A proposal: when we wile away the hours compiling lists of the Greatest Ever Footballers, we are doing a disservice to this form of discourse if we do not take its premises seriously. To pretend that we can go on existing without this genetically-hewn proclivity for reducing the world to an Excel document is both futile and obscene, and we’ve no interest in arguing as to whether Grand Ranking is really a childish waste of everyone’s time. Grand Ranking is the most durable of discourses because it is anti-academic, ludicrous, and painstakingly entertaining; it is therefore, fittingly enough, the BEST WAY to talk about football, just as Return of the Jedi is the BEST FILM of all time. Rather, we’d like to refine the discourse to the point of genteel respectability, to ensure that, to appropriate Kierkegaard, when we start Ranking players, we have the ‘courage to think a thought whole’.
The notion of taking Grand Ranking a little more seriously surfaced, as good ideas always do, after reading work by writers better than ourselves. Firstly, The Football Pantheon has provided a well-furnished playground for the schematics of schematics. Secondly, we’ve been thinking about France, largely as a result of the second issue of the soon-to-be-mandatory Blizzard, which featured no fewer than four pieces on French football and its seemingly interminable identity crises; from Philippe Auclair’s justified anger at foreign news reports of the ‘race quota’ (non-)scandal, to James Horncastle’s account of the European exploits of the national team that never was, Saint-Etienne in the 1970s. The French do seem to suffer these footballing identity crises with heightened alacrity and regularity, mopping their brows and wringing their hands like the hoodwinked patriarch of yet another dreadful Molière play. The notion emerged: what could a Grand Ranking of the Greatest Ever French Players tell us about the short circuits France has experienced in the football team-nation synecdoche? What makes one player a Greater French player than another? How distinct is being the greatest French player from being the greatest French player? Ranking needs to become a more rigorously historical endeavour.
France is kind to the footballing geneticist, in that it is relatively simple to isolate three peaks of talent, neatly spaced a generation or so from one another. The 1950s: Stades Reims in the inaugural European Cup Final, and France in the World Cup semi-final against Brazil. The 1980s: le carré magique, Euro triumph, and two more semis. The late 1990s: the rainbow nation finally steps from the shadows of history. It is also quite painless symbolically to concentrate each of these national uprisings into one individual: Raymond Kopa, Michel Platini, Zinedine Zidane. So, as an embryonic essay: who is the greatest French player of all time? Who is the most complete synecdoche?
1. Raymond KOPA (1931 – ). At first, the working class was conspicuous by its absence. In place of the trade-port city-urban working class matrix that brought football to Bilbao or Odessa, in its primordial days in l’hexagone, football was the preserve of an urban social elite intent on imitating the dying wildebeest of British amateurism; a welter of different ‘national’ federations resembling country estates. Despite the first ‘national’ league bubbling to the surface in 1894, roughly thirty years passed before the game’s thorough dissemination amongst the proletariat, taken up by factory workforces as an alternative to group gymnastics that seemed grotesquely militaristic after the First World War. The scent of amateurism hung over French football for years after the faltering introduction of professionalism by an avowedly uneasy FFF: players were allowed to pursue other careers, which created teams of mixed class backgrounds; of players trying to be footballers and players trying earn enough to become something else.
Raymond Kopaszewski became a footballer because he wanted to be an electrician. Born in 1931 into a Polish immigrant community in industrial Nœux-les-Mines, his priority was to avoid the mines that had defined both his people and his town. Never too crazy for football, he would say, ‘but there was the mine…’ The ellipse speaks volumes. The old assurances of working class solidarity and dependable labour must have seemed emblematic of a dead age; one whose ideological vividness had led to two world wars. Football, in its French incarnation as a transitional, oddly classless profession, held a pragmatic appeal.
That symbolic stepping into the light from the pits, the wiping of coal dust from his face, suggests something else. Kopa walked away from the mines, and also from himself, from Kopaszewski. He represents the universalising effect of French working class politics, an effect reinforced by the grim divisions of the wars. The République as an entity has always entailed a particular attitude towards labour movements; emancipation is realised through access to a more universal culture, the effacing of scars as a guarantee of solidarity. Francifying his surname, dropping his maternal language, and stepping out of the mines that had supported and restricted his family, Kopa made the transition from community to society.
