As Patrice Evra stormed from the training pitch and his teammates hid behind the curtains of their team bus, winning the World Cup seemed a very long way away. Any semblance of togetherness had evaporated – not for the first time. France have long been blessed with talent but rarely harmony, as shown by the debacle in South Africa in 2010. Didier Deschamps recognised this when he came into the job in 2012 and, throughout his six years in charge, he has placed the importance of squad harmony above nearly everything else. Anyone who threatens that unity is cast out immediately. France have won the World Cup because of their talent but also because Deschamps’ devotion to spirit has allowed their talent to flourish.
France’s trip to South Africa in 2010 was catastrophic. Florent Malouda was left out of the drab, goalless opener with Uruguay after he had squared up to the obdurate and often incomprehensible coach Raymond Domenech; the French Football Federation expelled Nicolas Anelka after he refused to apologise to his manager, having verbally abused him at half-time in the 2-0 defeat to Mexico; and hundreds of fans watched at an open training session as Evra came close to blows with fitness coach Robert Duverne and the squad refused to leave the bus in protest. It ended in farce, with Domenech bizarrely reading a statement from the players to the press outlining their fury at how Anelka had been treatment.
Domenech, already scheduled to move on after the tournament, left behind a fragmented and fractious group. The scandal transcended football and became a national disgrace. When Laurent Blanc took charge post-South Africa, he dropped every member of that 23-man World Cup squad for his first game in charge, a 2-1 defeat in Norway, as a largely symbolic punishment.
Although France eventually qualified for Euro 2012 comfortably, French football’s self-destructive streak wasn’t far away. In a meeting with the FFF hierarchy in 2011, Blanc was surreptitiously recorded making comments that were interpreted as being somewhere between clumsy and racist. Blanc appeared to bemoan academies in France for focusing on young players with strength and speed rather than technique and intelligence while asserting that these players tended to be black.
“They really train the same prototype of players: big, strong, powerful,” said Blanc. “What is there that is currently big, strong, powerful? The blacks. That’s the way it is. It’s a current fact. God knows that in the training centres and football schools there are loads of them.” The implication was that black players are supposedly physically superior but mentally inferior, although Blanc was “outraged” by that interpretation. Blanc’s comments fed into a political climate tinged by anti-immigration rhetoric and long-running issues of race surrounding the national side.
In contrast, the 1998 World Cup winners were seen as a unifying force
in truly representing France’s broad ethnicity, a team that was often
referred as “Black-Blanc-Beur” (Black-White-Arab). Didier Deschamps, the
captain of the 1998 team, took over from Blanc after the team’s
underwhelming exit from Euro 2012 at the quarter-finals. Central to his
handling of the team has been maintaining unity and banishing any notion
that the squad could become cliquey or divided. The continued exile of
Karim Benzema is the most obvious example.
Surprise in England at the exclusion of Premier League-based players Alexandre Lacazette and Anthony Martial was not mirrored across the Channel. Deschamps picked the group he thought would be harmonious on and off the field rather than simply calling up the 23 best players available. In hindsight, the only genuinely surprising exclusion, that of Adrien Rabiot, now seems wholeheartedly justified given his oddly entitled and puerile reaction to being left out, the midfielder even refusing to be on the standby list.
As a result, the atmosphere resembles that of a club. It is an almost clichéd aim for an international coach but one that few of them ever achieve. Deschamps’ ability to mould his squad socially as well as tactically into a tournament-winning side should not be undersold. The way Benjamin Mendy and his fellow substitutes poured on to the pitch and piled on to Kylian Mbappé as he finished a flowing counter-attacking move against Argentina showed the togetherness in the squad.
Nevertheless, a balance has had to be stuck. Deschamps’ squad is not without egos and arguably a greater achievement has been convincing those players who might be seen as a little more spotlight-seeking to sacrifice for the team and play a more facilitatory role than they are used to for their clubs. The criticism Paul Pogba has received since returning to Manchester as he has struggled to fit into a more defensive, disciplined role has proved utterly irrelevant in Russia.
Pogba has not shown the swashbuckling exuberance he displayed when emerging at Juventus but he has finally evolved into the dynamic, dictatorial general José Mourinho has been looking for at Manchester United. Similarly, Antoine Griezmann happily adopted a deeper playmaking role to leave Kylian Mbappé at the sharp end of the France attack. Pivotal in the knockout stages, Griezmann’s man-of-the-match award in the final was thoroughly deserved.
This change in attitude, even since Euro 2016, was highlighted by Pogba before the final on Sunday. “I am not going to lie. At the Euros, we thought that it was already done.” he confessed. “We told ourselves we had won already after beating Germany; that was the real final for us. We don’t want to make this mistake again. We will approach this match differently.”
