Thuggishness and history

Today in the Journal Sam Walker has a piece about how calculated thuggishness and rule-breaking is rewarded. He specifically cites the instance of Real Madrid's Sergio Ramos taking down Liverpool's Mohammed Salah in the Champions League final, injuring the Egyptian's shoulder and taking him out of the game, part of what led to Real Madrid's 3-1 victory (on top of errors on the part of the Liverpudlian goalkeeper that are basically unforgivable at this level of soccer).

On his overall point, he is right. The decision on whether to adhere to or break rules is always and everywhere a risk-reward calculation. Almost everywhere and at almost all times, people are happy to go 67 in a 55 and the cops will let it go. Going 73 in a 55 is a different version of the same calculation.

But what Ramos did to Salah is different, for a variety of reasons. Salah is the greatest new star in the soccer firmament, a joy to watch, comparable only to Messi in his creativity (Christiano Ronaldo is different because he is taller and faster and his technical virtuosity is of a different type). So hurting him robs us all of a source of delight.

More importantly, Salah is Muslim, and he celebrates goals on the pitch with displays of Muslim devotion. Therefore, taking him down on the world stage -- as Ramos did -- will surely have been interpreted in terms of the Dar-al-Islam vs. Dar-al-Harb, or echos of the Reconquista, in many places where people gather around the Islamic world. Ramos is fucking Spanish, think about it. We don't need this kind of shit in a world where we are still trying to figure out how Judaeo-Christendom and the Islamic world can best coexist.

If you think that's stretching things, just consider that soccer is played with low scores and low margins for error. Every goal in major competitions is remembered by fans. Sergio Ramos is a great defender, but he is basically a thug in much of his game. He has been for a long time. This level of calculated cynicism debases the beautiful game.