“To be simple is to be great.” —Ralph Waldo Emerson
Ronaldo was (yes, I’m still getting used to talking about him in the past tense too) a great player, of that there is no doubt. The finest striker of his generation, the Brazilian had in abundance the supernatural technique—those abilities that even fellow professionals struggle to fathom—that marks out the game’s true masters.
While Ronaldo will be revered down the ages, his superlative nature living on in exultant memories and grainy YouTube montages, I am experiencing creeping fears for his popular legacy. These fears, though still at an early stage of their development, were given rise to by the hype which surrounded the player’s retirement and provided with firmer foundations by Nike’s latest commercial.
The commercial in question, an homage to Ronaldo which attempts to express the striker’s legacy through vaguely religious iconography, continues to build on the player’s already effulgent reputation, but my fear is that his simplistic majesty will be lost in a blaze of corporate mythologizing. There is a chance that Ronaldo’s uncomplicated genius will be swallowed up in a sea of needless elevation, incessantly hyperbolic accessories to a career that needs no embellishment.
The practice of deifying our heroes through the medium of popular culture may be an alluring one, but it is far from necessary. As the quote I used to open this piece suggests, the most profound beauty and “greatness” is often to be found in simplicity, elegance being all too regularly convoluted by attempts to magnify already astonishing achievements.
If we are not more careful then there surely exists the danger that Ronaldo’s raw abilities and attainments will become shrouded in half-truth, the actuality of his greatness lost to the distorting effects of marketable mythology.
We should accept Ronaldo for what he was, and what he was was a great footballer. He wasn’t the Second Coming, he wasn’t the axis around which football spun; he was just faster and more skilful and better at scoring goals than everyone else. Is that not enough? For companies seeking to profit from his global appeal, apparently not.
Christopher Mann is the editor of The Equaliser, a football blog dealing in subculture, nostalgia and occasional analysis. He can be found on Twitter here.
Read More: Ronaldo, The Marketing of Meaning
by Christopher Mann · June 20, 2011
I agree in part but surely this is something to which all footballers are prone to an extent? Simon Kuper wrote a piece about how Real Madrid can never (in the eyes of Jorge Valdano at least) live up to their past with the likes of Di Stefano and Puskas always dominating and looming larger than they ever could possibly in reality.
It is more distressing to think of this mythology being created by a corporation in search of sales but players from the past are often subject to mythologising. To those who “consume” their football in a certain way then your fears over Ronaldo may become true. But for other fans his genius stands for itself and is in no way enhanced (because it doesn’t need to be) by whatever advertising campaign Nike wish to run
I agree with you, Chris, but I also think Nike’s making a reasonable point in that Ronaldo was THE biggest player to straddle the dividers between footy’s relative peace and its money-marketing explosion. I know you wrote a piece about Hidetoshi Nakata and his position as the first “modern” footballer for entirely different reasons, though Ronaldo’s positioning in that 90s/00s crossover is still fairly unique.
Of course I’ll agree that Nike is overstating this with a view to feeding the hype>sales machine, but that’s neither here nor there.
What I love about this is that Nike is essentially deifying Ronaldo by designating him as the athlete whose career created Nike-style deification. “B.R.” is a footballer talking, “A.R.” is a footballer talking to a rapt press conference; “B.R.” is a simple chalk drawing of the Brazil flag on the street, “A.R.” is a commercially resplendent Brazil jersey, etc. But by saying that before Ronaldo football was a folk form and after Ronaldo it was a marketing behemoth, Nike is basically celebrating Ronaldo for being the vehicle that allowed Nike to discover itself. It’s not just getting in the way of appreciating him by making him a marketing god, it’s getting in the way of appreciating him by making him the god of marketing gods. Which is doubly weird and wrong given that no matter how he was marketed, Ronaldo made football feel more like a folk form than any other star of his era.
I guess you could argue that what this commercial is really doing is covertly furthering Nike’s longtime agenda of convincing us that marketing itself is the ultimate sign of folk appreciation. But if that’s the case, it’s pretty amazing how nakedly commercial it’s willing to make this look.
This article makes a very valid point. Nike made a huge deal of him being the first superstar footballer and it’s almost as if they will not let him stop being one, even though he isn’t a footballer anymore. They should leave him be so that we can reflect on his greatness without the shroud of commercialism diluting his actual football.
I liked the advert but reading this piece made me realise that the aspects of his game that they promote are not the ones that made me buy his shirt and watch as many of his games as I could i.e. the brilliance of his play.
