Latin American Soccer ES

Uruguay Lincoln Bizzozero Revelez

1 Political Origins of Football

Uruguay *is*a small country of 176,000 square kilometres located in South America, with a population ‘of 3.5 million. It is found in South Amerita’s Southern Cone bordered by the shores of the Atlantic Ocean and the River Plate, by Argentina to the West and Brazil to th6 North and Northeast. It ,was’ a land between the Spanish and Portuguese empires during colonial timesj ‘and tetween the two mayor Latin American Republics after their independence.

Like-Argentina, Uruguay was a major destination for European migrants from the 1870s until the 1920s. Both countries experienced an early mod­ ernization, liiiked largely to the close diplomatic and trade relations they shared with the British Empire. Meat arid wool exports to the European markets made the productive system, transports and communications mod­ ernization possible for both countries (Thomas 1994).

Along with the British investments came new organisational models, hobbies, cultural expressions' and sports, like football. With footballs pop­ ularity, a .singular local game-style appeared, deriving in the chorus ‘of a song: “Uruguayos campeones de America y del mundo” (Uruguayans are American and world champions).

L. Bizzozero Revelez (El) International Studies Program', Faculty of Social Sciences, Universidad de la Republica, Montevideo, Uruguay

© The Author(s) 2018 J.-M. De Waele et al. (eds.), The Palgrave International Handbook of Football and Politics, https://ci0i.0rg/l 0.1007/978-3-319-78777-0_28

557

558 L. Bizzozero Revelez

Contrasting with its geographical dimensions, with regard to football, this small country has been historically a relevant actor. Uruguay was Olympic Football Champion twice, in 1924 and 1928; Football World Champion twice in 1930 and 1950; South American Champion (Copa de America) fifteen times, which is more than any other South American national team (Argentina won fourteen while Brazil won eight). Adding to the latter both major local Uruguayan football teams, Nacional and Penarol, sum up six Intercontinental Cups (three each) and eight Libertadores Cups (five for Penarol and three for Nacional); while Nacional also won the Recopa once and the Inter-American Cup two times. On top of these accomplishments are the coundess Uruguayan players who have made it in the worlds major football leagues, like Luis Suarez, Diego Godin, Edinson Cavani, considered among the best players worldwide.

Football is linked to Uruguay’s history since the late nineteenth century, having played an important role in the, configuration of its national identity The “Uruguayan game-style” was innovative both in tactics and techniques, but .most importantly, it generated a new social sensitivity towards the gamg (Magarifioz Pittaluga 1942). Uruguay, a young and small country, known worldwide for its successes playing football. This is. why football became ojje of Uruguay’s most important cultural expressions.

The international relevance of Uruguayan football transformed it, ast a social phenomenon, into much more than just a sporting competition. The performance in the game became associated with the fate of the country, and its international acknowledgement. As historian Andres Morales states: .. understanding the football show as an ethnographic phenomenon is what makp it even more exhilarating. There is still a lot to be learned about Uruguayan and Argentinian mentalities, mind frames and stereotypes from football history' (Morales 2014a: 44).

That is why, as throughout its history Uruguayan football has. been intej- nationally distinguished, it has become, as a professional sport and show, very important for the history of the Uruguayan people. The aim of the fob: lowing pages is to illustrate this unique socio-political-sports reality that we know as Uruguayan Football. e

Football’s arrival to Uruguay coincided with a period of deep historical transformations. This might explain the rapid incorporation of this sport as one Uruguayan identity’s most important cultural expressions. By 1900 Uruguay was living through a process of unparalleled economic, denrq- graphic, political and cultural modernization (Bertino and Millot 1990). It was a young and open society, sympathetic to international inndvatiohs.* Uruguay was transitioning from an oligarchic/caudillo-led political reality to

* .

Uruguay 559

atlpmoeratic and inclusive system.,For the firSttime, a.romantic and positiv­ istic vision of the-country flourished: from its cultural atmosphere.

FootbalL arrived around’1890'togedier with the'British involvement in finance,•''xortimerce “and: services. Since 1870,»«British influence in Uruguay was» incre^ing hand inrhand with the local, economy s growing participa-* tion im international trade during'the ‘first Iglobalisation (Bertola 2000). Although British' investments -never reached the magnitude they did in neighbouring! Buenos'Airasi, they ‘‘guided” Uruguay’s agro-exporting econ- omy^ the'interest laid on'‘the woof and meat >markets, the construction of railroads andtr^ns,; setting up of finance, service and communications com­ panies, develophient of the port of -Montevideo and the slaughterhouses, a'hd even the beginning-of a small British colony (Barran and Nahum 1986).

Hie'’first informal football matches took place on the shores of Montevideo, hear the Pdnta Carretas-iighthouse, between British work­ ers and sailors.'Social,encounters were .organised during-weekends to enjoy the landscape, the beaches and-watch nhe “crazy Brifs” run after a ball. The.popular appeal v^as so great that-a-spedalitramway line was created on Saturdays and Sundays, which included lunch and drinks, to-watch football. Other matches itook place beyond'Montevideo‘in other parts of the corin- try:"British citi^ns *used their free time in railway stations and-workshops to play football,-and the-residents of suburban'areas gathered in mass to watch, organising pic-nics and social gatherings (Magarinos Pittaluga',1942).

British and'other European institutions (businesses and schools) became the.first Albion, MbntMdeo Rowing,. Uruguay Railway Cricket Club (CURCG), Montevideo Cricket, the Irland^s, the Aleman. In 1899 the Club Nacional de Football was founded, the first creole team (Morales 1969;Magarinoz Pittaluga 1942).

