Thought Trail: The Perils of Politics and Hyperbole

Maxi Rodriguez: I never quite expected the Di Canio story to come around again… I should say, not because I thought we had dealt with his “issues” during any of his previous moves, but because I never expected a Premier League club to hire him. For better or worse, he’s defined by the political message he tends to symbolize, whether he wants it or not, and the EPL seems too global to even consider him as a manager.

Eric Beard: But nothing’s more global, nor has that touch of elegance, than the hire of an Italian, right?

Maxi: Right. Especially one whose politics are….rare….

E: But his politics don’t interfere with the club do they? I mean, they do now, and sure, kids in Sunderland are going to be looking up to a guy who thinks Mussolini was a decent guy, but what do kids know about Mussolini anyway? For many fans, Di Canio doing well is still miles better than relegation.

M: Which is what a lot of people are reasonably claiming. John O'Shea isn’t going to get any worse because Di Canio played for Lazio. BUT, and it’s a tenuous but, can you separate Di Canio from the politics that we associate him with, and can you distinguish between sports and real life? Which is to say, is there something symbolic in his hiring that we should be worried about? Are all the hipster fascists going to think the trend is hot again, or we exaggerating the importance of the move?

E: Not to give too much attention to those hipster fascists, but there has been a surprising amount of moral ambiguity in the coverage by media as well as the conversation on twitter. While Di Canio blatantly - and proudly - gave the “Roman Salute” to Lazio fans in 2005, fans (and admittedly I’m being constrained to my sample of English-speaking fans) are hesitant to put such an unforgiving stamp on a man for an action that occurred eight years ago.

Others, like Simon Kuper, pointed out that “When football fans shout fascist rubbish, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are fascist. Hardcore fans simply like symbols that will shock.” Marcotti adds a similar tone when referenced in that same Kuper piece, stating, “I think what appeals to Paolo about fascism is the authoritarian nature. He likes the idea of the strong man.“ It seems like we’re being forced into this corner where we have fascism and everything terrible we have seen as a product of fascism (especially in Italy), and then we have a fascist who certainly cannot be compared Mussolini, but chooses to ignore the history of racism and destruction associated with the ideology.

M: It’s been mostly an apologetic stance, right? Like the kid in the dorm next door who just bought a framed poster of Che Guevara, Paolo appreciates a certain symbolism, even if he chooses to overlook the years of horror that have prompted such a public reaction. But, I think it’s a bit irresponsible, from both parties: Paolo for using symbols that he knows have a dark history, and the media for trying to wave it away. We, by which I mean fans in general, have a tendency to discuss soccer as something bigger than itself, something through which we can discuss politics, gender issues, etc., But when something like this happens, we’re all very happy to claim that soccer is just a game and that we should just get on with it. The sort of, “‘keep the politics” outside the dressing room perspective. But you can’t.

E: The worst way to begin a relationship is with an apology, trust me. The strangest part of this all is that the Sunderland seemed oblivious to the potential repercussions of Di Canio’s history. This is England we’re talking about, and that means the wrath of the English press. If Sunderland want a distraction from what’s been going on (reminder: they’re one point above the relegation zone) then, boom, mission accomplished. But this pushes the ball further into a field of obscurity. Di Canio is unproven in the Premier League. Period. What’s the attraction in Paolo? Should there even be an attraction for the reality of relegation Sunderland are facing in their next 8 matches?

M: Look even further than relegation/promotion. When Paolo joined Swindon Town, what was the big story? Sponsors pulling out because of political statements he’s made in the past. The Premier League has a global audience. Are Sunderland’s comfortable with that sort of association?

E: The point you make about sponsors is an interesting one, which - in a way- brings us back to the argument that we cannot judge Paolo for his beliefs, which may not affect you and I as fans at all. Of course, Paolo doesn’t help himself with such a cavalier attitude towards those who do worry about what he stands for under the spotlight that is the English Premier League. But still, there’s this fleeting hope from some Sunderland fans who already have jumped to Di Canio’s defense. It’s a hope that he can change, and that he’ll cool this fascism thing down a bit after spending some time in the Stadium of Light. Sports fans are romantic. We enjoy a comeback, and you need not look further than Tiger Woods’ new Nike ad to see how much pleasure society takes from a perceived transformation, whether it’s truly rooted in reality or not.

M: But even with that, is the path we have to take to get there one we want to follow? From all accounts, Paolo is a reasonable guy, even if he occasionally uses the “I have a friend who happens to be black” defense. And even if Marcotti is right, and that the supposed “fascists” who spew racist chants from the terraces really just want to get attention, should we worry that Paolo is someone they can claim? They might not be real fascists per se, but they still cause damage, right? Do we want them to be able to say that Paolo is their guy?

Admittedly, that might be assuming too much, but we just get back to the overarching question: can you separate an athlete, or any public figure, from their personal life, even it’s been made public?

E: But maybe our question is also our problem. This decision, this controversial rise of Paolo Di Canio does not have anything to do with Paolo Di Canio. We cannot say that Di Canio’s fooled anyone; he’s as transparent as they come. Now, that doesn’t mean that Di Canio is faultless because of such transparency and consistent responses to concerning issues. His straightforwardness is unmistakably abrasive, but remove Sunderland from the picture and we’re left with a character who has done well for himself. That being said, we cannot afford to remove Sunderland from the picture, just as they cannot expect to be relieved of accusations of naivety any time soon. A fascist now runs the show in Sunderland, and ultimately fans have a right to deny attempts to numb his presence - and, more poignantly, the presence of what he chooses to represent.