Unforgettable Night at Old Trafford

"I'll never forget this night," Ronaldo Nazario Luiz Da Lima said as he commented on his fantastic hat-trick against Fabian Barthez at Old Trafford.

The night was April 23, 2003. Manchester United beat Spanish giants Real Madrid 4-3 in the Champions League quarterfinals. Unfortunately, the victory was not enough to bring Sir Alex Ferguson's squad qualify for the next round because, at Santiago Bernabeu, United defeated 1-3.

That night, United predicated as the richest club as well as the most popular in the world. This club is loved not only because the fairytale story of the 1999 Nou Camp is still in the collective memory of the fans, but also the presence of a football celebrity who in those years was so crazy in popularity. Yes, he was David Beckham.

On the opposite side is the second richest club in the world when it is a true galactico. They sparkle with Mercedes cars with engines as fast as Ferrari. The team was strong, tough, fast, powerful, yet elegant and stylish. The best combination of talents from all over the world. French ballet Zinedine Zidane, Luis Figo from Portugal, was powered by a branded machine called Claudio Makalele, and -this is the most important - they have a Brazilian striker. Not just a Brazilian striker, but the best Brazilian striker ever in his generation; Ronaldo.

No wonder then, English newspaper's headline emblazoned photo of both players. Beckham had indeed failed to carry his team cruised to the next round, but she scored twice as Manchester United beat the other galaxy club.

"I celebrate what I will remember as my best free kick (goals) during United uniform," Beckham said of one of his goals against Iker Casillas that night.

Two special goals, considering he was present as a substitute for Juan Sebastian Veron. The absence of Beckham since the starting line-up was swept up in the tragedy of the feud between "Beckham temple" with "Fergie shoes" sometime before. So, when Beckham played well that night, the issue of his move to Madrid, which became his opponent that night would be louder

On the other hand, Ronaldo not only scored a hat trick, he also gained tremendous respect from United's fans all over the corner of the stadium. The applause rumbled as long as Ronaldo left the game to be substituted, and Ronaldo replied to United's applause.

His appearance was truly remarkable; Although arguably 22 players who competed in the field also played in equally incredible ways, more credit points should be given to Il Phenomenon. Not just because he was a man of the match in this match, but he wiped out the skepticism that the squad that might be too good to be true by the Football Manager gamers around the world like that (before Ronaldo's arrival) could be contrived even crazier by the presence of a players who previously playing for the FC Internazionale Milano.

And among the spectators were present at the stadium, there was someone who missed the attention. A Billionaire who so enthralled by the game and increasingly unanimous decided to acquire one of the English football clubs thereafter. A decision that will not only change the face of English football but also Europe, even the world. He is Roman Abramovich. Someone other than Ronaldo, who felt that it was an unforgettable night at Old Trafford.

Selling The Image

The meetings between Russian oil Tycoon, Abramovich with Chelsea Chief Executive immediately arranged a few months later. The Chief Executive; Trevor Birch, even to not believe the billionaire negotiating so quickly without any haggling price. "I really not believe this is the real thing," said Birch.

The deal amounted to £140 million agreed less than 20 minutes. And in the next two months, the billionaire must drain his pocket again to overhaul his Chelsea squad to break the £ 100m figure. The price paid with the English League title two years later and indirectly triggered a massive change of power map of European football clubs next season.

It is not right to say that Abramovich was a pioneer in the relationship of a big businessman with a football club. Almost more than 20 years earlier there was Silvio Berlusconi with AC Milan who probably used a more extreme way than Abramovich did with Chelsea.

One thing is certain, Abramovich step was the birth of a trend for the world's billionaires to compete to buy or acquire football club. This trend can be seen with the changing constellation of the financial strength of clubs such as Manchester City, Paris Saint German (PSG), Internazionale Milano, even to small clubs such as Queen Park Ranger (QPR). The motives of these billionaires are not always directly proportional to business considerations. There are other aspects that follow. Could be a matter of images to the problems of the political world.