Another parallel with 1998 is that this team truly represents French ethnic diversity. Seventeen of the 23 in the squad were eligible to play for at least one other country and now, as was the case 20 years ago, they have the chance to act as a unifying force in country that continues to work through social issues. As Blaise Matuidi elaborated last week: “The diversity we have in this team is in the image of our beautiful country. We proudly represent France. For us, that’s superb.”
France started slowly, with Deschamps seemingly wanting to fit his best players into an unwieldy XI, but he quickly reverted to type and prioritised finding a balance, which has been the cornerstone of his successes with Les Bleus. No individual was more important than that balance or unity. As the World Cup wore on, Deschamps was able to mould an effective, if pragmatic, unit that supported and played for each other.
But the true winning formula has been espoused by the coach for some time. It is one that unpins both his World Cup winners, the 1998 team and France as a nation: liberté, égalité and fraternité. “We have good players in our team but that is not all.” explained Benjamin Mendy last night. “We are a true family. There was an incredible feeling from the off. Thanks to everyone. Allez les Bleus!”
• This is an article from Get French Football News
• Follow Adam White and Get French Football News on Twitter
![How Older Men Get Tighter Looking Skin [do this daily]](Kholle%201%20-%20Sujet%2014%20-Libert%C3%A9,%20%C3%A9galit%C3%A9,%20diversity%20%20how%20France%20won%20the%20World%20Cup_fichiers/eyJpdSI6IjY2Mzc0ODUzZTJkN2IzYzU2ZmZlNjY3YjExMjBmNmU0OWM4ZTBk.jpg "How Older Men Get Tighter Looking Skin [do this daily]")
View all comments >
comments (317)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion.
Nah, fair play to them - a scarily talented bunch of players. And Giroud.
Lloris was so terrified about actually getting a winners’ medal he tried to get Croatia back into the game. No, I jest of course before the Spurs lot start listing all the things Harry Kane did this world cup :D
VAR did affect certain nations that took short-cuts to past glories. The Hand of God, the Disgrace of Gijon, Schumacher, Simeone, various dives and penalty area shirt-tugs. I don't think it is a coincidence that the semi-finalists included three that had not been there for a while.
It's like when the Italians changed their referee appointment process so that the big teams could not have a say in it, and the title was promptly won by Hellas Verona. That change didn't last long.
I think he was afraid that winning a trophy might put him in breach of his Spurs contract.
By diving and relying on the ref.
Yawn.
A bit like what I saw against Colombia really ...
Another point - what is the obsession of the press with Mbappe? Sure, he's scored a couple of goals and the lad can run around a bit. But given the way the press has been fawning over him, you'd have thought he's another Raheem Sterling or even Wayne Rooney.
Once Mbappe has had his fair share of top-tier trophies and consistently and thoroughly terrifying defenses up and down Europe, then we can talk.
I can't see any way England would lose in a head-to-head with France. We might have not have a Kante or Pogba, but Kane has got more talent in one ball (pardon the pun) that Giroud has in his whole body. Maguire and Trippier are far, far superior to Umtiti and Varane. And don't get me started on Lloris vs Pickford.
The English press really needs to get a grip and provide cold, clear analysis rather than passing off opinion as fact through the haze of post-match hysteria.
Amazed it took two days for this article to pop up.
Are they blaming diversity for the shambles in 2010 as well then?
Quite a few did.
Not the Guardian though.
There must be some reason other than just diversity to explain why France has been doing better than England in Football for the past two decades at least !!!
Quality of national training academies, and focus on success of national team over club game
Diversity has not much to do with their success. How diversity was managed was the key lesson: only because they realised they were sharing a common destiny and worked together, they prevailed.
I dont think there are racist elements in the English squad. They all work together. In the past, it was club bias which caused the differences.
Two days later and I'm still seeing people on the metro and in the streets here in Paris wearing the colours, carrying the flags, still on a high. Didier Deschamps has done a brilliant job, and all the carping about VAR etc. can't take that away from him, or the achievement of his team.
So actually, Diversity has nothing to do with it at all. It's about the way in which Deschamps fostered a spirit of togetherness within the group by leaving out the divisive and unspoken players, even if they were more talented on paper.
The inclusion of Blanc's comments was irrelevant.
If there's a political reading of France's victory, it's a Socialist one. Identity politics has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Identity politics has everything to do with the gaurdian though.
Spot on mate.... Which makes it all the more bizarre that this article is choosing to drop the word fraternite and add diversity.
Surely it is the colour-blind fraternite approach of team/ togetherness/ socialism that is the key to French success here? Not the divisive, hyper-racially aware, identity politics agenda that this headline is pushing.
So actually, Diversity has nothing to do with it at all. It's about the way in which Deschamps fostered a spirit of togetherness within the group by leaving out the divisive and unspoken players, even if they were more talented on paper.