The “football fever” Was uncontainable. Leasing land for matches became-. a lucrative business. Around 5 to 10 thousand spectators crowded to watch the most important matches, in a time were no stands nor stadiums had been built to cope with suclr an -audiehce (Magarinoz Pittaluga 1942). The British sport had become the-’most popular public spectacle, surpass­ ing bullfights (that'were prohibited before long) and the carnival events. By

.the "early twentieth century bver 80 teams had been formed. Around ten- of these competed in various first-rate championships and even spkyed against Argentinean and European teams'that visited:Uruguay (Luzuriaga 2009).

“‘Between-1900-and 1930 Ufuguay’s agro^exporting economy had positive results, enjbying'an’expansive period. Local GDP per capita reached-.levels like'thbse of Belgium or New Zealand (Alvarez 2010). This allowed for the integration of masses of-migrants and -the development of social security

560 L. Bizzozero Revelez

institutions, pioneering the field in the American context. This was the right context to play football: very positive results in cattle farming, excellent public services in the country’s capital, universalization of public schooling, the beginning of a process, of'political democratisation and the recogni­ tion of workers rights. The chronological coincidence of these processes with the appearance of three of Uruguayan football’s main characteristics is not casual: (1) the classic rivalry between the two most popular local clubs (Penarol-Nacional); (2) the national team’s sky-blue jersey (“La Celeste”); and (3) The Uruguayan Football Association (AUF). It was through these pillars that the social and institutional idea on football was expressed.

Physical education and communications expert. Professor Pineyrua states: "How can Uruguay's successes in football be explained? How is.it that such a small country obtained such grand achievements?... The explanation must be in the cre­ ation of a local game-style and the personality of its players, forged from different" immigrant cultures and used to represent their country from the first day, crafting its epic. The passion that football unleashed rapidly extended to the whole society and became entangled in the social structure of a country still moulding (2014).

Uruguayans changed from spectators to players, they flocked to foot­ ball and so it “became Uruguayan”. This was a vertiginous process that encompassed all social .classes.^ As the historian Luzuriaga explains: "Players could be British gentlemen and workshop workers or university students, eithdr way spectators from all social classes would gather by the court’s side-lines” (Luzuriaga 2014). The practice of football became a part of the cultural identity through which nationalist feelings and collective optimism could be channelled, as long as Uruguayan representatives continued to triumph internationally.

Resulting from the cultural exchange given in those times of openness, an important sporting fusion resulted. English football key characteristics (the long pass, tactical discipline, fast oflFensive midfielders) were combined with those of the River Plate (short pass resembling that of Scottish foot­ ball, zigzagging, dribbling, and individual improvisation) together with oth­ ers of Italian origin. This way, Uruguayan football, of British .origins, ended up combining local postures and attitudes, linked to tango, "catenaccio”,• Latin sensibility and the participation of several players of African descent (Magarinoz Pittaluga 1942; Morales 1969).

Thanks to this unusual combination, typical of the River Plate, the Uruguayan national team developed an agile, brave and original game-style that earned it three consecutive international titles. Surprising Europeans and Americans alike, “la Celeste” won the tide in the Paris Olympic Games of 1924 facing Switzerland, and repeated the accomplishment in Amsterdam

'Uruguay 56t

facing Argentinadn tl528. iHis performance allowed^ Uruguay to successfully present itsxarfdidacy tpdiostrhelfirst FIFA World Gup in 1"930.

■At a time when,Uruguay was celebrating its first century-as an independ­ ent Republic*, the state* xlevoted itself to build, in less thart^nine months. South Americaidirgesrsfadiumao'that dateyso las to host-the delegations that would*cqmpfete'tn the 1930 World Cu|)’(Jalabert 2016). As ft had done so before,'?fia. Celeste” conquered the title'winning the-'final'by 4 goals to 2t,against Argentinaji5<rhus, the** existing relationship' between football and national identity was*' strengthened: in the River Plate; a new approach to playing football had»been'>borh,*and from it* *the-first derby .(“clasico”): Uruguay FolloMng the world final, headings reading “Uruguay World GhampiortfioV the third time" titled every page. Apart from an in-depth recdunt of the'ganie andpicturesn. 'during celebrations the victory is seen as a triumph for «the Nation»"fbAbtz\cs 2014a: 39).

Victories ovenitsdarget neighbours, confirmed football’s*timely arrival at 1 time-when'-Uruguay was'djuilding* an-optimistic modern natiofial ideal. Farirom hhe image pdrtrayed by other oligarchic Latin American States, the..smail>Ufuguayan''Republic-saw itself as “Americas Switzerland’’, and remained'confident ip its fqture development. Thefincorporation of football, a modem sport! tMt>allowed it. to coihpete with its neighbours and other nations, was yet another one*'of:moderniiys challenges.' Due to its growing popularity and international successes? it became a- sign'bf Uruguay’s iden­ tity, just as it was beinganstituted through politics; education and the press.

2 Historical Club Rivalries i

Football in Uruguay cuts across all 'social spheres, 'classed and -institutions. Since Uruguay is a small country with just three and a half million inhab­ itants, football rivalries,-concentrate-nationally in its tw6 main'clubs, which are. the Club Nacional; de Football and the Club Atl^tico Penarol. Some regional' rivalries, alsb exist ^Salto-Paysandu; Maldonado^-Rocha), others between teams belonging tO the'same neighbourhood “of-Montevideo-(River Plate-^Montevideo'‘Wanderers;’ Cerro—^Rampla Juniors) and in other cities (Piriapolis—^Tabar6; Deportivo Maldonado—^Atenas).

The most important rivalry is the one between Nacional and 'Penarol. Both-their interpretations of their history, and the image they portray, define the 'bases on which -Uruguayan football is structured. That same history depicts their institutional differences and.serves to model -each team’s image and determine their sociaffiases.