This kind of phenomenon was once conceived by Guy Debord, in his essay Commodity as Spectacle [2]. Debord says that a product (in this case football) does not have to meet basic needs for consumers. A product is considered successful if the consumer is satisfied-even if it does not have real commodity value at all. Let's say a supporter will be willing to pay whatever match ticket if it feels the game has a value to satisfy his passion, and this is the same pattern for these billionaires.

The image sold by a football club is indeed tempting. Therefore, Debord always emphasizes the importance of "spectacle" which means "showing" from producers to consumers. How then the match United against Madrid in the previous discussion is essentially a form of truthfully "spectacle" to Abramovich.

When Abramovich was in a position as a consumer (audience of the game), he was satisfied with what was shown. This Russian man wants to feel more by being a controller of such satisfaction. He wanted a remote to set up a fulfillment of himself. Because Abramovich clearly knew that not every game could be as interesting as what he was watching at the time. And by having control of a game (in this case the football club) Abramovich hopes to continue to satisfy his passion.

Distingsi and the Football Discourse Regime

What is sold by football or a football club is a commodity value that is sometimes difficult to value with definite numbers. On a more grounded level, we can take an example; Let's say a Juventini will feel higher in his social status if he has the original Juventus jersey. On the other hand, he also felt to have an "exclusive right" to sneer other Juventus Tifosi who can only afford to buy a unoriginal jersey.

This is the closest form of the "spectacle" that Debord targets. The economic ability of the Tifosi for being able to buy a "more" product from the people around it, makes it feel that it has a dominant feeling.

This kind of motive has in fact also been initiated by a slightly different spectacle by Pierre Bourdieu in Distinction: A Social Critique of The Judgment of Taste. A critical study that actually departs from the sentiments to the concept of aesthetics Immanuel Kant who saw that "art" is a noble, value-free, and free of interest.

For Bourdieu, Kant's "sublime" view is clearly bullshit. In Bourdieu's "distinction" concept; Every creature, intention, and work of man is a form of existence that leaves a trace of dominance over whoever accepts it. An original Jersey owner feels he is different (distinction) with another fan who can not afford to buy like himself. Here, the original Jersey owner feels superior, higher, or dominant. This sense of dominance is then legitimized because of the "truth-games" - borrowing the Nietsche language. And this is where the power discourse then plays.

Keep in mind, the concept of power discussed here is not the structure of political government or social groups. The power discussed here is not like a king or a fascist leader with his people. If we refer to power in the eyes of Michael Foucault, then we will realize that power is widespread. [3]

This kind of power is all around us, it is camouflaged in the form of books, television, magazines, newspapers, even science itself. Somewhat clever indeed, then I will try to simplify it. We can take the example of the football federation of the world, FIFA, with allotments of its World Cup participants.

Put it this way. In football at the international level of competition, we recognize that there is a difference quota for World Cup participants in accordance with the zone of football federation of each region. Europe 13 places, Asia 4 or 5 places, Africa 5 places, North America-Central-Caribbean can be 3 or 4 places, South America 4 or 5 places, and finally, Oceania gets 1 playoff spot.

For those of us who understand football, we will obviously judge that this is fair because Europe is the center of football, then obviously they have to "get" the most. South America is also so because the best talents of the footballer were born from the land.

The reason is quite reasonable and logical. But think again. Is the "football center" and "the best talent" created naturally, or is it a formation then rationalized in such a way that other nations of the little quota zone can not complain at all?

Now let's ask; Where is the justice if the continents are as big as Asia and Africa with more FIFA participating countries but getting so few places?

We can argue long about this. But one thing I want to emphasize here is how then the "truth concept" about football is held entirely by Europe and its surroundings (I call it "the surroundings" because South America also has almost the same voice dominance). That is, using a European perspective, it is enough to legitimize a "rule" that other countries must follow.

