dominance, and repeating the great feat of ’66. However, for Argentina, it was a chance for revenge.
English troops surrender to the Argentines in Port Stanley, 1982
Before the game, brawls had broken out in Mexico City which resulted in hospitalisations and strengthened the hostilities as kick-off approached. The game itself saw Argentina on top, with Gary Lineker’s late goal not quite enough to prevent Argentina from going through and eventually winning the World Cup. This, according to former Argentine international Roberto Perfumo, however, was inferior to beating England. “In 1986, winning that game against England was enough. Winning the World Cup was secondary for us. Beating England was our real aim.”
Even Maradona recognised the huge political ramifications of the match, stating “Although we said before the game that football had nothing to do with the Malvinas [Falklands] war, we knew they had killed a lot of Argentine boys there, killed them like little birds. And this was revenge.”
This match did not end the rivalry between the two nations but, fortunately, it has remained solely on the pitch ever since. The two have shared the World Cup stage twice more, a 1998 classic which ended in penalties (and England losing) after a Sol Campbell red card and a brilliant goal from 18-year-old Michael Owen. Then, in 2002, a David Beckham penalty won a group game 1-0 and knocked Argentina out of the tournament.
On its own merits, the 1986 World Cup quarter-final match between England and Argentina was the epitome of one man – Diego Maradona. In the space of under ten minutes, the two opposing sides of his character were on full display. First, the deceitful, mischievous player who stopped at nothing to win – including using his hands to score. Minutes later, the wonderful brilliance of one of the most gifted players in the history of the game. For football purists, the goal is pure ecstasy. Both moments are iconic, but for vastly different reasons.
Yet, this match just meant so much more. It was the pinnacle of tensions that had lasted for twenty years. It was the embodiment of a grudge match. A rivalry born out of a poor refereeing display in the 1966 World Cup, a rivalry which had played some part towards a ten-week war where hundreds lost their lives. The football match between England v Argentina at the 1986 World Cup was revenge for these lives. Football was dominance over countries. Football was everything. In this match – a World Cup quarter-final between two countries over 7000 miles apart – political tensions and football became intertwined like never before and the beautiful game had changed forever.
Even Maradona recognised the huge political ramifications of the match, stating “Although we said before the game that football had nothing to do with the Malvinas [Falklands] war, we knew they had killed a lot of Argentine boys there, killed them like little birds. And this was revenge.”
This match did not end the rivalry between the two nations but, fortunately, it has remained solely on the pitch ever since. The two have shared the World Cup stage twice more, a 1998 classic which ended in penalties (and England losing) after a Sol Campbell red card and a brilliant goal from 18-year-old Michael Owen. Then, in 2002, a David Beckham penalty won a group game 1-0 and knocked Argentina out of the tournament.
On its own merits, the 1986 World Cup quarter-final match between England and Argentina was the epitome of one man – Diego Maradona. In the space of under ten minutes, the two opposing sides of his character were on full display. First, the deceitful, mischievous player who stopped at nothing to win – including using his hands to score. Minutes later, the wonderful brilliance of one of the most gifted players in the history of the game. For football purists, the goal is pure ecstasy. Both moments are iconic, but for vastly different reasons.
Yet, this match just meant so much more. It was the pinnacle of tensions that had lasted for twenty years. It was the embodiment of a grudge match. A rivalry born out of a poor refereeing display in the 1966 World Cup, a rivalry which had played some part towards a ten-week war where hundreds lost their lives. The football match between England v Argentina at the 1986 World Cup was revenge for these lives. Football was dominance over countries. Football was everything. In this match – a World Cup quarter-final between two countries over 7000 miles apart – political tensions and football became intertwined like never before and the beautiful game had changed forever.
Diego Maradona scores the first goal of the quarter-final with his hand and Argentina go on to win 2-1
USA vs Iran (1998) - "The mother of all games"
FIFA’s ‘Fair Play Day’ is an initiative which was launched in 1988. Ten years later, the day fell on June 21, 1998. Also on this day was a World Cup fixture between the United States of America and Iran. Following nearly 20 years of political aversion, the two nations were drawn to face each other in the group stages of France ’98. The US soccer director at the time, Hank Steinbrecher, dubbed it as “the mother of all games.”
Iran and the USA have had no diplomatic relations since 1980. The Shah (who was accused of being an American puppet) was overthrown by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the 1979 revolution, to America’s distaste. The hostage crisis of 1979 followed, and resulted in the freezing of billions of dollars of Iranian assets alongside other economic sanctions on Iran – who, beforehand, was a key economic partner of the USA. The support for Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war offered by the USA would only antagonise Iran even further.
Owing to this high degree of historic hostility, the FIFA media officer for their match-up in Group F had a huge task on his hands. Iranian born Mehrdad Masoudi was the man thrown this political time bomb, which would require meticulous handling. Taking care of the day’s events would provide its own array of issues, but his responsibilities were far more wide-ranging. Overnight, Masoudi had to become a diplomat, and mediate any sense of antipathy in the build up to the match.
The media would play an important role (as ever) in influencing how this game would be seen. Ultimately, there were two choices: paint it as “just another game”, or paint it as “the mother of all games.” Both were equally applicable.
The former option involved focusing on the match itself, and appreciating its importance in the context of the world’s greatest sporting competition. Players and coaches on both sides stuck to this narrative. To these men, the aim was to reach the competition’s second round – that is their job, after all. U.S. captain Thomas Dooley observed “this clash is strictly on the field. There’s no political points.” This sentiment was shared by Iranian coach (and U.S. resident) Jalal Talebi: “we come to play, and to show everybody that there is no problem between the people of these two countries.”