562 L. Bizzozfero Revelez

Tliis rivalry is even expressed through the discussion over which is the oldest Uruguayan football team. Probably incomprehensible for non- Uruguayans, this issue has prompted historians to devote investigations to vindicate the claim over seniority by both teams (Alvarez 2001). Nacional formed a committee with members such as Jorge Badle (Uruguayan President from 1999 until 2004) and Enrique Tarigo (Uruguayan Vice- President from 1985 until 1989), both lawyers, so as to clarify the legal issues regarding Uruguayan football’s seniority. The final report was pub^ lished in 1991 by Enrique Tarigo, as a response to Penarol’s celebration over their one hundredth birthday (Comision de Decanato 1991).

The controversy, which was resolved legally by an international court,- stems from the issue of the continuity or not of the Central Uruguayari Railway Cricket Club (CURCC), a multipurpose club founded In 1891, with the Club Atletico Penarol, founded in 1913. However, the contro­ versy is not about which team was the first to play football in Uruguay, since other clubs pioneered at this. Montevideo Rowing, Montevideo Cricket and Albion were all founded before CURCC. In fact, Albion was the first dedi­ cated football club. Nor was it about .which team is the, oldest belonging to the Uruguayan Football Association or> that has participated from the most Uruguayan championships, which is Nacional (Pineyrua 2014).

The controversy is based on three issues: the trophies won by CURCC and claimed by Penarol, the historic-cultural continuity between both teams and having yet another distinction compared to -the rival team. In what refers to championships, since CURCC won several trophies, their consideration by Penarol presents different equilibriums. For example, the Uruguayan Championship has had 113 editions, of which Nacional won 4d (counting the 2016 edition) and Pefiarol 43. Since CURCC was champion five times, Peharol’s claim would take their overall amount to 48 Uruguayan Championships.

The other issue refers to the historic-cultural continuity between CURCC and Penarol, being the first one a popular team formed by the railway employees and workers in a working-class neighbourhood (Penarol). This continuity allows Penarol to claim this working-class origin* as its own, when, 118 employees founded the CURCC in the railway workshops back in,

1891. Finally, the rivalry between Nacional and Penarol has transformed .over

the years, polarising the discussion on the seniority of one team or the other. The lack of continuity between CURCC and Penarol can be demonstrated with legal and objective arguments. It is a proven fact, that both institu­ tions co-existed for one whole year and even faced each other on the field

Uruguay 563

(Alvafez 2001; Comision-de Decanato. CNF 1991). Adding to this,-at the time of CURGC s institutional closure it donated all its assets to the British Hospital,* so, at least from a legal point ofview, there is no institutiond con­ tinuity with Penarql. Other arguments supporting the continuity between both institutions are explained by Alvarez in his book* (Alvarez 2001)*.

The controversy over the-age of one of Uruguay’s most popular teams is a testament to football’s importance for the country. While most teams were born from neighbourhoods*, towns and regions, Nacional and Penarol were nationally relevant,, their rivalry cutting across cities and sectors. Although there is evidence of certain social preference for one or the other based on national'brigins,'’social sectors, regions and political preferences, none of them prove to be decisive and conclusive.

This emphasis made on the origins of both* teams hints at the differ­ ent institutional identities: Penarol is associated with the “gringos” and the’ comrrion pedple, while Nacional is linked to the local traditional cul­ ture (Am&ica’s first creole team). On the one side football’s popularisation, on the othef the nationalisation of the sport by the creoles. This division berweenipopular and national tendencies resulted in preferences being deter­ mined by social and regional factors.

This .explains why historically most* of Penarol’s followers came, from Italian‘origin, were working class»and lived in the cities. It also had many fol­ lowers ffbm the Colorado*'Party, linked similarly to Italian immigration. On the other hand,. Nacional "got most of its followers from Spanish immigra­ tion, among merchants and from rural areas (mostly outsidb Montevideo).

As historian Juan Carlos Luzuriaga states “... the short time it took both Nacional and Penarol to earn the allegiance of the people during the edrly years of the ’twentieth century, resides mostly in the fact that both teams incarnated long-term ‘national visions and sentiments, together with a great sporting par­ ity, that stimulated their rivalry” (2014). Beyond the county’s .political tra­ ditions, these two teams channelled several social sensitivities from that timei ‘'Nacionali'the most representativetcreole team... put together squads of Uruguayan’players- willing to challenge their Anglo-Saxon counterparts, or what they represented,’ in their own arena. Confronting-with the Anglo-Saxon lifestyle and accomplishments model was-a challenge emphasised by the young local intel­ lectuality” (Luzuriagai20l4).

These are no absolute divides, but they hint on the social expression that both team’s historical -origins had -among different immigrant and social groups, cities and regions. Several polls conducted in the past twenty years show a trend in'the facts explained above, toning down the divides existing during the clubs’ first decades.

564 L. Bizzozero Revelez

Nineteen 90s polls showed a greater percentage of Nacional sympathis­ ers than Penarol ones, while recent twenty-first century polls show that the preferences have inversed, with a greater percentage of Penarol'sympathis- ers (Bassorelli 2013). Polls also show a clear majority of preferences towards- Nacional and Penarol' in comparison with all the other minor teams. In 1997 polls showed that there was a 45% preference for Nacional, 42% for Penarol and 13% for all other teams put together. During 2005 a new poll showed that 32% of those surveyed sympathized with Nacional, 31% with Penarol, 9% with other teams and 28% had no real preference. Finally, in 2013 a new survey resulted in 46% sympathising for Penarol, 35% for Nacional, 6% for other teams and 13% with no preference. (Bassorelli 2013).

