Tamir Bar-On

Contents About the Author vii Foreword viii Preface xvii Acknowledgements xviii Introduction 1 1 The ENR's Historical and Ideological Origins: The Right-Wing Roots 21 Ideological Origins: The Counter-Revolution Against 1789 23 The Post-War Years: Gradual ...

This is a strikingly original analysis of the imbalance of power at the heart of the peculiar relationship between the sovereign Israeli state and the quasi-autonomous Palestinian National Authority (PNA). Applying Foucauldian social theory to the Oslo Accords, Weinberger hears echoes of the ‘logics of rule’ underlying post-modern strategies of population control, as elucidated in the works of Gilles Deleuze and Michael Hardt. Rather than a recognition of Palestinian rights, Weinberger reads Oslo as an ill-fated attempt at what he calls ‘complex co-optation.’ Oslo’s Israeli architects, Weinberger argues, sought to incorporate the Palestinian leadership into a version of the ‘control society’ described by Deleuze, in which “forms of control are elusive and always changing’ – much like the Oslo-era map of the Occupied Territories, and the deployments of Israeli forces and restrictions of Palestinian movement within them. (p. 35) The late Edward Said criticized Oslo as co-optation, and many have since followed his lead. What is distinctive about Weinberger’s account is that rather than attributing the asymmetry of Oslo to some essentialized portrait of Israelis, he concentrates on the modes of power deployed, evoking wider socio-historical processes at work in our era. The result is a rare analysis of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict whose theoretical implications transcend the typical blame game. Oslo, in Weinberger’s reading, represents an attempt to import ‘modulatory’ technologies of governance from the post-industrial West to the occupied West Bank. Weinberger explains complex co-optation as a strategy of incorporating subaltern classes into oppressive systems without meaningfully altering relations of domination. He draws parallels between the diminishing returns of the Israeli/Palestinian interim negotiations and the ‘gradually diminishing forms of empowerment’ proffered by control societies: (pp. 45-46)

In this paper, I argue that the Alt-Right needs to be taken seriously by the liberal establishment, the general public, and leftist cultural elites for five main reasons: 1) its ‘right-wing Gramscianism’ borrows from the French New Right ( Nouvelle Droite – ND) and the French and pan-European Identitarian movement. This means that it is engaged in the continuation of a larger Euro-American metapolitical struggle to change hearts and minds on issues related to white nationalism, anti-Semitism, and racialism; 2) it is indebted to the metapolitical evolution of sectors of the violent neo-Nazi and earlier white nationalist movements in the USA; 3) this metapolitical orientation uses the mass media, the internet, and social media in general to reach and influence the masses of Americans; 4) the ‘cultural war’ means that the Alt-Right’s spokesman Richard Spencer, French ND leader Alain de Benoist, and other intellectuals see themselves as a type of Leninist vanguard on the radical right, which borrows from left-wing authors such as Antonio Gramsci and their positions in order to win the metapolitical struggle against ‘dominant’ liberal and left-wing political and cultural elites; and 5) this ‘cultural war’ is intellectually and philosophically sophisticated because it understands the crucial role of culture in destabilizing liberal society and makes use of important philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Carl Schmitt, Julius Evola and others in order to give credence to its revolutionary, racialist, and anti-liberal ideals.

“Intellectual Right-Wing Extremism: Alain de Benoist’s Mazeway Resynthesis Since 2000,” in Uwe Backes and Patrick Moreau (eds.), The Extreme Right in Europe: Current Trends and Perspectives (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), pp. 333-358.

Abstract In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the French nouvelle droite under its doyen Alain de Benoist claimed that it had made a political 'conversion'from the revolutionary Right (or conservative revolutionary) milieu to 'democracy'and that it had created a 'post‐fascist' ...

