Why the UN Shouldn't Envy the World Cup

I've never been the biggest soccer fan. In general, I find watching a whole 90+ minutes of ball-kicking tedious, especially when the game comes down to just one or two goals. Even so, I can't help getting riled up for the World Cup every four years.

As I've been dutifully watching this year's matches, I've been thinking a lot about a short essay written by Kofi Annan this time four years ago — entitled 'How We Envy the World Cup' — explaining why the former Secretary General wishes the United Nations were more like World Cup soccer.

And with memories of Ghana's tragic defeat still festering, I'm feeling a little snarky. So, this year I offer to you three reasons why the UN should not envy the World Cup.

1. Excessive Nationalism. Sure, Mr. Annan makes a good point when he says the World Cup inspires national unity and pride. And for some countries enduring bitter internal conflict, a soccer game is a great way to pull people together. But shouldn't the United Nations be shooting for global unity? If we're all just rooting for our own team (or country) to win, will the focus on the greater good be lost? I almost felt like I was committing an act of treason when I rooted for Ghana over the U.S. a week ago. The UN should represent more than just individual countries vying for their own best interests.

2. Africa loses out, yet again. As do most other developing nations around the world. After this round of games, Uruguay is the only country from the Third World still in it. On Friday, Africans held their breath as Ghana (Kofi's native country) faced off against Uruguay, praying that the lone representative from their continent would come out on top this time around. It was a good fight, and Ghana definitely played a stronger game, but in the end, they were cheated out of victory.

Much has been written this year about benefits South Africa — and even the continent as a whole — will reap from hosting this year's event. But as fellow Change.org blogger Giovanni Mejia wrote a few months ago, the benefits may be skipping over those that need them most to facilitate the whims of wealthy tourists and teams. Once the screaming fans and heartbroken teams leave town, will there be anything left but discarded vuvuzelas for South Africans? Unlike the World Cup, let's hope that humanitarian assistance and development aid flowing through the UN makes an impact that is both lasting and beneficial.

3. It's a zero-sum game. On July 11, only one team will go home a winner. Of course, I wouldn't be watching if it weren't for the excitement and passion brought on by single elimination. But nations of people aren't like soccer teams, and no one's fate should rest in one missed goal or one bad call. If the United Nations really wants to facilitate international cooperation and world peace, its member states have to believe that we're playing in a positive-sum game — meaning that we all can be winners.

None of this is to say that I don't like where Kofi was going with his argument. Wouldn't it be nice if people cared as much about the status of the Millennium Development Goals as about that of the current game? What if all the world's economies competed on a level playing field instead of one that's been dramatically tilted from years of colonization and more?  And don't we all wish a ref could just pull a red card on leaders like Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il? Nonetheless, I want my UN to be one in which every nation gets to drink from the cup.

Photo Credit: CLF