There is also rivalry over the number of members each club has. In 2015, the company “Movement for a Better Football” placed Penarol and Nacional in a ranking of the twenty clubs with more members worldwide.. According to this ranking, Penarol had 77 thousand members and was ranked 16th while Nacional had 76 thousand and ranked 17th (Barboza 2«15). Both clubs have also competed concerning their football stadiums. Nacional s sta­ dium, the Gran Parque Central, was inaugurated in 1900 and used to host the national team games. Apart from that, it was one of the stadiums died for the 1930 World Cup, where two inaugural games were played; Penarol built its stadium recently, it being inaugurated on March 28, 2016. Penarol s* leadership have observed that their stadium, the Campeon del Siglo, com­ plies with all of'FIFA’s requirements.and can hold up to 40 thousand spec­ tators. The Gran Parque Central does not reach'that capacity, although a remodelling plan attempts to do so in several months.

Another issue that opposes both clubs'concerns the number of champion­ ships won by each. The controversy surrounding Pefiarol’s-continuity from CURCC has already been presented. Some historical issues, like the fact that Penarol was de-affiliated from the Uruguayan Football Assodadorr for sev­ eral years, are not that relevant regarding the aforementioned matter. It is on the issue of the number of official titles earned by "each institution* that both clubs argue the most. Were we to accept Penarol’s-continuity from CURCC, then Nacional would be beaten (48-46). They are followed by Defensor and Danubio with four titles each. However, when considering all the official championships disputed in Uruguay, Nacional holds the lead over Penarol (134 for Nacional and 118.for Penarol). And when considering international titles, including FIFA-CONMEBOL tournaments and others -organised, by country associations, Nacional has 21 to Pefiarols* 16. Statistics show a

Uruguay 565

CURCC/Penarol* superiority in the early years'of the nyentieth century^ with Nacional dominating the scene from 1910 until the 1950s, even winning five years in a^row duririg the-1940s. By the late 50s until the 70s Penarol dominated again, winning, themselves five years in a row during the 60s. Penarol would repeat this,feat duringjthe» 90s, proving its dominance over Nacional Sn the,football scene during those years. The twenty-first Century will see ther return of Nidorial- as the dominant team: Nacional has so far won ten championship^ over.Pefiarols four.

Statistics might show the evolution that both institutions have had regarding their'sporting, results. However political and social aspects and other factors not'linked directly to the game, like the intervention of busi­ nesses and the handling-of'money .(and players), are-elements to take into consideration, and will be addressed in the next section.

3 Football as,a Sports Spectacle:.The "Football-Culture" and Its Interactions

As it was pointed out before, football became a populilr sport, t6 play and to watch, in the early years of the twentieth century, coinciding with *the'birth of an optimistic- Uruguayan national ideal. “Naturally” resulting firom this, came football s symbolic and cultural significance and interrelation with pol­ itics and 'society.

The current Coach *of Uruguay’s National Teams Oscar- Washington Tabarez, generally sums up Urdguayan football’s exceptional character as follows: ‘Ufuguay has a “football-culture”’ (Bianchi 2014). Every boy gets a ball for Chtistmas,- 200 thousand young kids practice football, there are more than 20 dedicated fidio stations, and football metapho'rs are used to relate to almost any topic of conversation amongst Uruguayans. And this is not a recent phenbmenqn, but exists since the origins of Uruguayah football.

Football’s'importance within the citieS and countryside’s social fabric is outstariding. It has become an important component of the young boys’ (nowadays: and girls’)'upbringing, who socialise through football (com­ plementing their formal schooling), learning Values such as teamwork and good sportsmanship, and hoping that ’football will be their means for social promotion. The Uruguayan Government, in recent ;^ears, has found it fit tot develop policies for economically depressed areas, so that the practice of football may be a source of motivation that keeps the youth away from idle­ ness and consumerism.

566 L. Bizzozero Revelez

Football and Party Politics, but no "Bread and Circuses"

Football and politics have been historically linked. There are numerous cases of political careers that started from a position in club leadership. Coping with club organisation, understanding certain popular codes that this task requires, the popular exposure that success in sports generates in Uruguay, are all elements that may help further the political career of anyone will­ ing to pursue one. Although not a general rule, it has been common for Uruguayan politicians to hold seats either in football club management committees or in AUF s (Uruguayan Football Association) leadership itself

Throughout the twentieth century, at club level, Penarol has been gen-' erally linked with the Colorado Party, while Nacional has been associated with the Blanco Party. As previously stated, these parties identified with dif­ ferent immigrant communities and with one of the poles of the dichotomy countryside-capital city. Several club presidents and delegates at the AUF or CONMEBOL, have also been active members of the Blanco and Colorado parties, and held positions in Parliament, regional and national government (Morales 1969). Most of the club leaders have been lawyers and politicians, rather than businessmen, retired athletes or other social figures.

Nowadays these affiliations are not as clear as they used to be. Immigration ceased to be a relevant factor by the late 1940s, so todays fans are the grandchildren, at least, of those original European migrants. The end of the bi-party era, where the Blanco and Colorado parties dominated the political scene, has left a new, yet unstudied, situation. The growth in popularity of the left wing Frente Amplio party, founded in 1971, that has been the governing political force since 2004 and holds almost 50% of the electoral preferences implies a modification in the correspondence between fans and political parties. Given these facts, the twenty-first century will be a transitional period for the party-club correlations.