ABSTRACT Series: Extremism and Democracy This book focuses on the philosophy, politics and impact of the 'New Right' which originated in France and has since influenced activism, ideology and policy in a number of European countries. This book explores the idea that revolutionaries do not necessarily need to come from the left, nor use arms in order to overturn liberal democracy. In the post-World War Two era, the extremists of the revolutionary right took three different paths: 1) parliamentary; 2) extra-parliamentary; and 3) metapolitical. The New Right (nouvelle droite – ND in France) took the metapolitical path, but that did not mean it abandoned its revolutionary desire to smash liberal democracy throughout Europe. The book examines four interpretations of the New Right. These interpretations include the following: 1) The New Right as a fascist or quasi-fascist movement; 2) The New Right as a challenge to the traditional right-left dichotomy, which has structured European political debates for more than 200 years; 3) The New Right as an alternative modernist movement, which rejects liberal and socialist narratives of modernity; accepts the technical but not political or cultural effects of modernity; and longs for a pan-European political framework abolishing liberal multiculturalism and privileging ethnic dominance of so-called original Europeans; and 4) The New Right as a variant of political religion and conversionary processes. The book concludes by analysing the positions, cultural and political impact, and relationship to democracy of the New Right. This work will be of great interest to students and scholars of racism, fascism, extremism, European politics, French politics and contemporary political theory.

ABSTRACT French New Right (nouvelle droite—ND) intellectual leader Alain de Benoist commented on my article entitled “The French New Right: Neither Right, nor Left?” This piece is a response to “Alain de Benoist Answers Tamir Bar-On.” The purpose of this response is fourfold: (1) to highlight my main arguments about the ND; (2) to set the record straight by showing numerous examples of de Benoist’s attempts to discredit my works through lies, ad hominem attacks, selective citations, and reductionism—or the attempt to explain my works away by not examining all my texts carefully and claiming that the researcher is illogical, irrational, or a mere polemicist with a political axe to grind; (3) to respond to the numerous false claims de Benoist makes in his piece, including his deep cultural biases and superficial arguments based on passions rather than evenhandedness and logical clarity; and (4) to situate ND intellectuals as “reactionary forces,” in the sense highlighted by Antonio Gramsci, who are not wedded to a progressive project. Let me begin with some general comments about de Benoist’s piece. While de Benoist was supposed to respond to my aforementioned piece, he in fact responded to all my works on the ND. His response ignored my main insights with respect to the ND, which can be found in two books, numerous peer-reviewed pieces, and several articles in books. The irony is that de Benoist claims to rail against “all forms of reductionism,” yet he interprets my texts in a purely negative and reductionist manner. He privileges his fame, authority, and style above a careful, even-handed, and substantive analysis of my texts. Does he ever ask why some scholars without any links to any political movements or parties, including this author, continue to interpret ND texts in a manner that links its thinkers to fascism, or to a new variant of “cultural racism”? So, for example, in a 2013 piece in an edited collection entitled Analyzing Fascist Discourse: European Fascism in Talk and Text, the French scholar Brigitte Beauzamy argues that the ND engages in what Stephen Reyna called “dazzling theory,” which is “formulated at a high level of abstraction” and incorporates “pompous formulations and a large variety of references, including to some extreme-left theory (‘rightist Gramscism’) to produce a racial argument dressed in a highly complex fashion—a ‘high culture’ version of fascist arguments.” Or, the Israeli political scientist Alberto Spektorowski correctly saw through the ND’s embrace of cultural ethnopluralism: “It sets a new basis for organic identification, deeper and more authentic than the nation-state, and is the most propitious framework for the raising of populist anti-liberal elites. It justifies segregation of foreigners, however, with clean hands, and sets the intellectual basis for a new European union, anti-liberal, and culturally homogeneous [my emphasis].” As Roland Axtmann argued in relation to GRECE, the key ND think tank, “The flipside of [GRECE’s position] is the claim that … differences have to be preserved at all cost: they must be cultivated, developed and defended against any attempt to abolish them. As a result, this particular version of the right to difference is organized around a ‘mixophobic’ core: it is ‘haunted’ by the threat of the destruction of identities through interbreeding—physical and cultural crossbreeding.” Thus, while de Benoist and the ND deny that they are racist or fascist, numerous intellectuals differ with their claims. De Benoist mocks me throughout the piece on practically every page, which highlights his poor intellectual arguments based on ad hominem attacks and his failure to debate an academic opponent with honor and a modicum of respect. His approach is shameful and here is a just a sample of this approach: 1. My works are explained as “a modern form of sophistry,” although he is kind to compare my works to “the eristic dialectics of Schopenhauer.” 2. In reference to my Where Have All the Fascists Gone? he writes, “a ridiculous title.” 3. He condescendingly asserts: “He does not know very much about the history of ideas.” 4. In reference to my 13 trends and events contributing toward a more right-wing European political culture in the 1990s highlighted in my...

