John Rapley
MORE AND MORE academic studies are confirming what the street demonstrators have been saying: globalisation is creating an unequal world. So far, it has privileged capital over labour. Where capital is concentrated among the rich, and in rich countries the gains have been great, even fabulous.
But to workers, globalisation has been much less obviously beneficial. While some poor countries have prospered China and India come quickly to mind they have done so at the price of rising social tensions caused by widening inequalities.
Thus, the search for an improved model of globalisation is on. And a fascinating recent article in the Review of International Political Economy suggests that world football be used as a model for a new and improved globalisation.
Branko Milanovic is an economist at the World Bank with an obvious love of football. In his article, which employs basic economic theory, he argues that the globalization of football in the 1990s led to outcomes that distributed its gains evenly.
WHAT HE ARGUES
In a nutshell, what he argues is as follows. When European club football went commercial in the 1990s, players from all over the world were drawn to its teams. By lifting restrictions on nationality, various leagues (the English and Spanish led the way) enabled club owners to operate according to market logic.
The result is that richer clubs, able to sign top players, reinforced their dominance. Poorer clubs fell down the league tables. In Italy, for example, teams from the prosperous north became ever more successful while those from the poorer south were relegated to a permanent inferior status.
In the meantime, though, a different logic applied to international competitions. Because of its power, FIFA, international football's governing body, was able to prevent such commercial logic applying to international competitions, and in particular the World Cup. Its stipulation that players could not move among countries meant that when it came to their national sides, world football's new stars had to return home. In this manner, FIFA prevented the 'leg drain' that had drained Brazilian and Argentine leagues from infecting the national sides.
Meanwhile, because they were playing in the world's top leagues, stars from developing countries returned home with augmented skills. So while club football came to be dominated by a few wealthy clubs (Am I the only one eager to see Chelsea knocked off its pedestal and returned to its rightful place?) international competitions became ever more competitive. Not long ago, a handful of teams dominated the World Cup. In the last one, by contrast, the defending champion was humbled by an African upstart.
The lesson for Dr. Milanovic is clear: the FIFA model is one which tempers commercialisation with redistribution. To the extent that commercialization and competition raise product value, they are to be desired. But by compelling players whose productivity has now been augmented to return 'home' for international competitions, FIFA has managed a redistribution of some of the gains of this improved productivity.
GLOBAL ECONOMY
Few other sports have such a powerful managing international body. The global economy has none. Nation-states have weakened as borders have diminished in importance. However, no organization has been created that could manage globalisation in such a way as to compel the fruits of increased productivity to be broadly redistributed.
This, arguably, is a preferable alternative to the rising vogue of rejecting globalisation altogether. However, it is a huge political challenge, especially since the obvious agents for the task among them, the World Bank and IMF enjoy so little support.
Nevertheless, as we prepare to settle in for the month-long smorgasbord that is the World Cup, it is a possibility worth pondering.
John Rapley is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona.