However, the general trend concerning football s connection to politics is still in force: President Tabare Vazquez now in office, who belongs to the Frente Amplio party, can present as one of his “successes”, that while he was raised by working class parents in a humble neighbourhood in the out­ skirts of Montevideo, he graduated as a Medical Doctor, and presided over a minor club, the Club Atl^tico Progreso, leading it to become Uruguayan Champion in 1989. This fact is interesting since in it the reality of football as a cultural expression meets the cultural identification with the story of David. ^

This intimate relation between football and politics, does not mean that politicians can manipulate or use football for their own political ambitions.

iUruguiiy 567

In fact,* there are. several examples that? prove just'How'difficult it is to use football, as “Bread-and Gircuses^h wheh thedast'Urugpayan Dictatorship organised a World Gup Champions Tournament'intlSfeO; -neither propa­ ganda nor the large number of spectators stopped the- crowds from -chanting “jt’s^oinilg^to end? it^*g6ing to'end, the>military* dictatorships (. se va acabar, seiW'acabar,' la~dic-tadiira-m‘ilitar”). ConfirmingHhat popular expression, -in November of>that safne.year,* most Uruguayanswoted against a’Constitution being proposed'by the', military'governfnent. This means that, -although the fans flocked ta'sge th^games-and celebrated their national teams unprece­ dented accomplishment of winning a: World Cup Champions Trophy, they weren’t? “bewitched” by this, and still did not grant any legitimacy to the tournament organisers,’ theirmilitary dictators. ‘

Uruguayan fbotbalhmiore-than’a'public .show is a culturul expression, con­ sequently, though it might be a fundamehtal learning ground for a political’ career, the social scope of the football-culture helps to cushion any attempts to manipulate the sport forj|i0i|rspor|:ing arpbitions, and U.i;uguayan.s, most of them greater football fans than the club managers thenisfelves, have no trouble separating the scopes of football and politics. ^

ft

Footbair as an Open Sport

The issue of racism in Uruguay is not easy to address. In -the 1920 s,-there was a strong popular ideal of Uruguay as a “new”, "white”, “indigenous free natioii..-However, the reality of a culturally and biologically mtilti-ethnic nation, witk a white'creole'majority, but with great numbers of slave and Guarani- descendants and open to European immigratibnj made it impos­ sible for a massive popular expression such as football not to resemble that

social diversity. AfrO-descendants represent around 5-10% of -the* whole Uruguayan

population. Although the early Republic elinainated-discriminatory laws, socio-economic and cultural segregation are still today .problematic (pov- erty.levels -and limited access to tertiaryeducation compared to other social groups is still alarming today) (Cabella et al. 2013).

In spite of this, Uruguay was one -of the first countries to integrate afro-descendant players'in the practice of football: both’the Black Wonder Andrade who-played for Uruguay-in* the 20s, and the HBlack Chief Varela who was captain when thet'national team-won the 1950 World Cup, are historical icons that hint on a relatively positive integration in the sport’s realm. Several afro-descendant players, both Uruguayan and alien, have also

568 L. Bizzozero Revelez

become football idols playing for the big teams (Atilio Garda, Artime and most recently Chengue Morales for Nacional; Spencer and Joya for Penarol), confirming football’s integration into society as a diverse and open sport (Reid Andrews 2011, 34).

There are no records of segregationist teams in Uruguay, or of racially biased policies in the sport. Consequently, there have been almost no racially triggered troubles between opposite club supporters, players and managers. Contrasting with the problems faced by afro-descendants to fully integrate within Uruguayan sodety, football can be considered a space where they can achieve social recognition and progress their careers. In general, limited racism could be alleged to exist, having a permanent presence of afro-de­ scendants in the sport, many of them well-known, but conserving the use of the, sometimes affectionate but many times derogatory, “negro” appellative (Arocena 2009; Reid Andrews 2011).

Massive Support no Matter the Results

It is also interesting to analyse the massive support that the national team has and the big teams’ large number of members. A recent poll indicated that 86% of Uruguayans show interest in football (Pineyriia 2014). The following periods could be presented considering Uruguayan international accomplishments:

(1) From the origins until 1954: the “Celeste” among the elite. Uruguay was among the elite of World football. Having won two Olympic Games and two World Cups, Uruguay surrendered its defence of the Jules Rimet Cup, in 1954, in a fantastic semi-final lost in extra time against Hungary (Vazquez 2017).

(2) 1960-1995: the national team’s irregularity and the rise of the clubs. The second half of the twentieth century saw poor results in World Cups, reaching 4th place in Mexico 1970. But on the other hand it was marked by great international successes both by Nacional and Penarol, winning several Libertadores and Intercontinental Cups (a total of 14 between I960 and 1988). One international triumph was achieved by Uruguay during the 90s when the national team won the America Cup of 1995 on Uruguayan national soil, however the late twentieth Century left a sense of lack of international relevance both at national team and club level.

Uruguay 569

(3) 2010 •until today, return of the “Celeste”, from 2010 onwards, following a reiiewed process in'the management of the'hational team, Uruguay has •managed to recover an almost permanent seat in FIFA’s Top Ten rank- Ingf and both the struggle for .3rd .place in the South African World Cup against ^Germany and Forlans Gol4eh Ball-award, were celebrated by massive'tiroWds in the streets, by a populacei eager to see Uruguay (and

» „ themselves) back in the top seats of World football. Uruguay went on to win the America,Cup in 2011 marking its'supremacy in American tour- naments-and reaffirming the fan’s communion with their national team.

Beyond these, cycles, .support for the'national team has shown a positive trend. Since-the plkyoffs for the 1998 World Cup', Uruguay has sold more tickets'than any other national team,*including Brazil, iWgentina and Chile, considering all South'American tournaments.

A Similar long-terrrufevolution can be seen regarding the major clubs; although both teams have failed to produce -any -significant interna­ tional results.for the last 30 years (Nacional.won its last Libertadores and Intercontinental Cup in 1988), their membership has kept growing, having found new ways to keep motivating fans to join their club, as several polls

have revealed.