Kopa is post-war France; harried by a sense of what to avoid, the dwindling gravity of industrial labour, and conscious of a new culture that would resolve cultural difference into something moderate and prosperous.
2. Michel PLATINI (1955 – ). French exceptionalism has manifested itself most persistently in a commitment to the ideals of public service, expressed through the bureaucratic hum of administration at all levels. There has always been a resistance in the system to professionalism, business, financialisation (in that chronological order). Their hand forced by Jean-Pierre Peugeot’s purchase of Sochaux in 1932, the FFF permitted professional players, in return for a guarantee that clubs themselves would not become marketable businesses, and would remain under the auspices of the Federation; an early Third Way compromise. In many ways, French football was professionalised in order to make regulation easier.
In a country whose industrialisation produced middling, single-product towns over sprawling urban conurbations, municipal identity is pronounced, and even today, many clubs rent their stadia from local government. (in Saint-Etienne’s Stade Geoffroy-Guichard, called ‘the green cauldron’, one stand is closed for refurbishment: a banner across the base reads, ‘a brand new cauldron: Loire Métropole is building it for you!’) Small-town regionalism was once at the heart of French football, the lingering scent of Catholic masses, or the bark of a dog on a paved Mediterranean street.
As the Second World War faded into sepia, the practicability of the provinces stagnated. Urbanisation crept along apace. In 1971, Paris Saint-Germain was founded, and the capital finally had a team with the financial clout to persist as a championship threat. Marseille, that anachronistic, acrid expanse of port, dominated the 1980s. Michel Platini seems haunted by the twentieth century that was dwindling even as he was born. He strained at the limits of French football, promoting Lorraine stalwarts Nancy to Ligue 1, losing two cup finals with Saint-Etienne – the only provincial team in France ever to have a sustained history of quality – and, of course, falling in consecutive World Cup semi-finals with easily the most talented side the nation has ever had.
Platini’s French achievements are hedged, worn at the edges by a sense of proportion that the game was leaving behind (perhaps best exemplified by the ill-advised victory lap at Heysel after his 1985 European Cup-winning exploits with Juventus). He embodied a sense of exceptional wit and luxury yielding to the inevitable: ‘the Astérix complex’, a denial of the continuing relevance of the French model by the forces of the market, the metropolis, and the brutally omnipresent German Mannschaft. It is fitting that he won the Euros, but not the World Cup. He had to forsake his sentimental education and move to the bear-pit of Serie A to realise his potential. And since retiring, he has strived to reassert some of that administrative order, that sense of public duty that he couldn’t recreate on the pitch. National team manager; responsible for bringing the World Cup to France; UEFA president, with FIFA in his sights like a gaping Portuguese goalmouth; perhaps above all, Financial Fair Play regulations. The sense that he is clutching at straws, straining at history, is both his private tragedy and the dull mess of his people.
3. Zinedine ZIDANE (1972 – ). With Zidane we reach an endgame, of sorts. The founding of PSG was a portent; even in France, money was going to make itself heard. With the financialisation of economies, l’hexagone began to lose its old voice, the rhyme and reason of public duty and statism stuck in the throat. The grand old Administrators – the ghosts of Baron de Coubertin and Jules Rimet – began to seem more anti-modern than particularist. The banlieues stacked around the increasingly precarious centre of Paris become symbolic of gashes to Kopa’s ‘universal’ culture, a quaint notion in a world where identity is both as restrictive and as liquid as cash.
Honed in these conditions – raised in an area of Marseille where unemployment among the immigrant population languished at around 40% – Zidane has always exuded the air of a man devoid of attachments. That hawkish gaze, inscrutable tendency to apparently arbitrary violence, the penchant for the unrealistically sublime over the rambunctiously gifted. He witnesses and plays with a granite logic, one of dominance rather than wit. Platini seemed always to be darting from the trenches; Zidane to be sitting back, assured in his superiority, practically unable to lose the ball or to concede ground. This is a man who openly stated that he hopes all matches between France – for whom he won a bleedin’ World Cup – and Algeria end in a draw so he is not forced to side with either his heritage or his present circumstance. A man who will likely declare his son legally Spanish. Who supported the Qatari bid for the World Cup. And who headbutted Marco Materazzi in his last ever professional match. Zidane is the illogically logical force of the market. He is peak oil.
