View from overseas: To dive or not to dive?

Story by Andrew Rogers

Andrew Rogers

"Yes it was a handball but sometimes this is the game, I don't know how to explain. The ball comes to me and I can't do nothing but this. Sometimes I dive, sometimes I stand. But I don't care about this. In football you can't stay up all the time... I don't dive, I play my game." Didier Drogba - March 25th 2006

Surrey, UK (April 2, 2006) - Cheating, an infamous enterprise that elicits shock and horror when exposed, and in this instance, because the words fell from a $38 million striker, sparked a week long media debate.

Much of the conjecture was clouded with romantic notions of a fairer time in days of yore, suggestions that culpability lies with overseas imports, and damnation of behavior that is reflective of a society in moral decline. The reality for association football, you will be happy to hear is somewhat removed from such statements and ultimately reflects well on the game.

Firstly, deception is not something new to English soccer. Historically its motivation has been to undermine and usurp creativity, rather than enable goal scoring opportunities. This stems from the machismo that was the game and impart still is- players have to prove they can "get stuck in" with heavy tackles, these are viewed as a communication tools, to let the opposition "know what you are about."

The Leeds sides of the 70's were notorious for their gamesmanship. Colin Mafham of the Sunday Express recalls; "The team could be ruthless and very cynical. They introduced a different kind of gamesmanship to the league that was off the ball and behind the referee's back. It is fair to say they were educated in Europe. I think they realised if you couldn't beat them you had to join them."

It is also worth noting, that when it has been in England's interest, the nation has happily overlooked its own indiscretions. Michael Owen in the 1998 and 2002 World Cups' "felt contact" in the opposition penalty area, but against such adversaries he was "fighting for his country" and "doing what it took for the team."

The way the argument has developed in recent times stems from two factors; English clubs reintroduction to European football and the investment in football talent outside of the domestic market. This presented the English spectator with a different mentality in gaining the competitive edge. Rather than seeking advantages and stifling creativity through intimidation and violence, the players entering the game, and being viewed were trying to create scoring opportunities and dead ball situations through falling under little contact and/or pressure from the opposition.

This created a lot of consternation among English fans who perceived their actions to be lacking in scruples and alien to their values of the game; in reality it represented a different ideology on what constituted cheating- an admission of pain and/or physical weakness does not sit will with the supporters psyche.

Consequently, the public reaction to Drogba realizing their opinion regarding foreign players' attitude and deposition is somewhat puzzling. Why vilify him? In part it is because it suits the construct of a footballer in society but we'll cover that at a later date. Football fans must see this as a missed opportunity, a player has put his hand up and spoken a degree of truth, and has suffered a reaction worse than if he had lied. This suggests the game cannot move forward because it does not want to, and is evidence if ever there was any needed, as to why footballer should not be candid… they're damned either way.

The hysteria that Drogba sparked is somewhat hypocritical. Like you and I he is an employee paid to do a job, and like any good workers he gets the job done for the good of the team and the company. When you are being paid millions for your role, the pressure you are under and your motivation are likely to push you a little further to gain a competitive advantage. Soccer players from outside of England generally manifest this in different ways, however, it is also fair to say it is easier to see fault in those outside of your culture, when in actuality it exists amongst English players as well.

Cheating of any sort is wrong but ultimately Drogba's comments place soccer in a favorable light in if one was to compare its' moral buoyancy with many other result driven industries. In other spheres of life do opposing organisations stop competing when someone goes down or in the case of Arsenal v Sheffield United in their 1999 FA Cup clash; replay the negotiation because an unwritten rule was intervened?

For the "controversy" to take such a strong hold on the public conscience and sustain a week of passionate debate reflects well on the health of the game. Drogba's actions also suggest the moral standards are relatively high in the scheme of sports. It does not have any of the unsavory incidents of Rugby or Hockey that would result in prison sentences if they were not on a playing field/rink. Furthermore a footballer's indiscretion does not put at risk people's employment, pensions or start wars.

This summer in Germany we will see at some point one national side "cheat" another, or "take a dive" in a big game, as supporters of the game we should look forward to the ensuing media meltdown, cooling of diplomatic relations, and elusive proof of why the opposition nations cannot be trusted, oh the beautiful game.

Andrew Rogers, contributes to USA Today, Gol TV and Four Four Two. He lives in Sunbury on Thames in England. Formerly the director of communications for the Long Island (N.Y.) Rough Riders, he is a UEFA 'B" license coach and plays semi-professionally with Spelthorne FC.