ABSTRACT The world's most popular sport, soccer is a global and cultural phenomenon. The television audience for the 2010 World Cup included nearly half of the world's population, with viewers in nearly every country. As a reflection of soccer's significance, the sport impacts countless aspects of the world's culture, from politics and religion to business and the arts. In The World through Soccer: The Cultural Impact of a Global Sport, Tamir Bar-On utilizes soccer to provide insights into worldwide politics, religion, ethics, marketing, business, leadership, philosophy, and the arts. Bar-On examines the ways in which soccer influences and reflects these aspects of society, and vice versa. Each chapter features representative players, providing specific examples of how soccer comments on and informs our lives. These players—selected from a wide array of eras, countries,, and many others. Employing a unique lens to view a variety of topics, The World through Soccer reveals the sport's profound cultural impact. Combining philosophical, popular, and academic insights about our world, this book is aimed at both soccer fans and academics, offering readers a new perspective into a sport that affects millions.

Con frecuencia asumimos que el antiimperialismo y el anticolonialismo están relacionados con legados ideológicos del liberalismo o de la izquierda. Después de todo, numerosos pensadores, movimientos y regímenes de la derecha radical apoyaron el imperialismo y el colonialismo. No obstante, este artículo analiza y aporta ejemplos de una gran diversidad de intelectuales y movimientos de la derecha radical de todo el mundo y en distintas épocas históricas que han sostenido posturas antiimperialistas y anticolonialistas. Asimismo, propone una categorización que resume las principales posturas antiimperialistas de la derecha radical, distinguiendo entre «antiimperialismo principalista», «antiimperialismo oportunista» y «antiimperialismo imperialista », a fin de evidenciar las similitudes y las diferencias entre dichas categorías. Se concluye, sin embargo, que esta clasificación se debería entender como un punto de partida para el debate y complementar con futuras investigaciones.

In this paper, I argue that the Alt-Right needs to be taken seriously by the liberal establishment, the general public, and leftist cultural elites for five main reasons: 1) its ‘right-wing Gramscianism’ borrows from the French New Right ( Nouvelle Droite – ND) and the French and pan-European Identitarian movement. This means that it is engaged in the continuation of a larger Euro-American metapolitical struggle to change hearts and minds on issues related to white nationalism, anti-Semitism, and racialism; 2) it is indebted to the metapolitical evolution of sectors of the violent neo-Nazi and earlier white nationalist movements in the USA; 3) this metapolitical orientation uses the mass media, the internet, and social media in general to reach and influence the masses of Americans; 4) the ‘cultural war’ means that the Alt-Right’s spokesman Richard Spencer, French ND leader Alain de Benoist, and other intellectuals see themselves as a type of Leninist vanguard on the radical right, ...

Contents About the Author vii Foreword viii Preface xvii Acknowledgements xviii Introduction 1 1 The ENR's Historical and Ideological Origins: The Right-Wing Roots 21 Ideological Origins: The Counter-Revolution Against 1789 23 The Post-War Years: Gradual ...

Well before the far-right resurgence that has most recently transformed European politics, Austria’s 1999 parliamentary elections surprised the world with the unexpected success of the Freedom Party of Austria and its charismatic leader, Jörg Haider. The party’s perceived xenophobia, isolationism, and unabashed nationalism in turn inspired a massive protest movement that expressed opposition not only through street protests but also in novels, plays, films, and music. Through careful readings of this varied cultural output, The Art of Resistance traces the aesthetic styles and strategies deployed during this time, providing critical context for understanding modern Austrian history as well as the European protest movements of today.

FIFA was created in Zurich in 1904 in order to oversee international football competitions among eight European states. The fact that FIFA was created by eight European states at the turn of the twentieth century is significant. The geopolitical context of the period is important for understanding FIFA’s pro-colonialist roots. With the exception of Switzerland, all the founding countries of FIFA were colonial powers. FIFA’s foundation coincided with the birth of the study of geopolitics and the perpetuation of control of territories and populations into the twentieth century. These pro-colonial foundations of FIFA are relevant because it would be European powers that originally controlled global football and also sought to block rival countries from other regions within the organization’s power structures. Europeans controlled FIFA through the selection of World Cup places that favoured Europeans. In addition, former colonial powers or ‘historically ‘aggressive racialized states’ have won all World Cup competitions.

