Why the anti-Brazil campaign should take it easy

With the biggest football tournament just one summer away, many have questioned the ethics of the host nation spending tens of billions of dollars on a sporting event while millions struggle with poverty, unemployment, and the ever-rising prices of public transportation. There's also the added danger of violent protesters who erroneously think that burning everything from tires to buses will do something about changing the costs of public transportation. When it comes to a large international tournament, however, it's highly doubtful there won't be increased security.

Every World Cup has a series of long-lasting effects on the host nation that will certainly be ignored and diminished in value by the pessimist, who will only note the obvious problems that arise with the tournament and add on to already-existing issues - the dirty streets, the traffic jams, increased hooliganism...What such a person fails to see is the true impact that the beautiful game has on a nation.

While stadiums may not directly improve the life quality of the population, they will continue to be used for football games long after the tournament is over, growing the sport and allowing more people to pursue their athletic dreams. More athletes means more opportunities for scholarships, and thus education.

"People are dying due to lack of infrastructure", says the boycott supporter, completely disregarding that this problem exists in many other nations, including those that have previously hosted large-scale tournaments. One could just as easily criticize supporters of bringing the Cup to the United States, where 36 percent of deaths in 2000 were due to social deprivation. Two years ago, almost 16 percent of the U.S. population had income below poverty level, a number that continues to rise as more and more workers are laid off in attempts to balance budgets. The poverty levels in Brazil have actually decreased tremendously as those of the U.S. have continued to linger.

Before the 2010 World Cup, South Africa struggled to meet its economic goals, in part due to a lack of much-needed infrastructure, such as public transportation. Hosting the WC pushed the government to take action and make significant improvements that last well beyond the duration of the tournament. That does not change the fact that people continue to die due to insufficient care in hospitals, but who's to say that a tournament should or must be the solution to this problem, or that the government is incapable of working towards solving such issues while simultaneously contributing to other aspects of the country's economy and culture?

An anti-World Cup post that was popular on tumblr.

"Violence against regular civilians" happens everywhere. Keeping up to date with the news in the United States shows just how many innocent people are cruelly gunned over the years down due to un-professionalism and carelessness of "law-enforcement".

The World Cup not only brings nations together, but bridges the gap between all corners of the world. People come together from across the many continents and bodies of water to enjoy the same passion they all share. Does that not make a great opportunity for some of these people to also volunteer and help when they are not going to games? Instead of protesting against hosting the tournament, why not rally the thousands of tourists to support the local populations and help out however they can?

Would you rather host the Cup in an overly-wealthy nation like Qatar, or in a nation where proceeds from tickets, souvenirs, hotels, and restaurants may provide a boost for its economy, all while entertaining the masses? Not all the money earned goes to FIFA, unless football's governing body happens to own all of the aforementioned services.

Football is also an outlet for creativity, much like the cinema or fine arts. Regardless of a nation's issues, would you protest any government investing millions of dollars in museums?

Boycotting the World Cup isn't going to solve Brazil's problems, and hosting the tournament may not contribute as much as is necessary, but it certainly will bring more good than harm, and at the end of the day, that is always welcome.

It's not every day an athlete listens to Noam Chomsky. Then again, it's not every day I bring up American football.

I'm referring to the recent exit of John Moffitt from the NFL. Years of rigorously studying Chomsky are supposedly what made Moffitt give up playing the game he used to love, and the millions that went along with it. Although he gave a series of explanations for leaving, the fact that he retweeted a YouTube clip in which Chomsky discusses the role of sports in propaganda shows the main reason behind his decision. Moffitt has also expressed interest in "speaking his mind" via podcasts.
What Chomsky essentially inspired is "Snowden Activism", the ramblings of a retiree no longer affiliated with his organization as opposed to an "insider mover". I'm sure Chomsky denies the existence of the latter, what with the filtering of dangerous opinions that occurs for any who enter today's elite-run corporations.

Unfortunately, most of what Chomsky has to say on sports is nonsense. According to him, sports are a diversion that allows the elites to maintain their control over the masses. Kind of like the cookies offered when you join the dark side.

Like anyone, however, Chomsky is a product of his time. It's very likely that having lived through the tumultuous 20th century prevented him from foreseeing the global impact that real football - or any sport - would have.

In recent years, European football has probably seen the most turning points in resolving and increasing awareness to a variety of social issues. Would people really pay as much attention to fighting for cures and ending discrimination if those issues were not associated with something that interested them? When people see FIFA's Say No to Racism campaign, Major League Soccer raising money for Breast Cancer research, or their favorite player visiting a sick child, there's no doubt they feel more compelled to get involved. I call that positive propaganda.

Most of all, however, Chomsky neglected discussing the connection between sports and feminism. European football has seen huge progress in expanding opportunities for women. There's Karren Brady, who was the first woman to become managing director at Birmingham City and is now vice-chairman of West Ham United. Both Birmingham City and West Ham are men's football clubs. Even the least football-savvy know who Mia Hamm is. Most recently, she became the first woman to be inducted into the Football Hall of Fame, at the same time as Sonia Bien-Aime became the first woman appointed to the CONCACAF executive committee. A few women have taken up assistant refereeing in men's leagues in Mexico and Russia. Women's leagues have begun to rise in popularity as well, in part thanks to - you guessed it - the mainstream media.

With its growing popularity in the United States and around the world, European football is the perfect vehicle for social change. It serves as an invisibility cloak, allowing fans and industry professionals to sow the seeds of progress while avoiding the backlash and labeling that can otherwise occur when topics like feminism are addressed in the mainstream media. It is a platform through which reporters, athletes and others can address issues in ways that those in politics can't.

What Dynamo Moscow Can Learn From the New York Red Bulls