Of course, the terrifying fact is that this is precisely the kind of player that France needed to obtain if the nation was ever to win the World Cup. Zidane weighs more heavily on the consciousness of the French that Platini or Kopa, for the very simple reason that he won; he overcame that hoary old ‘Astérix complex’. He allowed France to realise itself, by voiding it of its own heritage (the defensively stacked team of Aimé Jacquet, who actually fielded Stéphane Guivarc’h in a World Cup final, bore no real resemblance to the futile grace and luxury that had been Les Bleus’ trademarks of yore). This is why the discourse surrounding Zidane is so massive and so torturous. He needs to be explained away with what, for him, seem rather cheap labels of greatness. He doesn’t need this as much as he doesn’t deserve it. His elevation to the rank of France’s greatest ever is a defence mechanism against the inconvenient truth that he is not particularly French.
For what it’s worth, all things considered, Platini was the Greatest Ever French Player. Unlike Kopa, who became French, Platini was French. He nurtured the dying embers of the age that had birthed him, and he fought against what was to come even as he created it. Fittingly, Zidane stands apart: the Greatest Ever Zidane, if anything; he refused to be identified with a nation to which he was not contractually bound. Alternatively: it was very French indeed of Michel Platini to lose two consecutive World Cup semi-finals to Germany; but it was very Zidane of Zinedine Zidane to headbutt Marco Materazzi in the chest, and then to walk off down the tunnel into the beckoning twenty-first century.
James and Samuel mop up after each other at Football in the GULag and @The_GULag.
Suck it, Empire fans.
Some nations have a style and the discourse flows from there: Spain, or Holland, or Brazil. I’d say that the symbolic reason for the last World Cup’s dreary atmosphere (aside from the crudely scientific fact that the balls were made of a kind of paper) was that Holland and Brazil trashed their heritage with nary a shrug, depriving us of our usual coherent narratives (respectively: playing well and losing, and playing well and winning). Indeed, immediately after a World Cup in which Holland reached the final, viewing figures for the national team suffered a huge slump, in reaction to the Oranje becoming unrecognisably solid and indomitable (‘German’). Elsewhere, the giddily twirling, vomit-flecked circus that is the England side seems to suffer, if anything, from a surplus of some noxious identity, which, despite all evidence to the contrary, they can’t seem to reform; like a racist who can’t quite bring himself to masturbate over his attractive Indian neighbour. But the French, they don’t seem to know what they want.
Although he never disassociated from the pitch entirely. During the 1998 World Cup Final, a French national team kit could clearly be seen through the besuited Platini’s shirt.
The reams of rhetoric about the triumph of the ‘rainbow nation’ in 1998 attest to this. As Philippe Auclair pointed out in the above-mentioned Blizzard piece, there is absolutely nothing new in France fielding a cosmopolitan team: in 1931, Raoul Diagne became the first ever player of African origin to represent the colonial metropolis at national level, a trend that has hardly abated since. French football has arguably been for over a century the most persistently multicultural in the world. Platini too, in 2005, said that people who heralded the arrival of the blanc, noir et beur France only in 1998 ‘do not know their country’. Perhaps the only way that France could identify with Zidane’s team and their rather un-French victory was to equate ‘France’ with the ethnic diversity that was being heralded as their defining feature. But this is a historically inaccurate metonym.
Read More: France
by Samuel Goff & James Coleman · November 29, 2011
[contact-form 5 'Email form']
Bravo! However, ewoks suck. Surely we can agree on that?
Kopa’s story reminds me of modern day David Villa, whose dad allegedly worked the mines. Both are true testaments to the mightiest of mer-men, if there ever were any.