In this paper, I examine soccer, sovereignty and the state of exception. The paper is a pedagogical tool for undergraduate students in order for them to learn about sovereignty and the ‘state of exception’ through soccer, the world’s most popular sport. I begin by examining differing conceptions of sovereignty and the state of exception. I then highlight the fate of soccer under various states of exception. I focus on Pinochet’s Chile, but also provide examples from the Argentinean military junta, Nazi Germany and El-Sisi’s Egypt. I then reflect about soccer, sovereignty, and the state of exception in relation to Fédération Internationale de Football Association. I offer concluding remarks about soccer and states of exception. I argue that states of exception are in theory opportunities for change because they expose the naked aggression of states, but in practice they represent a danger for soccer players, fans and democracy.

In this paper, I examine the dominant discourses surrounding the role of soccer in human societies and the international arena. Following Gearóid Ó Tuathail, I argue that there are three types of geopolitical discourses related to soccer: those diffused by intellectuals, states and popular manifestations of geopolitics in civil society. I highlight three prevalent discourses in relation to soccer propagated by intellectuals, states and within civil society, which I call the Soccer War discourse, the Nobel Prize discourse and the Gramscian discourse. I trace the importance of soccer by highlighting how it triggered a Soccer War between two poor central American nations; how it was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize; and demonstrate how it can both support dictators and the status quo, yet also engender movements for popular social transformation (the Gramscian discourse).

ABSTRACT French New Right (nouvelle droite—ND) intellectual leader Alain de Benoist commented on my article entitled “The French New Right: Neither Right, nor Left?” This piece is a response to “Alain de Benoist Answers Tamir Bar-On.” The purpose of this response is fourfold: (1) to highlight my main arguments about the ND; (2) to set the record straight by showing numerous examples of de Benoist’s attempts to discredit my works through lies, ad hominem attacks, selective citations, and reductionism—or the attempt to explain my works away by not examining all my texts carefully and claiming that the researcher is illogical, irrational, or a mere polemicist with a political axe to grind; (3) to respond to the numerous false claims de Benoist makes in his piece, including his deep cultural biases and superficial arguments based on passions rather than evenhandedness and logical clarity; and (4) to situate ND intellectuals as “reactionary forces,” in the sense highlighted by Antonio Gramsci, who are not wedded to a progressive project. Let me begin with some general comments about de Benoist’s piece. While de Benoist was supposed to respond to my aforementioned piece, he in fact responded to all my works on the ND. His response ignored my main insights with respect to the ND, which can be found in two books, numerous peer-reviewed pieces, and several articles in books. The irony is that de Benoist claims to rail against “all forms of reductionism,” yet he interprets my texts in a purely negative and reductionist manner. He privileges his fame, authority, and style above a careful, even-handed, and substantive analysis of my texts. Does he ever ask why some scholars without any links to any political movements or parties, including this author, continue to interpret ND texts in a manner that links its thinkers to fascism, or to a new variant of “cultural racism”? So, for example, in a 2013 piece in an edited collection entitled Analyzing Fascist Discourse: European Fascism in Talk and Text, the French scholar Brigitte Beauzamy argues that the ND engages in what Stephen Reyna called “dazzling theory,” which is “formulated at a high level of abstraction” and incorporates “pompous formulations and a large variety of references, including to some extreme-left theory (‘rightist Gramscism’) to produce a racial argument dressed in a highly complex fashion—a ‘high culture’ version of fascist arguments.” Or, the Israeli political scientist Alberto Spektorowski correctly saw through the ND’s embrace of cultural ethnopluralism: “It sets a new basis for organic identification, deeper and more authentic than the nation-state, and is the most propitious framework for the raising of populist anti-liberal elites. It justifies segregation of foreigners, however, with clean hands, and sets the intellectual basis for a new European union, anti-liberal, and culturally homogeneous [my emphasis].” As Roland Axtmann argued in relation to GRECE, the key ND think tank, “The flipside of [GRECE’s position] is the claim that … differences have to be preserved at all cost: they must be cultivated, developed and defended against any attempt to abolish them. As a result, this particular version of the right to difference is organized around a ‘mixophobic’ core: it is ‘haunted’ by the threat of the destruction of identities through interbreeding—physical and cultural crossbreeding.” Thus, while de Benoist and the ND deny that they are racist or fascist, numerous intellectuals differ with their claims. De Benoist mocks me throughout the piece on practically every page, which highlights his poor intellectual arguments based on ad hominem attacks and his failure to debate an academic opponent with honor and a modicum of respect. His approach is shameful and here is a just a sample of this approach: 1. My works are explained as “a modern form of sophistry,” although he is kind to compare my works to “the eristic dialectics of Schopenhauer.” 2. In reference to my Where Have All the Fascists Gone? he writes, “a ridiculous title.” 3. He condescendingly asserts: “He does not know very much about the history of ideas.” 4. In reference to my 13 trends and events contributing toward a more right-wing European political culture in the 1990s highlighted in my...