Violence and Values

From the very start the passion arid agony with which football is experienced by’fans has led to violent episodes. Skirmishes between teams arid rival fans, 'crowds 'that overrun controls, all problems usually associated with a mas­ sive phenomenon that mobilises collective sentiments worldwide. News of clashes, suspended’games, alleged pressures on referees and other “typical” football conflicts (Luzuriaga 2014).

The 1930 World Cup can be an example of such a massive event. Historian Andr& Morales recalls that “there was a tense environment, several incidents were re^stired before, during arid after the game. On one side, prob­ lems with oversold tickets, causing troubles during the tournament inaugura­ tion, pn the other hostility between Uruguayan and Argentinian fans. Violent episodes got to the point where, after the end of the game, stones were hurled at the Uruguayan Consulate in Buenos Aires (Morales 2014a: 36). From then on until 1986, violence in Uruguayan football continued within the accept­ able” parameters of spontaneous conflicts—sometimes serious but began and ended with the game.

570 L. Bizzozero Revelez

During the mid-80s, the big teams Fan base adopted a new behaviour, resembling “hooliganism”. These new groups of fans, called the barras bravas”, started to .dominate the stadium stands. The term barra brava (brave band) originated in Argentina* and refers to the group of organised fans that come up with chants, carry hags, receive their team with fireworks and exert pressure on the players (Aguiar 2014; Morales* 2014b). Up.until 1986, Nacional and Pefiarol fans shared the Centenario Stadium stands when a derby was played. However, given .the incidents concerning flag stealing by opposing “barra brava” members that year? fans were separated in unconnected stands from then on (Osaba 2015). During the 90s these groups grew in number and force and started to dominate "areas within th6 stadiums, and other social' aspects of the game. Their leaders (some of thein* with links to international organised crime) were directly supported by cluBi managers, or these simply turned a blind eye on their activities,' as*did manyi fans, who shared in their violent conduct, participating from their chants and insults against their, rivals. This was a tragic decade, marked, by the death of several “barra brava” members in violent clashes, lacking the authorities, an effective response against the rising tide. ^

In fact, given these groups’ role as unrelenting team followers, who deliv-* ered a colourful show, even during a period of meagre international accom­ plishments, they were generally tolerated. By the early twenty-first century Nacional and Pefiarol “barras” had their own trademarked outfits,, the]^j. controlled stadium parking-lots and drug trafficking in the stands, and were given free tickets to attend international games. There were several incidents, when the “barras” entered team training grounds to bully the players ^h^r a poor performance. The press was also responsible of frequently approving their actions, congratulating them on their support for the teani. Families, given the show’s unsafe and uncomfortable context, stopped attending ^ihe games: long ques, police controls, delayed exiting from the stactiums ana fear of rival “barras”. Economic and other kind of sanctions, including .^ra­ dium closures, loss of points and championships, were imposed because qf the “barras”’ destructive actions that ended up hurting their team’s competk tive chances (Abal and Quirici 2()l7).

Nowadays, the social networks have maximised the potential to^ insti­ gate violence and intolerance, sometimes promoting a sort of misplaced^ football passion that is expressed through street fights, flag stealing ,and wall paintings. In 2016 two young men were Idlled (one from Nacion^ and one from Pefiarol) Tn violent incidents: one while painting a wall Iji one of Montevideo’s peripheral neighbourhoods, the other while celebrat­ ing Penarol’s birthday in a town square, in one of Uruguay’s small towns. Both incidents happened while there was no game being played, showing

s Uruguay 571

how the "barra' bravaJ’ pt,gblem h^ sp9W itselfi/piaking it almost impossible for tearn =m^fl;ag,^rs f:qppntg)X.th£5^^qifps.;hat were toler­ ated or even supported for many years. Tiie situation has become so serious that,the last game between Nacional aqd.Pefi^ol^^d tq bq.suspended, since thpJeaders qf thq.Penarol “t>pra” organised_^s^b,qt?ige fromjail,,as a form of prqtesf'fojr not'receiving,free tickets. Groups of,fans were instructed tp .force their way i^po |;he stadium, raid fpqd and Jbeyerage Stands and -proyqke a police reactiop. Althoughj Police Intelligence could deaqtivatq.the attempted sabotage apd captui;e those-responsible, violence once ptorp dominated the scene (Fern^dez,2016).

Three decades aftpr the beginning of this phepomenop, efforts have been made .to cpntrol ip flowever, even though seyeral government offiqials, club managers and security e^phrts are working on the is^e, the result? have been few. This is a footpdl related .problematic fram.pd; in a difficult social context,.that is.ej^periqnced with great intensi^ by the big clubs .but also by small neighbqurhqoci teams .that have niany suppqrters. Police repression is insufficient to stop the “barras” since they find motivation in fighting law enforqeni.ent. Greater intervention by Police Intelligence and club pianage- itiep^ seems necessary, tqgether .with a modern legal firamqwork to penalise violenf,actions. Thopgh apparendy ^.short-ter^nft solution, eflPorts have been rpadp by Nacional t;o ipcludp some of its^most, well-known “barra” members, as parf of the clubs secprity detachmept..]^enaxoHs going tjarough an^pra of institutional reform, overwhelmed by a phenomenon completely out of its leaderships coptrol (Aguiar 2014).

This phenomenon does not .extend to the fans that attend the national team gamqs: there is no such thing as a “Celestes barra” and stadium attend­ ance (the largest (p America) is domipated by families, with a much bigger presence of wpmen than, in domestic games. Uruguay’s coach, Tabarez, has fostered a set of y;dues. in the national team th^thave helped avoid “bel­ ligerent”, anti-rival attitudes by the. f^s.^ Uruguay’s coach has tirelessly preached the importance of comnaitmept and tenacity within th^ margins of “fair pl^y”, always remarl^g the conipetition’s, spqrting,. non-nationiis- tic quality. These values are. very, different froip-those “traditional” standards promoted by the big teams and the, media, by whieh an alleged superiority (in seniority, supporters, titles, flags) admits saying^, irrationally assumed by the crowds, like “winning whatever way pqssible”, referring to the rivals as “sons”, “chickens”, etc.