He did make a lot differences off the field but they are not what’s important.
Great piece.
The Ronaldo ad rings false because it’s very much Brazil-centric, and I refuse to believe that Brazil wasn’t soccer-crazy before Ronaldo. Or that the essense of Brazilian soccer can be boiled down to before/after one man.
The only bit which felt “right” was the bit with his hairstyle going all over the world. If the ad were more about the global reach of individual soccer stars (waiting for Adidas to run a before/after Beckham ad), then we’d have something to talk about.
No point in overanalysing more shameless marketing from Nike, I do believe that I appeared in a commercial for the same company around this time last year which implied that if I played shit at the World Cup and let my country down, I would end up living off baked beans in a trailer park.
I proceeded to play shit and let my country down at the World Cup, but instead of sequestering in a trailer park, I decided to reward myself with a big, fat pay rise after complaining that Bebe was as useless as his resume suggested.
@Nick I think the ad portrays Brazil as soccer-crazy before Ronaldo. The distinction is that before Ronaldo, the craziness manifests at a popular level (sidewalk chalk, fanzines, etc.) and after Ronaldo it manifests within the apparatus of the mass media and global commerce (press conferences, Nike jerseys). That’s a bit, uh, lacking as a depiction of the evolution of soccer celebrity, of course.
@Brian Phillips It’s not like Nike invented the replica jersey or the concept of boys putting posters on their bedroom walls. I just saw a lot of the “after” as being stuff which had to have existed before. Whether the befores survived the Nike-wash is a different story…
At the same time, your reading of the ad as being Nike Soccer’s autobiography is absolutely correct.
@Nick Yeah, exactly. And the “afters” definitely suggest that the “befores” are sort of quaint and old-timey. Soccer used to be popular, but now it’s SWEATSHOP popular, and that’s serious.
“He wasn’t the axis around which football spun.”
Actually during the glory years I think he was, especially around 1998 when the lead up to France 98 and entire World Cup (a terrific one for many different reasons, by the way) was viewed through the prism of Ronaldo. By 2002 when he was buried he still eventually became the centre of attention.
Even during the injury years soon after 1998, people who had no concept of soccer at all still knew who Ronaldo was.
“Marley was dead as a doornail, of that there is no doubt.” Your first line gave me Christmas Carol flashbacks!
@Brian Phillips You could also do a really depressing verison of this ad which shows how kids all over the world used to have replica shirts and posters of their favorite local players and now they all have the exact same Ronaldo shirts and posters.
@Brian Phillips I think the secondary message is that rather than A.R. necessarily superseding B.R., #ELFENOMENO (which is analogous to ZLATAN vs Zlatan) transcends Ronaldo, for better or for worse. Ironically, I think this could actually help preserve his legacy, because in 10 years, Ronaldo will describe both him and CR7, and CR7 is the king of self-marketing.
@Nick My wife and I spent a good deal of time wandering through Latin America and were thoroughly depressed with how every kid seemed to have an iron allegiance to either Real or Barca — they could recite their favorite team’s entire roster — but struggled to name more than one or two of their own national team players. Most didn’t even have a favorite local or regional team.
These kids watch and play soccer all day, every day. But they might as well have been consuming a sport played on the moon for all the relevance it had for them.
Their heroes are carefully manicured, distant, fairy tale legends, not actual people. As far as I’m concerned, the commercialism of the sport has long ago killed its soul. Small skirmishes against the forces of bland monoculture continue on the fringes, but the fires of local passions have been almost totally stamped out as more and more people buy into the silly premise that a match 5,000 miles away is somehow more “real” or “meaningful” than the one down the road.
If the hopeful ignorants in the developed world were looking to the simple, folksy inhabitants of the poorer countries to save the sport, I have some bad news…
@Brian Davis: Myself, I never really understood the appeal of localism. I watch my local team occasionally; there’s usually a good atmosphere in the ground and I know some of the lads who play. They are however, in the grand scheme of things, pretty shit footballers. With reference to England, we’re talking League One or Two standard. And this the highest level of play in my country
If I’m to spend time and money watching football then I would far rather watch high quality fare and watch the best players in the world strut their stuff on the biggest stage. That this may be a few hundred or thousand km way is no issue. So whether or not my local game is “realer” or “more meaningful”* is really pretty irrelevant to me. What matters is that it is simply not as good
And I see no reason to fetishise local football simply because its there and its crap. Romantic notions of ‘real football’ tend to fade fairly quickly when confronted with mud soaked reality
All of which, to tie into the broader point of the article, reminds us that there is always a bright side to progress. Where some see commercialisation stomping on local traditions, I see people who have more access to top-quality football than ever before. Are they to be plunged back into the dark days or somehow forbidden from watching and forming attachments to European teams?