There are many cases that can illustrate the problem of "rationalization" that is often imposed on football practitioners. From the new rules about water break in the 2014 World Cup Brazil for example. It is clear that this rule is to accommodate the interests of players who are accustomed to playing in cold climates like in Europe. Or about the issue of replacement of the host rations or the 2022 World Cup schedule in Qatar because of the climate that is considered "unrepresentative" to play ball-only for players from Europe.

Consciously we agree on both of them because we feel football is a European product. So, of course, everything will be adjusted to the "creator". That is why Foucault asserts that power and science are inseparable unity because by mastering knowledge, he can approach rationally to other parties who disagree to then agree.

So obviously like Bourdie's idea in earlier discussion; That football and art are the same. Both are not noble, value-free, and free of interest as Kant's wishful thinking. The football that's been played in big stadiums, the sponsors who color it, the variety of television channels covering it, and the influential people behind it are not the same sport we dreamed of when we were kids and play in the fields or on the streets.

Being Different To Rule

In "truth-games" something that is perceived not to be included in the logic of domination will be called an alternative. This is common and happens everywhere around us. For example, we will mention; "Alternative medicine" to call a masseur. In this case, there is a medical regime and an educational regime that assumes that they are not mainstream so it deserves to be labeled with words; "alternative".

The funny thing is that in post-modern era it is now "alternative" is no longer regarded as a lowly or simply opposition from a power. In another perspective, being an alternative becomes a Bourdie-style disctinction. Yes, so the alternative even began to be considered sexy and different lately.

The phenomena that occur around us. How-for example-the proliferation of FC St. Pauli fans, the unknown club of Germany, West Ham United, after the movie Green Street Hooligan became popular, or the supporters of Nottingham Forrest, after the movie Damm United being popular, proves one thing: being different is cool because it makes us feel out of the uniform crowd.

This motif of different is born because since in the subconscious human beings are reluctant to be in uniform. Even if it may be said, in fact, every human being is reluctant to be regulated, controlled, and considered the same as the others. For though it is in the crowd, every human being wants to be regarded as "a group of individuals" rather than "a crowd".

This is what then makes a trend like "hipster football" was very popular among the Pandit (football-writer) lately. It is nothing; The word "hipster" is actually referring to the distinguished motifs ever initiated Bourdieu. He felt different, other, feeling out of the crowd of fellow Pandit, and clearly; He also felt dominant!

Starting from "being different", then it will be a new dominance in a different perspective. Well, that's what Abramovich did with his financial strength to Chelsea. The motive is "different" by acquiring the football club to then make it dominant in its image as a businessman who has a football club.

Unforgettable Night

At the end of the season after Mancester United's phenomenal match against Real Madrid in April 2003, Florentino Perez, President of Real Madrid, continues his dream of collecting the best players on earth. Utilizing David Beckham's feud with Sir Alex, Perez managed to get the United icon at a price of "only" 37.5 million Euro-a price that many observers consider too cheap.

Undergoing a career in Madrid, Beckham only dedicated a trophy La Liga Spain in 2006/2007 season which then also became his last season with Los Blancos. Even so, Beckham made Madrid shift United in the race for the richest club position in the world, through the sale of jersey on behalf of, merchandise, and of course its reputation-through sponsors who attended the world tour in pre-season games.

Beckham's presence did not have a significant change over the field. Why would you buy a Beckham if you already have Luis Figo in the same position? A better player, because in 2001 Figo made Beckham occupy the second position as the world's best player of the FIFA version (at that time Ballon D'or and FIFA World Player are still separated).

"Why add a layer of gold to a Bentley when you lose the engine?" Zinedine Zidane said a year later, insinuating the president's steps when "forced" bought Beckham-when the team did not really need it-but instead sold Claude Makelele.

The main engine of this Los Galacticos during the past few seasons perfectly runs the role of holding the midfielder. Makalele's role was not "wow", not glamorous, and-for sure-his face was not as good as Beckham's. But it was Makelele who willingly muddy to return all the counterattacks and control the midfield; When Zidane, Figo, or Ronaldo were too preoccupied with attack and a bit of a neglect to maintain balance.