Government policies seem necessary to face this problem i^at is Central ip Uruguay’s football-culture, as to, educate through media campaigns on both the fans’ and athletes’ behaviour. The example set by the national team could be a good starting point.

572 L. Bizzozero Revelez

4 Contemporary Issues: The Ambivalent Image of Uruguayan Football

Uruguayan football has two very different identities. On the one side, fol­ lowing the fourth place achieved by Uruguay in the 2010 South African ^ World Cup, victory in the 2011 America Cup and more recently the under 17 and under 20 youth teams’ second places in youth World Cups, Uruguay has secured a good position in the FIFA ranking (FIFA 2017). These accom­ plishments, together with a generation of world-class players playing in the most important leagues (Sudrez played in The Netherlands and England before reaching Barcelona), have made football—a sport already in Uruguay’s culture—a Central piece of the Uruguay Brand. FootbaU helps ^ Uruguay strengthen its links with other countries and cultures. El Chino Alvaro Recoba’s reception at a football-soccer championship held in China' in 2016, and his disposition to aid the Uruguayan Government in expand­ ing its links with the People’s Republic of China, is a symptom of this new

reality (La Red21 2016). Uruguayan football’s positive international image has been strengthenea

by the fact that several players, including Cavani, Godfn and Suarez, are rec­ ognised among the world’s elite, and continuously appear'on the front paps of newspapers, television screens and other media. These players, together with many others, have helped to bring Uruguay back to football’s centre

On the other side, in the domestic scene, 2016 saw several infamous inci­ dents that represent the tip of the iceberg concerning Uruguayan fomballs current situation. These incidents' were the elections held at a neighbour­ hood club; deaths caused by confrontation between opposing fans; and the suspension of a match between Nadonal and Pefiarol. These episodes hint at football’s current problematic context and the nature of‘the challpges that lay ahead. However, these local incidents have links to a larger intelnat^onal situation, related to local and global business interests and FIFA’s role wijin the sport. This autonomous international organisation has allowed, for dec­ ades, all sort of illegal transactions, of which awareness has recently SurHced.

The close relationship between the firm that owns the television rights lor ^ the domestic and national team games, the Uruguayan Football Asspipon and several teams has perverted (significantly) the competition nself. Player deals (player purchase rights), player rights and the f transparency are all at stake. A clear example was the case of Club Aptito Cerro’s elections, were a local candidate won but was not recognised by the

Uruguay 57?

opposing postulant and his thugs, supported by Tenfield, the company hold­ ing the television rights of Uruguayan football. Tenfield guarantees the clubs operation but keeps' the club’s books- sealed from external auditing. Cerro’s elections-ended'up in a-second around of vodng, after threats and beatings to assure* nothing'changed;'with the authorities refraining'from' any interven­ tion (Montevideo Portal 2016):

Tie Idvel of iiAplirtity wfth vl^hicb Tenfield'arid several businessmen have acted’ iA Uruguay has'Teeif^shaken by two recent" events impacting from abroad:’the Investigation, separation'f^oiA office, and Ipdidment of several FIFA authorities, and the denunciation, made by several national team play­ ers, of Tenfield’s collection of player image, rights. The latter has had a sig­ nificant impact in Uruguay, due to the huge profit some businessmen have made from these rights (Nunez and Pujol 2016).

Since these accusations were made by players like Lugano, Suarez, Uodin, among others who share massive popular support and are respected in the football world, their iinpact has surpassed all expectations. Moreover, other things Sfarte^ t0 sprf3.ce, like Tenfield’s links with the Football Players Union (that represents football players’ interests), motivating hundreds of local footballers to sign.^ petition demanding the repipv^l of the representatives that “doji’t represent theip”, Thpugh this is .still a punning- process, several other sAspicious .situations, have started! to surface. The issues at-hand are so significant, that many players have mentioned the possibility of refusing to playfor thernaticmal team, in case spurious interests intervene, damaging the team (Ovacidn 2017).

Uruguay’s international image! contrasts with its doiAestic reality that has alienated rnSny*^ spectators from the focal' games. This situation should not last for long, since the clubs need the support'of their fans to. maintain their sponsors, especially in a small country where football is so significant. In Uruguay’s case, the imperativ;e to change has come fron^ the national team players and their .coach. They-have abandoned the idea of “winning whatever way ppssible”, and played with the traditional Uruguayan.tenadty (“g^rra” “garra charnia”) within the limits of ‘‘fair play”, taking Uruguay baqk to the top. Moreover,, thanks to the national . team players’ intervention, the issues of player rights and business interference in football have seen the light."The big clubs must necessarily address these issues if they do not wish to be left out fk»m the process of football globalisatibnl However local processes, insti­ tutional and social realities don’t necessarily go hand in hand with ihterna- tion^*developments. The violence experienced duilhg 2016 shows just that, exposing Uruguayan football’s bipolar reality, at least to the present day.

574 L. Bizzozero Revelez

Notes 1 Around those years the possibility that Vazquez could be named as AUFJ

^^dent was tangible. However. Uruguay’s then of the Colorado Party and linked to Peharol, opposed the idea of left-wi g nolitician reaching the summit of Uruguayan football leadership.

