Soccer is much more than a sport. As we sociologists like to say, it is a “complete social occurrence,” able to capture the complexity and dilemmas of any given era. For this reason, at a time when dissatisfaction with democracy is so extended throughout the hemisphere that even new forms of citizen participation have not been able to legimitize it again, it is necessary to question those social practices that accompany the performance of political institutions. It is thus worthwhile to take a look at the relationship between soccer clubs and democracy, since these clubs are privileged spaces in which to observe the associative life and political culture dominant within a society.

 

It is true that some clubs emblematic of the region have been transformed into corporations (S.A.) to participate in the globalized soccer industry, but a large number of professional clubs have not done so. Morevoer, most clubs in the region are purely local in nature rather than professional, with different levels of institutionalization, but with great impact on the life of the community. In practically any corner of the continent, clubs compete on the soccer field, whether to settle local rivalries or to experience the politics of everyday life.

 

In their original form, the clubs are voluntary associations of individuals who get together from time to time to play soccer. These clubs are part of the organizational fabric of civil society, although not often recognized as such. As Alexis de Tocqueville points out in his classic Democracy in America (1835 and 1840), the civic associations citizens create, for whatever reasons, have an enormous impact on the development of a democratic culture capable of sustaining and giving legitimacy to political institutions. Focusing more on citizens’ social practices than on the bureaucratic operation of political institutions, Tocqueville makes the argument that civic associations encourage the free participation of citizens in matters of collective interest (in this case, sports), develop habits of sociability based on discussion and respect for agreements, and strengthen learning about democratic electoral procedures and rules. Following this line of argument, Robert Putnam and Sidney Verba argue that the civic traditions that are nurtured in these civic associations have a formative impact on the attitude of citizens towards the political system. In other words, civic associations can be spaces for democratic practice—as these authors suggest—as well as spaces that reflect the participants’ limitations and challenges.

 

The concept of the club as a sports association began in Europe in the 20th century. As sociologist Norbert Elías notes, it is quite significant that the term “club” was adopted by French revolutionaries in the 18th century, when they desired to claim the political right to free association, a right absent in the previous feudal and autocratic regimes. The modern sports clubs also played an important role in the transformation of soccer from a series of leisure activities or games to the sport it is today, particularly in the creation of rules and institutions that regulate its practice and abide by the democratic principle of competing on equal terms.

 

At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, soccer clubs began to proliferate in the ports and poor neighborhoods of the principal Latin American cities, giving a sense of belonging and identity to immigrants, factory and dock workers, students and enthusiastic neighbors. Historian Brenda Elsey describes how, for example, between 1948 and 1960, some soccer clubs were means of politicization and radicalization in Santiago’s working-class neighborhoods. Members and players of these clubs criticized class inequality and constructed an ideal of “more honorable” masculinity that combined physical strength, solidarity with fellow workers and militancy in the socialist and communist parties (Brenda Elsey, “The Independent Republic of Football: The Politics of Neighborhood Clubs in Santiago, Chile, 1948-1960,” Journal of Social History, Spring 2009).

 At the present time, the most important soccer clubs in Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay have thousands of members; they are institutions that offer a wide range of services and are considered to be very important economic and social actors. In the recently published “The Democratic Dribbler: Football Clubs, Neoliberal Globalization, and Buenos Aires’ Municipal Election of 2003” (Public Culture 19, Duke University Press), sociologist Carlos Forment shows that in Argentina soccer clubs are the largest and most widespread civil associations in the country, providing elements of identification and social differentiation to the majority of the population. These clubs play two contradictory roles, however. On the one hand, they promote civic and democratic practices among their many members by electing club leaders through electoral processes in which several lists compete. But, on the other hand, their internal disputes legitimate an authoritarian and strongman—caudillo—culture. These disputes are often violent, and the clubs use free tickets to manipulate violent fans, the so-called barras bravas—organized groups of vocal supporters.

 

The situation is equally disheartening in Colombia, Perú, Paraguay and Bolivia, where the clubs with the greatest number of followers can hardly be considered spaces or “schools” to learn about democracy. On the contrary, they are institutionally weak associations with little incentive to stimulate the associative life; caudillo politics, secrecy and arbitrariness dominate in the administration of resources and in the decision-making process. At the same time, these clubs are facing economic bankruptcy while accusations of corruption and tax evasion are aired from time to time in the media. In other words, in the internal life of the principal soccer clubs, anti-democratic values and behavior are actually fomenting a type of “uncivil society”—values that
unfortunately are also present in the wider society, political parties and the state.

 

Dramatic examples of this situation are the Peruvian soccer clubs Alianza Lima and Universitario. Both boast millions of followers, but have only a little more than a thousand members; of these only a minority participated in the last elections. The small number of members in relation to its popular backing results in a closed club, with very high entrance fees that put off fans in spite of the fact that both clubs are associated with the grassroots. This leads to a vicious cycle, in which well-intentioned fans or reformers avoided greater participation due to existing corruption and lack of incentives.

 

 Clearly, there is not much interest in democratizing the clubs or expanding their membership base, since this would put an end to the small groups or clans. The scant institutional life, moreover, is dominated by a factionalism that impedes the construction of horizontal bonds that would result in a democratic outcome. Instead, conflictive relations, imposition, and the arbitrary and untransparent use of power predominate. In this context, clubs often are seen by some adventurers as the means to gain celebrity, be recognized by public opinion and eventually move into a political career or business success. This is the case of club leaders transformed into congressmen and mayors. Instead of  being spaces to practice and learn democracy, these clubs have reproduced social authoritarianism and archaic strongmen.

 

If this has happened within soccer clubs and other associations of civil society, perhaps it is not strange that democracy is fragile and does not count on citizen loyalty, as polls and studies show, such as those done by the United Nations Development Programme. Democracy is not just a group of institutions and rules, but above all, habits, practices and values that have been firmly internalized. To the degree to which citizens lack spaces in which to learn and practice democratic ideals, democracy will be more of an aspiration than a reality. Soccer clubs, above all other local organizations, can help create the practices and habits that build strong citizens to nourish our democracies.