Sometimes we will appreciate something when we lose; And when Makalele was "banished" to Chelsea a year after Beckham's arrival, Madrid suffered so much. Beckham was still playing well; But in a club like Real Madrid, playing well is not enough. You need to play fantastic each match. And this is a tough thing for Beckham - especially when he can not always play in his ideal position as a right winger.

At Chelsea, a club that was building the foundation to be-not just as a rich club, but also a big club. Jose Mourinho got "jackpot" when Makalele can be trafficked so easily to London.

What Florentino Perez did was unreasonable, but did Roman Abramovich do better? Not necessarily. Before getting Makalele, this Russian tycoon floped several times in player purchases; From Damien Duff, Hernan Crespo, to Adrian Mutu (who later stumbled on a drug case). Abramovich did get a really fit player; Petr Cech, Didier Drogba, Arjen Robben, to Joe Cole, but that happened after Chelsea made several failed attempts.

What is clear, the motif between the two was different. Perez, in his campaign as President of Real Madrid often promises fantastic things. For example Perez's political campaign in 2000, he bet could hijack Figo from Barcelona, ​​if it fails the season tickets for Madrid supporters will be free. And that promise, we all know, was well realized.

This phenomenon almost always happens when the club presidential campaign in Spain takes place. And as perennial competitor Madrid, Barcelona did not want to lose when Joan Laporta promised to bring Beckham to the Nou Camp in 2003. Perez who from the beginning want to create a club that accommodates all first class players on earth would be a shame if can't defeat Madrid. But, with all his strength, Madrid managed to beat Barcelona in the hunt of Beckham-Barcelona finally get a better buy: Ronaldinho from Paris Saint Germain.

For Madridista, Beckham's presence may be more important than the La Liga title or even the Champions League. Of course; We are talking about Real Madrid. The greatest club of the 20th century with the acquisition of so many domestic titles - albeit compared to its eternal competitors; Barcelona. Or the Champions League title (which still has nine titles) and was still three titles away from its closest competitor; AC Milan from Italy (still holding six titles at the time).

For Madrid, they've got everything about the title, but why were their global image still inferior to Manchester United from England which was only boosted by the tale of "Nou Camp 1999" and "Clash of '92"? This is a fact that does not make sense enough for Perez. United is like a sexy girl who contested by many sponsors, while Madrid; Just a rich widow who was glimpsed by her beauty in the past.

So that's where then the main needs of playing football are not important anymore for Madrid. This is no longer a matter of winning and the title. Perez and Madritista no longer need recognition as the most successful club, they need recognition as the most popular club and the richest club-for which they bought Beckham. And then the "spectacle" becomes the main axis of Perez in running the kingdom named Los Galacticos.

At the moment Madrid desperately to defeat the image of United globally, it turns out, on the other hand, Abramovich built a club with the massive budget to defeat United's dominance in the Premier League.

When Chelsea subsequently succeeded against United in the 2004/2005 season, Abramovich felt their mission had succeeded and started targeting to a higher caste: the Champions League (they finally won in 2012). Clubs that continue to try to align themselves with United and a little more like Madrid continues to make improvements without stopping. At the same time quietly become a reference another new billionaire.

Not just a reference to the title of the championship, the ability of the Blues Chelsea who have been able to independently deserve appreciated and made an example of. Since 2009, Chelsea has been able to make a profit for himself. A new club that initially had no champion history was able to grab nearly everything with a slowly built image. The image that Chelsea built through a trophy by a trophy.

A big club should have a great history. Madrid already have it, but its global image was subdued in United's hand at the turn of the 21st century millennium. So when Perez desperately rebuild the foundation of Los Galacticos spectacle by bringing Beckham, it was not really a mistake-but it was a necessity of entertainment.

And it all started since the unforgettable night at Old Trafford.