The world's most popular sport, soccer is a global and cultural phenomenon. The television audience for the 2010 World Cup included nearly half of the world's population, with viewers in nearly every country. As a reflection of soccer's significance, the sport impacts countless aspects of the world's culture, from politics and religion to business and the arts. In The World through Soccer: The Cultural Impact of a Global Sport, Tamir Bar-On utilizes soccer to provide insights into worldwide politics, religion, ethics, marketing, business, leadership, philosophy, and the arts. Bar-On examines the ways in which soccer influences and reflects these aspects of society, and vice versa. Each chapter features representative players, providing specific examples of how soccer comments on and informs our lives. These players—selected from a wide array of eras, countries,, and many others. Employing a unique lens to view a variety of topics, The World through Soccer reveals the...

ABSTRACT Born in 1968, the French Nouvelle Droite (ND) is a 'cultural school of thought'. It created a sophisticated European-wide political culture of the revolutionary right in an anti-fascist age; it helped to nurture the discourse of 'political correctness' among extreme right ...

Introduction 1. The French New Right's transnationalism 2. Neither right, nor left? 3. Modern, postmodern, premodern 4. The search for alternative modernity 5. The quest for a new religion of politics 6. 'Europe for Europeans' 7. Analyzing the New Right for the Year 2000 8. Three key messengers 9. Ties to radical right populist parties Conclusion

This chapter discusses the life and work of Richard B. Spencer, the president of the National Policy Institute, a US white-nationalist think tank. A few weeks after the 2016 presidential election, at a National Policy Institute conference, Spencer famously called “Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!” and some of his supporters gave the Nazi salute. Spencer is self-described as an identitarian, and is the inventor of the term “Alt Right,” which he coined to differentiate his views from mainstream American conservatism. Spencer is the leading communicator of the Alt Right message rather than its leading intellectual. He has found his niche as Alt Right provocateur and media spokesman. The mass media line up to interview him, and university students are listening to his message.

This chapter argues that nationalism is the master concept of the radical right. It posits that the radical right’s nationalism is different from that of the mainstream right in its radicalism (or far-reaching and fundamental nature), its obsession with the dominance of the main ethnic group, and its longing for homogeneous nations and states. In addition, this nationalism is often populist in tone; it is indebted to direct rather than representative variants of democracy; and in some cases it is ambiguous about its relationship to fascism, Nazism, collaborationist regimes, or the Holocaust. In short, without ethnic nationalism as its master concept, the radical right’s thinkers, political parties, and movements would lack a stable anchor.

This is the third article in our series Trouble on the­ Far-Right. I am the author of two books about the French nouvelle droite (ND – New Right): Where Have All The Fascists Gone? and Rethinking the French New Right: Alternatives to modernity. In 2014, I published a piece entitled „The French New Right Neither Right, nor Left?“. Surprisingly, the French ND leader Alain de Benoist responded with a polemical and largely ad hominem article in the same journal.1 I must stress that I neither identify with a political party, nor a political movement. I do not support any ideological current. De Benoist does. He is self-described as a man of the right. Hence, he cannot even claim intellectual objectivity. In this piece, I want to offer some comments on my debate with de Benoist. I argue that while we should strive towards intellectual objectivity, we cannot be silent in the face of falsehoods. In this respect, the ND plays a dishonest game. Its leader and other ND intellectuals feign inte...