*Both of which I assume are measured by quantity of mud or number of aimless long balls?
@Fast Eddie This isn’t some backwater in Canada I’m talking about. Latin America has been churning out hotshots for nigh on a century, now. And while the quality of the lowest level of play can be as bad as middling clubs in England or the Continent, even regional fare is still miles above the slop I see promoted on Sky as the “greatest league in the world”.
If the decisions were made purely based on quality of play, I’d have no choice but to bow to your superior reasoning. They’re not, however. I saw far more thuggish play and ponderous long balls in a week of watching the Premiership than I saw in the whole of my time south of the border.
@Brian Davis: And where are those “hotshots” currently playing? On a related point, how many Wigan or Stoke shirts did you observe on your travels?
@Fast Eddie Sure, many of them play in Europe, where the pay is better, but you specifically referred to mud and long balls, which aren’t exactly rare features of European ball, even among the best squads.
I’m not lamenting the globalisation of sport out of some sorry nostalgia for simpler times that never really were. But the game as an expression of joy and play seems to have been buried now as it’s become an avenue to riches.
You are free to think that it’s silly of me to want to see a tangible connection between player and fan (and all the positives that fall out of that). I’ll go ahead and think that it’s silly of you to pretend that more money always equals higher quality.
I understand your logic, and to some degree, I agree with it. With that being said, I don’t quite understand who’s getting the blame from you here– is it Ronaldo himself, or Nike? I don’t quite see how one could criticize Nike here, being that the marketing of athletes is, in essence, what they do.
@Ethan
I wouldn’t say I was really “blaming” anyone. You can’t blame Nike for attempting to associate themselves with Ronaldo, to portray themselves through the medium of his greatness.
I guess I’m just concerned that, with football’s commercialisation continuing to grow at the rapid pace at which it has done since, let’s say, 1994, the stars of the present day may one day only be remembered for their marketed personae rather than their actual abilities.
@Brian Phillips BR is 3 world cups, AR is 5
@Brian Davis I can tell you that in argentina, at least, the local league is still everything, and i’m sure there will be a few suicides if river is relegated these coming weeks. But the reality is that the football there nowadays is pretty bad, teams full of shit players and old washed out stars that come back after the fuel has run out. Hell, if you see the league table nowadays you’d think it’s upside down, with all the historically “crap” clubs fighting for the first places.
Europe is taking anything resembling a good player earlier and earlier, so you don’t even get to see what the good fifteen year olds become…
What a timely article, what with the English FA announcing the rebranding of the World’s oldest football knockout competition. I’m really looking forward to next year’s “FA Cup with Budweiser”. Oh boy.
The general behaviour of Football off the pitch just plain sickens me; marketing tendrils choke enjoyment out of the professional game; top flight football in my country is rubbish. I get my thrills watching the amateur leagues on a Saturday/Sunday. It’s free, and it’s got enthusiasm; I don’t feel so much like a customer.
[I also follow the European Leagues]
The Emerson quote is superb, and so apt. Nike will surely get sick of that particular chew toy and let the rest of us get on with remembering him in our own way.
Exactly. Your closing line though, “Is that not enough? For companies seeking to profit from his global appeal, apparently not.”
It was enough! It was actually exactly what they sought! Ronaldo’s legacy hasn’t yet but could become hostage to this “marketing mythology” you presented so well.
Thanks for the article.
@pf Argentina and Brazil are exempt from my sweeping generalization, as they’re effectively regions unto themselves.
And don’t worry, I’m sure the AFA will rejigger the rules to keep River up. They’ve done it before.
Totally unrelated personal highlight: I scored a goal at El Monumental. Not in a competitive match, mind you, but it was still cool as all hell. The view from the pitch is why humans invented the phrase “mind-blowing”.
@Brian Davis Scoring at El Monumental is relevant to everything.
Heck, scoring a goal at any professional football ground is pretty terrific, let alone an iconic one.
I didn’t know Ralph Waldo Emerson had watched Cruijff play!
Good to him, excelent to the rest of us.
i think he was the real trend setter..nothing much i would say because i don’t have any words left…i love him..