We Had No Plans for Soccer Diplomacy

HRA: It’s the Age of Information, and there are no isolated phenomena anymore. In politics, for example, absolute sovereignty –especially when it comes to cultural issues- is history. So, sports and politics –probably today the world’s most popular phenomena- naturally become interconnected. There is no such thing as apolitical sport. Those [inside Iran] who advocate de-politicization of sports suffer a skin-deep attitude I believe. All around the world, sports have a political agenda; that’s a reality.

IRD: Any examples?

HRA: Actually, it all depends on the nature of political goals; they are necessarily bad. If imperialist states try to promote their policies, that’s a problem. But there are many countries that want to introduce themselves to world, like South Africa. The world should know that this country has freed itself from the shackles of racism and apartheid.

IRD: Has Iran used this tool so far?

HRA: I think we have materialized our potentials to an acceptable level. We have introduced our country to the world by qualifying for the World Cup. We participated in the 1998 World Cup in France and defeated the United States in one of the most-watched matches of the World Cup history. Our wrestlers have won gold medals against American and Russian opponents. A single picture of our athletes standing on the platform above the American and Russian representatives of the sport suffices.

IRD: It seems that in Iran, sports propaganda have had more of a domestic consumption. Do you agree with that?

HRA: Yes. The propaganda is sold to a domestic audience, sometimes with negative impact, unfortunately. Perhaps our hasty plans or lack of potential for global competition have caused this situation.

IRD: Where did such domestic uses –or misuses- occur specifically?

HRA: Look at the exaggerations made about our soccer team. We are not a powerful team anymore, even in Asia. But all the domestic media try to impart is that we have a quality which goes beyond Asia. Such flattering remarks for domestic consumption will ultimately lead to frustration when expectations are not met.

IRD: Some believe soccer –or sports in general- can help to promote peace. But the Iran-U.S. soccer match in 1998 World Cup appeared to be more of a war than peace.

HRA: I wouldn’t call it a war. It was more like a ‘battle for honor’. There was genuine fair play because both sides knew they were watched by hundreds of millions of spectators. If you watched the match, you would see no tensions. Both sides were aware of how high-profile and important the match was.

IRD: Did the [Iranian] politicians have the same feeling?

HRA: For us, it was all about prestige, not war. For Americans it may have been a game for peace, perhaps another form of “ping pong diplomacy” [efforts to thaw relations between Communist China and the United States in the 1970s]. But we believed the disagreements between Tehran and Washington were too serious to be resolved by a single football match.

IRD: You mean Iran did not want to use this opportunity to reestablish ties?

HRA: Not at all.

IRD: Why?

HRA: Because our problems with the United States could not be solved on an athletic field: they were rooted in U.S. policies. Soccer and wrestling could have little effect on that.

IRD: What were the political repercussions of the match?

HRA: In Iran, the Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Khamenei] and the President [Mohammad Khatami] sent messages of congratulations, which I conveyed to the players. Everyone followed the match. It was a serious issue. The ramifications could have extended beyond the soccer pitch: millions of people around the world were watching the match.

IRD: The French President Nicolas Sarkozy seems concerned about his country’s national soccer team’s weak performance in the South Africa World Cup. What do you think of his intervention? Is it a kind of diversionary move to overshadow economic challenges?

HRA: Sarkozy may want to ride the wave of anger following France’s humiliating exit from the tournament. Perhaps he wants to intervene and take advantage of  French sentiments. I believe such things happen when politics lack morality.

IRD: When in 2006 the Head of the Iranian Football Federation, Mohammad Dadkan, was dismissed [by the Deputy President for Physical Education (Sports’ Department) Mohammad Ali-Abadi], FIFA seriously warned Iran over  government interference.

HRA: Don’t try to ascribe everything negative to top officials. You shouldn’t be searching for the backstage developments of those days. That would divert attention from more important issues. We should focus on the Sport Department’s decision [to dismiss Dadkan]. FIFA didn’t single out the president or any other officials. For FIFA, what is important is the non-intervention of the state as a legal entity in football affairs, which should remain independent and governed by the private sector.

IRD: Why FIFA is against government intervention?

HRA: To promote professionalism.

IRD: Could these two [football and state affairs] be actually separated?

HRA: Look, FIFA has no problem with agenda setting, supervision, planning or funding carried out by governments. If our government develops a plan for the next World Cup, or if it decides to invest in football, there’s no problem. What worries FIFA is intervention in micro-policies and everyday decisions.

Some think FIFA wants the government to abandon football completely. That is not even feasible. The government allots budgets, provides facilities and so on, not only in Iran, but in the other countries as well. As I said, if there is talk of non-intervention, it relates to everyday decisions.

IRD: Let’s talk about South Africa. How will the World Cup possibly change the situation in this country?

HRA: It will definitely leave its impact, economically, politically, and culturally. South Africa has received considerable financial aid from FIFA. They have constructed several stadiums which will serve as reliable infrastructures even after the World Cup is over. Culturally, the world will get to know South Africa, which is a beautiful country. That means more tourism and a flourishing economy. Politically, South Africa was an apartheid regime for decades. The younger generation may not be aware of the truth about this country: that Nelson Mandela was in prison for three decades for fighting against the apartheid regime, that blacks and colored citizens had to sit on separate benches in parks, for example, and were treated virtually as slaves, and that the country was ruled by the white minority. The World Cup will give them some background and that will be a remarkable achievement.

IRD: How can a country –that was once known for its notorious segregation- now turn into the World Cup host?

HRA: I give the first credit to its leader [Nelson Mandela] as I have always given the primary credit to leaders; just like our own country whose [Islamic] revolution and turn of history was led by Emam [Khomeini]. Long-term planning is the second factor, something we have always ignored or even disliked in the Third World countries. Third is the correct identification of needs and facilities. And you have to separate the marginal issues from the fundamentals. I think it is the artistry of great people not to occupy their minds with banal concerns. All these have helped South Africa to become the country we see today.

IRD: How do you see Nelson Mandela’s role?

HRA: Substantial. I’ve already mentioned the role of great leaders.

IRD: Will South Africa have a different status in the post-World Cup era? Can it aspire to an influential role?

HRA: It’s hard to predict, but I don’t believe things will be changing significantly. A single hosting of a sport tournament –even as high profile as the World Cup- can’t influence global affairs. Every country has certain potentials, and with what it possesses now, South Africa can’t make a giant leap. Its most significant achievement is a better global image for the country, much like for China and the 2008 Beijing Olympics.