There’s so much here to play with that I’m not quite sure where to begin. If one travels on the RER E or B north and east of Paris, there is a distinct sense of dislocation that sets in about twenty minutes into the ride. You arrive in Aulnay-sous-Bois, or some other equivalent suburban transit center, and quickly realize that this is not Champs Elysees, or Concorde. This is not some gaudy bauble commemorating a dead empire. This is real, and run down, and these are people–French people, mostly–dislocated from belonging to their own nation. In Marseille, the situation is the same (if not more desperate). Yet Zidane feels like such a singularity that placing him into the cultural narrative feels strange. I’m glad you articulated this. He’s not so much un-French as too unique to be bound. In a way, Pele is quite similar, as he is so obviously associated with Brazil but transcends this association in a way that Cruyff or Maradona could not.
The Frenchness of Platini, the rush to fulfill that duty to administrate out of some reflex for bureaucratic order, is something I had not considered but, on an instinctive level, makes sense. As an outsider there, it became quickly apparent to me just how deeply bureaucratic procedure was rooted into everyday life in France. I suppose there is no escape. Laïcité and assimilation, the bedrocks upon which Kopa’s integration and place in French society were built upon, also gave birth (especially the failure of the latter) to the HLMs in the banlieues and the massive bureaucracy created to build and administer them. It’s a narrative whose conclusion is yet to be seen. Me? I just wonder if Gourcuff will step up.
Great piece, one of my favorite on the site. It’s thrilling to see more work that maintains the standard of B. Phillips’ writing. Really, well done.
Picking out a nation’s quintessential or greatest ever player is certainly a more interesting conversation than the typical “best ever” stuff.. Others that come to mind are Bobby Charlton, embodiment of the genteel English sportsman, and Johan Cruyff: creative, intelligent and independent to a fault.
Nice piece on a nation not well covered here in the States. Most interested folks have seen the exploits of Zidane and Platini, and have heard echoes and whispers of Kopa. Then you had to go and bring Guivar’ch into it, with just the proper tone. But Return of the Jedi? Makes me wonder if you enjoyed the beaujolais a little too much.
Excellent, some lovely sentences. ‘Zidane is peak oil’, yes! Didn’t much like that quip about Moliere, though. Indeed, as my mother never tired of saying, it’s a right shame football wasn’t around in the 17th century, when the French were far jollier folk, long before the revolution/auto-colonisation. Then we’d have seen less of this angst. Argentina is similar in this regard, I daresay, something I personally blame the ‘French’ for…
Just finished the second footnote and had to commend you on the specificity and accuracy of the “masturbating racist metaphor”. And thank you for the opportunity to write those three words in legitimate discourse.
Really great article, much to commend it. Challenging but achievable prose, fresh takes, lines that zing. This felt like it should be read in print in a cafe, amongst friends as a launching pad for great discussion.
Also, Blizzard is ace, and is indeed soon-to-be mandatory.
Wonderful piece. Enjoyed it very much. Thanks.
Who would be the greatest 21s century, post-Zidane French player (so far)? I’d have to nominate Thierry Henry, a man who has won just about every trophy there is to be won with elan and ruthless competence, and one who has never seemed particularly attached to France or French identity.
Platini!
I remember well that night, in 1984, against Portugal. My house was packed with relatives and friends and I was the only one rooting for France. I was so in love with those guys back then… Platini, Tigana, Battiston, Bats, Amoros, Giresse… Portugal was winning but France came back and snatched the ticket for the final game (and title). One of the most stressfull games ever (to me). Only a guy like Platini to make this kind of stuff happen!
It’s nice for national teams to have their own style, but Holland don’t ‘owe’ the world anything, except to give their damndest to win. As Ernst Bouwes said post-WC final:
“This is the football of the 21st Century. Why should our team be the one to put on a glamorous show for the viewers when others are stealing the prizes behind our backs?” (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/columns/story?id=808306&cc=3436&ver=global)
Why was it ok for France to defend their way to victory against Spain in 06 but not ok for Holland to do it in 2010? (Admittedly the violence was inexcuseable, but it would have been just as inexcuseable from any other team.)
As for Brazil, they only ever played 1950, the Pele years and the 1980s as “Brazil”. That’s only about 6 out of 19 World Cups that they lived up to their own cliche!
Actually you covered what I said about Holland in your bit about Zidane: in order to win, France voided its entire history. Interesting parallel, cool article BTW.