Iran and the USA have had no diplomatic relations since 1980. The Shah (who was accused of being an American puppet) was overthrown by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the 1979 revolution, to America’s distaste. The hostage crisis of 1979 followed, and resulted in the freezing of billions of dollars of Iranian assets alongside other economic sanctions on Iran – who, beforehand, was a key economic partner of the USA. The support for Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war offered by the USA would only antagonise Iran even further.
Owing to this high degree of historic hostility, the FIFA media officer for their match-up in Group F had a huge task on his hands. Iranian born Mehrdad Masoudi was the man thrown this political time bomb, which would require meticulous handling. Taking care of the day’s events would provide its own array of issues, but his responsibilities were far more wide-ranging. Overnight, Masoudi had to become a diplomat, and mediate any sense of antipathy in the build up to the match.
The media would play an important role (as ever) in influencing how this game would be seen. Ultimately, there were two choices: paint it as “just another game”, or paint it as “the mother of all games.” Both were equally applicable.
The former option involved focusing on the match itself, and appreciating its importance in the context of the world’s greatest sporting competition. Players and coaches on both sides stuck to this narrative. To these men, the aim was to reach the competition’s second round – that is their job, after all. U.S. captain Thomas Dooley observed “this clash is strictly on the field. There’s no political points.” This sentiment was shared by Iranian coach (and U.S. resident) Jalal Talebi: “we come to play, and to show everybody that there is no problem between the people of these two countries.”
Iranian demonstrators burn the stars and stripes atop the U.S. embassy wall in Tehran, Nov 1979
The framing of the game however would always be rife with political and nationalistic symbolism – what better way to assert the greatness of a nation than to flex its sporting muscles? Even from an independent standpoint, separating the football from the politics would be an impossible task. “Politically charged”, “politically loaded” and a “game for the political ages” – the p-word was never far from a preview of this game. Iran’s Supreme Leader Khomeini too was not averse from playing politics…
According to FIFA regulations, team B should approach team A to initiate the pre-match handshake. Iran were team B, but Khomeini ordered that Iranians must not walk towards Americans. Match officer Masoudi managed to flip the walking regulations for this game, but the problems did not stop there. An Iranian resistance organisation purchased 7000 tickets for the match and were planning to stage a protest during the game. Clearly this group were not welcome at a FIFA World Cup match, but preventing their arrival was near impossible. Masoudi was able to instruct TV cameras to steer clear of protestors and provocative banners, and any TV viewer would have remained unaware of the protest. He also prepped the French riot police for the potential threat of a pitch invasion.
In spite of the build-up, the match was anything but politically charged, and everything FIFA would’ve hoped for. Iranian players walked onto the pitch with white roses – a symbol of peace, the two teams had a photo together before the match to display their unity, and the game was played in the best possible competitive spirit one could ask for.
A 2-1 Iran victory gave them their first ever win at the World Cup finals, and was greeted with ecstasy by citizens back home. The defeat for the USA condemned them to elimination, but the players were aware of the huge part they played in a historic match. Defender Jeff Agoos stated after the match: “we did more in 90 minutes than the politicians did in 20 years.”
The success of the match and football’s ability to conciliate was best summed up by Fernando Delgado’s account of the media’s portrayal of the match. “It would appear that World Cup ’98 allowed two nations to meet on relatively safe ground. Indeed, on many occasions, sport has provided a peaceful means by which nations can clash and compete.” Hostile political histories should be sieved out of sporting encounters, but the sport’s powerful ability to bring humans together should fuel our quest for political peace and stability.
According to FIFA regulations, team B should approach team A to initiate the pre-match handshake. Iran were team B, but Khomeini ordered that Iranians must not walk towards Americans. Match officer Masoudi managed to flip the walking regulations for this game, but the problems did not stop there. An Iranian resistance organisation purchased 7000 tickets for the match and were planning to stage a protest during the game. Clearly this group were not welcome at a FIFA World Cup match, but preventing their arrival was near impossible. Masoudi was able to instruct TV cameras to steer clear of protestors and provocative banners, and any TV viewer would have remained unaware of the protest. He also prepped the French riot police for the potential threat of a pitch invasion.
In spite of the build-up, the match was anything but politically charged, and everything FIFA would’ve hoped for. Iranian players walked onto the pitch with white roses – a symbol of peace, the two teams had a photo together before the match to display their unity, and the game was played in the best possible competitive spirit one could ask for.
A 2-1 Iran victory gave them their first ever win at the World Cup finals, and was greeted with ecstasy by citizens back home. The defeat for the USA condemned them to elimination, but the players were aware of the huge part they played in a historic match. Defender Jeff Agoos stated after the match: “we did more in 90 minutes than the politicians did in 20 years.”
The success of the match and football’s ability to conciliate was best summed up by Fernando Delgado’s account of the media’s portrayal of the match. “It would appear that World Cup ’98 allowed two nations to meet on relatively safe ground. Indeed, on many occasions, sport has provided a peaceful means by which nations can clash and compete.” Hostile political histories should be sieved out of sporting encounters, but the sport’s powerful ability to bring humans together should fuel our quest for political peace and stability.
Players pose for a photo together before the match, holding white roses, a symbol of peace
Written by - 3-At-The-Back
Edited by - 3-At-The-Back
Edited by - 3-At-The-Back