You're missing the point. Which is that this spirit of togetherness was in a group of which the majority came from minorities. The real France is not made up just of white european people, as the FN would like you to believe. So in fact it is indeed all about diversity.
Benzema's banishment was blamed on the coach Deshamps being a racist. How does that work out exactly?
Benzema cost France in the 2014 WC by missing crucial chances vs Germany. Benzema can only score goals gifted to him. Like Karius did. Hence he wasn't selected.
Ironic considering Desailly's recent article about his great long term friendship with Deschamps. It's easy to play the race card either way it seems.
The reason for success seems to be pretty clear. They has some outstanding players and Deschamps has picked a team that will get on with each other and pull together as a team (interestingly Southgate seems to have done the same). Seeing how they interact, it does appear that they genuinely do get on and enjoy each others' company. The attitude of Pogba and how he's applied himself is testament to that. Race doesn't really have anything to to with that.
I thought Benzema was not selected because he was blackmailing a team mate.
It works that those who claimed such nonsense are simpletons of the highest order?
Nabil Fekir is the perfect counter-example: same background, derided by the public but championed by Deschamps against general opinion for a couple of years (and ending up repaying this trust by increasingly good performances in the National team).
This paper is silly.
Deschamp.
Those of us who are old enough to remember 1998 will know how it goes.
When they win, these players are held up as a model of integration and diversity in France. When they lose, the usual suspects will come out and bemoan the fact that x black player didn't sing the national anthem. When they win they're a band of brothers, united and selfless. When they lose, they're fragmented into cliques and Domenech has to beg Zidane to come back to sort it all out.
See also Spain and Germany in more recent times. Can't beat a good football narrative.
Wrote this five years ago:
Thank you and well said.
I follow French media a fair bit and watch the news on TV5 almost daily. It was interesting to listen to the panel discussions on France 2 on Sunday and Monday evenings. Apart from Jean Tigana on Sunday and an actress yesterday, the talking heads were white, sometimes female and middle class. They seemed to know little about football and the backgrounds of the team, but pontificated about how the victory came about and what that meant for France. Oddly, but not surprisingly, the focus was always on Deschamps and Lloris, perhaps the only players they recognise (like the Belgian queen who mistook Lukaku for Kompany, an easy mistake as black people look the same). The only other players mentioned were Giroud and Pavard. It was as if the non-white contribution was invisible.
An African friend, also bilingual and who knows western Europe well, was similarly perplexed.
I can imagine that, by la rentree, most people will have forgotten about la coupe du monde and non-whites will be, metaphorically, relegated to the back of the bus.
It will interesting to observe as I will be in France most of September.
Very interesting.
Just to add to that, if anything, the composition of the French national team shows just how closely linked race and class are in France.
"Seventeen of the 23 in the squad were eligible to play for at least one other country"
Are three quarters of the French population really able to play for (whatever the qualification) another country?
Probably not.
Can you please give me a list of all the metrics by which a national football team is or should be required to be proportionally representative of the population of the country they represent?
Personally I'm not bothered in the least; however the article claimed
"Another parallel with 1998 is that this team truly represents French ethnic diversity"
Which set me wondering.
I answered above.
This sentence is pure bullshit.
Family origins dont mean passport to play for another country.
A wonderful victory for France and a kick in the teeth for Le Pen, who complained about the 98 squad being too 'multinational'.
World Cup champions in what isn't really a 'football' country. Some achievement.
This is all getting a bit boring now.
It will have helped that the team which won the World Cup in 1998 got on with each other. The fact they all hated each other in 2010 will have been a major hindrance. Why this has to be spun out into racial politics is beyond me though.
Team spirit is a thing, it's helpful, if a team gets along they are more likely to play well. Look at Chelsea in 2015 (got on, won the title), 2016 (Mourinho alienated everyone, finished 10th), 2017 (got on, won the title) and 2018 (Conte alienated everyone, finished 5th). The fact they got on in 2015 and 2017 but hated each other in 2016 and 2018 had nothing to do with 'diversity'.
Germany's 2014 World Cup winners were not 'diverse' at all, neither were Spain's 2010 team or Italy's 2006 winners. France's 'diverse' 2010 team were shit, as were England's 2010 team, England's 2012 team, England's 2014 team and England's 2016 team. Nobody blamed England's constant failure over the last decade on the team's 'diversity' but people are falling over themselves to acclaim 'diversity' as one of the reasons why the 2018 side played well.
It has fuck all to do with 'diversity' and everything to do with finally having a manager who knows what they're doing.
We should combine our posts.
Thank you and well said.
It's interesting that this diversity nonsense is rarely spouted by non-whites.
It was odd to hear on the BBC World Service that Russia failed to win the world cup because it had no black players and France won it because it was really an African team.