2 “Before accepting to coach Uruguay, Tabdrez demanded that his long-term pltct Se nitional team and its youth teams be approved. This pro^ naiied “Institutionalisation of the processes concerning the and the formation of players”, includes a diagnosis, the setting p J tives at national level, a calendar and even prescriptions regarding game strat-

’ egy and player training” (Pifieynia 2014).

References AW. Vico,, aod Gabriel Quirici. 2017. VioWda en el

„y. https://wv™.vaddnuevo.com.oy/ioaea.php/the-i,em/3810-JOO-»adenue,ooo ,

Aeee^d d Jaa 2017^ ^ ^ Agu.a,, M. 2014. WMen d ain»' y .„yac.on-aS.

U: 137-150. Moo.evideo. Biblioreca

2001.. PO^rd La ,ran,ul6a d, 1913 , la crnlin M decaaau,. Montevideo: Ediciones de la Pluma.

Alvarez 1.2010. Montevideo: Irilce. Arocena, F. 2009. La contribucidn de los inmigrantes en Uruguay, apees e

2009/2, Universidad d?l Pais Vasco, Espana. , j Baioi M. 2015. Loa 20 dube, coo mayo, canddad de aoe.o, del mundo. La

^ ^ Ummay M 900. Montevideo: EBO. woi' G 20B Sol L 1»3, f997, 2006, 2008 y 2013. ^cnesm dr Tndlis: <A qoito ceerie!. U Pafiblka. hop:«v™w.mpubl.ea.eom.uy/

Be,wrS^and”j*MUlM. 1990. Wittoria ecmbmica dd'Uruguay. Monon-ideo:'

"‘™Lmlo.cLia,ehlvo/dlcnmeo,oiCMS-14169495

Cabeila etal 2013. La poblacidn afro-uruguaya en el censo 20jl. , '

J. Calvo, Socio demogrdfico y de la desiguaUad f ^Luuri^n. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales. Universidad de la Republica.

Uruguay 575

Comision de Decanato. CNF. 1991. Informe sobre Decanato. https://nacionalsosel- decano.wordpress.com/9-conclusion/.

Ferndndez, N. 2016. Escindalo en Uruguay: el avance de las barras bravas, la clave de la suspensidn del cldsico Penarol-Nacional. La Nacidn, November 28. http:// www.lanacion.com.ar/l9604l9-escandalo-en-uruguay-el-clasico-entre-penarol-y- nacional-no-se-jugo-por-incidentes. Accessed 1 Oct 2017.

FIFA. 2017. Clasificacion Mundial FIFA. Uruguay, http://es.fifa.com/fihi-world- ranking/associations/association=uru/men/index.html. Accessed 1 Oct 2017.

Jalabert, L. 2016. Las participaciones europeas al Campeonato Mundial de Montevideo. Discordia, crisis y tensiones entre dos continentes de fdtbol. Montevideo: Museo del Futbol.

La Red21. 2016. Alvaro Recoba fue distinguido en China. Lot Red21, October 14. http://www.lr21.com.uy/deportes/1308173-alvaro-recoba-fue-distinguido-en- china. Accessed 1 Oct 2017.

Luzuriaga, J.C. 2009. El football del Novecientos. Origenes y desarrollo del futbol en el Uruguay (1875-1915). Montevideo: Taurus.

Luzuriaga, J.C. 2014. Nacional y Penarol en el Novecientos: orfgenes de la rivali- dad cldsica. Alfondo de la red. Cuaderno de Historia 14: 193-206. Montevideo: Biblioteca Nacional.

Magarinoz Pittaluga, J. 1942. Deljutbol heroico. Montevideo: Alfonso Ruiz y Cia. Montevideo Portal. 2016. |Que hable, Que Hable! Secretarfa de Deportes pidio a la

AUF informacion sobre elecciones en Cerro. Montevideo Portal, July 13. http:// www.montevideo.com.uy/Noticias/Secretaria-de-Deportes-pidio-a-la-AUF- informacion-sobre-elecciones-en-Cerro-uc314284. Accessed 1 Oct 2017.

Morales, F. 1969. FUtbol: mitoy realidad. Montevideo: NuestraTierra. Morales, A. 2014a. La identidad rioplatense y el futbol. Confraternidad y violencia

en el Cl^sico del Rfo de la Plata. A romper la red: Miradas sobre fitbol, cultura y sociedad. Cuaderno de Historia 14: 31-47. Montevideo: Biblioteca Nacional.

Morales, P. 2014b. El insulto como forma de violencia en los espectaculos depor- tivos. A romper la red: Miradas sobre fiitbol, cultura y sociedad. Cuaderno de Historia 14: 151-166. Montevideo: Biblioteca Nacional.

Nunez, B., and P. Pujol. 2016. La imagen no es nada. Brecha. November 25. Osaba, J. 2015- Barra de estudio. Lai Diaria, September 8. https://ladiaria.com.uy/

articulo/2015/9/barra-de-estudio/. Accessed 1 Oct 2017. Ovacidn. 2017. Lugano: Los derechos se arrancan. No se piden ni se mendigan.

Ovacidn Digital, February 5. http://-www.ovaciondigital.com.uy/futbol/luga- no-derechos-arrancan-piden-mendigan.html. Accessed 1 Oct 2017.

Pineyrua, R. 2014. Futboly otros deportes. Montevideo: Comision del Bicentenario. Reid Andrews, G. 2011. Negros en la Nacidn Blanca: historia de los afro-uruguayos.

1830—2010. Montevideo: Linardi y Risso. Thomas, B. 1994. Historia Econdmica de America Latinal. Mexico: FCE. Vdzquez, F. 2017- Especial. El ‘otro’ partido del siglo. Televisa Deportes, June 30.

http://deportes.televisa.com/futbol-internacional/especial-partido-del-siglo/. Accessed 1 Oct 2017.