I’ve actually thought the same things many a time and don’t know any other countries which I would be able to compare the relationship that the france national team has with france. they dont play for pride or politics or the fans. and who would when playing a home game feels like an away game because you’re being continuously booed? they won the 98 cup primarily because they were all friends and there was chemistry. they never really played for this badge. You could add another to the list being Cantona, a man who openly roots for the English and also the filler between Platini and Zizou on a stacked team that never performed.
what’s up, jean-marie le pen
There are some really uncomfortable essentializing going on in this article about what it means to be “French.” I’m not entirely sure why “being conflicted when people ask you to choose between the success of the country where you were born and the country of your heritage” and “allowing your sixteen year-old son, who’s lived in Spain for most of his young life to choose his own nationality, as is perfectly accepted in law” are both signifiers of Zidane’s non-Frenchness. Also, was there a reason for the usage of “peak oil” as a metaphor, except to draw a further Zidane = non-French = Muslim = Arab parallel? Low blow, seriously.
@emma …And by “there are,” I mean, “There is,” obviously.
@emma For what it’s worth, I think a distinction needs to be drawn between ‘what it means to be ‘French” and ‘what it means to be ‘a French football player’ as part of a larger historical metaphor’. For me, the broad aim of the piece is basically anti-essentialist, in that it points to the need to be more fully aware of the arbitrary nature of discourses such as those that would list individuals within categories of nationality etc. If you’re going to engage with arbitrary headings like ‘French’ (we could just as well have picked ‘Romantic’ or ‘Hip-hop’), at least embrace that non-essential, arbitrary aspect and exploit it in a properly metaphorical (here, historical) way.
Likewise, it doesn’t make too much sense to deny that ‘actual things’ (such as Platini, Zidane, or the manner in which agricultural identity affected the extent of urbanisation in France) can correspond to abstract concepts; that is how metaphor works.
For me, there are fewer surer routes to de-essentialisation than properly historicising your subject. Surely the fact of the three players mentioned having such different metaphorical characteristics is a sign that the concept of Frenchness is just as contextual and prone to fluctuation as any other.
As for the ‘peak oil’ remark, I’m afraid there was no such intention. However, it’s always nice to be taken more seriously than you take yourself.
@M.G. Of course Holland don’t ‘owe’ anyone anything stylistically; although there’s no denying the cognitive dissonance that those lucky (?) enough to have such a stylistic heritage can foster with the proper withdrawal.
@Danny For me, Squillaci is a Molièrian player. And that’s enough to disqualify both of ’em.
@emma Also, Zidane is not really French because he doesn’t really consider himself to be French. He played for France because Algeria didn’t want him. His family is its nationality, which is why he has no regrets over a headbutt about his mother and sister and does not insist on his son playing for France. Peak oil is anything rare which cannot be manufactured and cannot be preserved because its valuable only when its consumed, and only a few have it.
@The GULag Thanks for your response — it really clarified where you were coming from. However, it’s disappointing that in your efforts at highlighting the arbitrariness of nationality as a means of ranking football players, you’ve found yourself holding the exact position as many contemporary French xenophobes.
After all, one could argue that Zidane is the perfect representation of a historically contingent moment in French society: the representation of all the descendants of immigrants who came to France in huge numbers in the twentieth century from former colonial holdings, who feel frustrated at their lack of acceptance by white French society, who consider themselves to be belonging to two national heritages and yet fully welcomed by neither.
(It’s important to acknowledge the historical diversity of French football sides, but I think you’re myopic to think of Zidane’s career as the latest expression of this longstanding phenomenon, and not to consider its contemporary ramifications for millions of people in France. )
Let me be fair: I think you’ve done good, postmodern work in this essay. I just wish you understood how arguments promoting the denial of a universal subject all too often end up hurting those groups who have struggled for centuries to gain recognition as subjects in their own right. “Frenchness” may not have a concrete meaning to you, but for minorities in France, it’s a weapon used to dismiss and degrade. For them, Zidane’s elevation to the ranks of “the best footballer in the French tradition” is more than just an “anti-academic, ludicrous, and painstakingly entertaining” exercise. It’s a very real affirmation of their existence and their belonging in the larger French body politic.