You've just come up with a bit of a howler about Germany in 2014. Not as diverse as France 2018 but Ozil, Khedira, Mustaffi, Boateng.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jun/05/germany-squad-world-cup-2014
I think it's because of an old, old wooden ship
Liberté, égalité, Mbappé
Liberte, egalite and cheats. Its normal for France - remember Thierre Henry's handball? If you cant beat them, cheat them.
1. That wasn't a handball, it hit him on the chest
2. If the Irish defenders had tried to deal with Henry's cross instead of prancing around with their hands in the air, they might have prevented Gallas from scoring
Oh well
So why did the French football federation offer 5million Euros in compensation to the Irish FA for the incident?
So if poor refereeing hadn’t sabotaged mono-cultural Croatia’s chances, would we still be treated to these stories about multiculturalism triumphing etc?
There's only so many times you can claim poor refereeing decisions....
It was a penalty, his arm shouldn't have been away from his body like that. That's the chance he took.
Yes , the Guardian the other day was trying to portray Rakitic ,a Croat born to Croats as an immigrant.
Goal 1, dive. Goal 2... you've never played in your life at any level. Have you ever tried jumping with your arms glued to your midriff? How stupid are you? It might be tedious to see ''wasn't a penalty' again but it doesn't chance the fact it wasn't clear and obvious and therefore shouldn't have been given. ''chance he took'' to use his arms as leverage to get into the air? Handball has to be DELIBERATE! The stupidity of some here... may as well read the daily star or something
How they allowed an actor to referee that is beyond me. Biggest narcissists on planet earth and lo and behold he made it all about him.
Paul Pogba, what a player!
Ouiiiiii!!
One of the key reason for France's success is mentioned in this article but only in passing:
Deschamps has been "six years in charge", he had time to model a squad that would mirror his philosophy.
Yesterday's article - identity politics is bad, it helps the far right.
Today - identity politics is good, diversity is strength (in football at least, but not France's national sport of cycling).
Look at you, all triggered by the mention of the world "diversity". You didn't quite understand that article, did you? That's the problem of not reading past the title.
PS: Cycling isn't France national sport.
The worst thing to do is herald the win as a victory for diversity/multiculturalism, a la 1998. France were deserved winners, but it's more complex than that and as a poster above states, it's more to do with Deschamps ability to foster a togetherness in the camp. That should be the defining theme in any sporting competition.
Football, and the World Cup is essentially a vehicle for nationalism. You've got the national anthems and flags for a start. It's why Russia bidded for the World Cup, why Qatar did and why France did in the 90s. Chirac knew the power of sport would unite the country when he pushed for the tournament.
Sport doesn't have an obligation to better society. Three years after France won their first WC, "beur" fans were booing the national anthem, and then in 2002, Le Pen got into the second round because of voter apathy. So much for a new chapter.
Was that the match between France and Algeria?
Algeria had more French born players in their team than France did, if I recall!
I think anywhere else that an article with the title "how France won the World Cup" is published, one could expect to see an analysis of an immensely talented team, spearheaded by a potential all-time great in Mbappe.
How did I know before opening this article that the Guardian would make it about race?
Yeah, and except for the title, nowhere in this article is it implied that they won thanks to their diversity ! It’s talking about Domenech and Blanc era then about how Deschamps built a team spirit (which is what helped secure this victory). And only at the end is it talking about diversity saying that this team is representative of the country...
In short the title is misleading and people should read the article.
How do you people make this stuff fit with the obsession over demographic percentages and their representation? By your own rules - your own rules - this team (given its statistically unrepresentative nature) ought to be 'problematic' yet you're lauding it. Note: I'm not saying things ought to be statistically representative - far from it - but like I said, these are your rules, your bêtes noires so how do you make your position logically consistent? It's doublethink.
What are those rules that you are talking about?
The constant refrain that organised groupings of people ought to be statistically representative of larger demographics according to sex, race, sexuality, gender identity etc., that promotions to these groupings should be awarded based not on merit but by membership of the demographic subsets until statistical parity has been reached and the implication that where this 'representation' doesnt' exist, that the root causes are down to some -ism or -ist. The standard identity politics bullet points. For example: people from Identity X make up percentage Y of the population ergo we should also see percentage Y in boardrooms: if not, then the people in these boardrooms are probably X-ist.
But you know this (and you've seen it umpteen times on here) so no need to pretend to be naive.
I'm not naive, just curious about how long it will take before you tie yourself into knots. So far you have not really be explicit about this supposed rule.
That "constant refrain" (no mre a rule, I get it), has anyone ever expressed it with regards to national teams?
You draw a parallel with board rooms, probably one of the least meritocratic selection process that exists with monarchy, which is quite interesting. The argument around board rooms and sexism is that they are evidence of a skewed corporate world, not that balanced representation in board is a target or something to pursue per se (although there is an argument that it's a good place to break the vicious circle)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to recommend a comment