In 2009 the Argentine government of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner created Fútbol para Todos (Soccer for All), a programme that led to a policy of direct state intervention in the acquisition of government television rights for the transmission of soccer matches throughout Argentina. Does Fútbol para Todos serve as a tool for the democratization of Argentinean society, a strategy for populist legitimization, or as an embodiment of quasi-authoritarianism? Successive Argentine governments have politicized soccer. Fútbol para Todos has served as a tool for populist legitimization, but also as a strategy designed to legitimize state interference in a historically private domain, promote government propaganda through a new state monopoly, and strengthen governance processes through popular approval under the ambit of the ‘democratization’ slogan. Fútbol para Todos thus aims to use the state as an agent in the construction of better governance processes for all, but it also reinforces the...

With the dramatic rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, we witnessed the revival of the Islamism-fascism comparison. This paper begins with a short history of the Islamism-fascism comparison. It then argues that both Islamism and fascism are coherent political ideologies. The author proposes a four-fold typology of different discourses in respect of the Islamism-fascism comparison, which are called ‘Thou shall not compare’, ‘Islamofascism’, ‘Islamofascism as epithet’, and ‘Dare to compare’. It’s concluded that we should compare Islamism and fascism, but that the two ideologies are distinctive, totalitarian ideologies. Clerical fascism is the closest ideologically to Islamism, although it is also a distinctive political ideology.

“Intellectual Right-Wing Extremism: Alain de Benoist’s Mazeway Resynthesis Since 2000,” in Uwe Backes and Patrick Moreau (eds.), The Extreme Right in Europe: Current Trends and Perspectives (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), pp. 333-358.

Led by Alain de Benoist (b. 1943), the French nouvelle droite (ND—New Right) is a school of thought that was created in 1968 and saw its intellectual and political apogee in the France of the late 1970s. The ND focused on the cultural terrain to differentiate itself from extreme right-wing political parties and ultranationalist terrorist movements. Second, the ND valorizes an illiberal, pagan political legacy, which is antagonistic to counterrevolutionary, conservative, and Anglo-American (neoliberal) right-wing traditions, and uneasy about fascism. It was accused of "fascism with a human face" by elements of the liberal-left intelligentsia in France in two mass media "storms" in 1979 and 1993. Third, the ND's ideological syncretism and its antiliberal and anticapitalist "leftist" drift beginning in the 1980s puzzled political commentators. Yet, using Norberto Bobbio's inequality-equality schism to position right and left, ND thinkers are more o...

The Nouvelle Droite (ND; New Right) is a unique school of thought within the landscape of the French radical right. Because of its relative longevity (it was born in January 1968, although it was not yet known by that name), it has undergone several changes and renewals of its doctrine. The ND is considered by many observers as fundamentally pagan because it rejects the monotheistic legacy of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Yet in the latter half the 1970s and early 1980s the ND virulently rejected positivism and Westernization, while some of its tendencies posited a Traditionalist worldview, which is holistic and antimodern. The ND's Traditionalism is a radical contestation of modernity, in the sense that its adherents seek to destroy the political and social model born from this modernity, with the will to rebuild a traditional and organic society inspired by antique, ancient and medieval European societies and also by acknowledged traditional societies such as Indian ones or t...

The subject of this dissertation is the intellectual European New Right (ENR), also known as the nouvelle droite. A cultural "school of thought" with origins in the revolutionary Right and neo-fascist milieus, the nouvelle droite was born in France in 1968, the year of the ...

The world’s most popular sport, soccer is a global and cultural phenomenon. The television audience for the 2010 World Cup included nearly half of the world’s population, with viewers in nearly every country. As a reflection of soccer’s significance, the sport impacts countless aspects of the world’s culture, from politics and religion to business and the arts.

In The World through Soccer: The Cultural Impact of a Global Sport, Tamir Bar-On utilizes soccer to provide insights into worldwide politics, religion, ethics, marketing, business, leadership, philosophy, and the arts. Bar-On examines the ways in which soccer influences and reflects these aspects of society, and vice versa. Each chapter features representative players, providing specific examples of how soccer comments on and informs our lives. These players—selected from a wide array of eras, countries, and backgrounds—include Diego Maradona, Pelé, Hugo Sánchez, Cha Bum-Kun, Roger Milla, José Luis Chilavert, Zinedine Zidane, Paolo Maldini, Cristiano Ronaldo, Xavi, Neymar, Clint Dempsey, Mia Hamm, and many others.

Employing a unique lens to view a variety of topics, The World through Soccer reveals the sport’s profound cultural impact. Combining philosophical, popular, and academic insights about our world, this book is aimed at both soccer fans and academics, offering readers a new perspective into a sport that affects millions.