@hobbitonfc Wow, I’m so glad to see we have an expert into Zinedine Zidane’s psyche and sense of national identity — especially when his expertise is presented with absolutely no corroborating evidence. You’re arguing that somehow the Head Butt Heard Round the World proves Zidane’s non-Frenchness…because it was triggered by a slight to Zidane’s family. How does that work? I don’t think that “losing one’s temper over insults to one’s mother and sister” is a specifically Algerian trait. I’m pretty sure it’s as nationally determined as “losing one’s temper in frustration while playing in overtime during a grinding, interminable game that also happens to be one of the most important moments of your career.”
And PS, Zidane has always denied the “I played for France because Algeria didn’t want me” rumor.
@emma We’d be hesitant to describe this work as postmodern, but the point at which we are labouring is that the assignation of nationality is from an essentialist sense arbitrary. The way in which French xenophobes use ‘Frenchness’ (as a weapon against the foreign other) would follow from this essentialist standpoint. If, however, one takes as a premise that national qualities are not merely accidental, but also arbitrary, then the importance of being ‘French’ becomes questionable, unless you are looking to enter into the same violent discourse as the aforementioned xenophobes. Perhaps we could claim that Zidane, by refusing to appeal to ‘Frenchness’ gets one over on the xenophobes, in a far more profound way than were we to merely demonstrate the painfully obvious plasticity of the notion of ‘Frenchness’ by morphing it to fit his form?
Either being French means something, in which case it will necessarily exclude someone. Or, it is at heart wordplay, in which case it can be used and disabused in a metaphorical, historical way. Accession to a falsely universal subject that is predicated on your exclusion seems practically masochistic; whatever an actually universal subject would be, it wouldn’t be Frenchness.
Ahh… France and French football and Platini.. and Giresse… and Tigana… and Amoros … and Battiston … and Fernandez … and Zidane … and Petit … and Henry … and Trezeguet … and Vieira … and Barthez … and Desailly … and how i hate them all…
Football at it’s purest form… one nation (Portugal) loathing another (France) over 90 min (and extra time)..
Canada must also be accountable for its part in child abuse history. From 1870 to 1930, North Face Winter Jacketsmore than 8000 children were taken from the streets of Dublin and London, then shipped overseas to Canadian homes where they were beaten,
@David There are so much things that I really need to learn how to do.cheap northface jackets that is really good thanks for sharing this information.Thank you for posting the great content
lots of ‘branlette intellectuelle’ in this article methinks. Over complicated sentences, not sure what the author is trying to say, or not. As for Platini, who is French (but of Italian descent), it doesn’t explain the background/motivation to his decisions as UEFA pdt (ie FFP), which is mainly a desire to create a more level playing field for all teams rather than some French administrator’s love for paperwork.
Even as a player, Platini always talked about the pleasure, fun and enjoyment of playing and bemoaned the pressure and win at all costs mentality of the football world.
As for the 98 team being defensive, it had to be: not favourites or confident of winning the WC + pressure/lack of enthusiasm from the home fans, it had to play that way. All you have to do is look at the team’s performances at Euro2000 to see how confidence and knowledge of its strength enabled it to play great football and win the tournament.
And re. the 98 team, anyone with critical thought capacity knew the talk of ‘rainbow team’ was total crap. And sure France has always had ‘cosmopolitan’ teams, the big difference being that these days most of its players are coloured (unlike Kopa, Platini, Fontaine, Djorkaeff snr. etc), which is what people like Le Pen and others find so annoying.
As a young man i watched Platini and tought he was an amazing player but not as good as Maradona, Zidane was the best player in his prime and he brought France a World Cup beating a great Brazilian team at the time in dominating fashion. I respecfully would put Zidane over Platini.
What about David Ginola?
@JackSantinisbro
Over-complicated sentences? Yes. But also plenty of good old pretentious bs:
“… the penchant for the unrealistically sublime over the rambunctiously gifted. He witnesses and plays with a granite logic, one of dominance rather than wit.”
(It’s important to acknowledge the historical diversity of French football sides, but I think you’re myopic to think of Zidane’s career as the latest expression of this longstanding phenomenon, and not to consider its contemporary ramifications for millions of people in France. )
I can’t say in words how much I like reading your blog.