The Sociology of Zidane-ism.

Disclaimer: Zinedine Yazid Zidane is hands-down THE consummate footballer of the modern era.

I find it very interesting to differentiate and question how people, especially Muslim and of non-white ethnic origin, are reacting to this situation.

I am among this group, so I can't really say with clarity what exactly I think is going on, but it seems that Zizou became an icon of something, at somepoint. To be sure, this status is not monolithic and is completely dependent on which subpopulation we are talking about.

For instance, Zidane's nominal relation to Islam (i.e. that his name is of Muslim origin) is enough to be a rallying point for many. A lot of Muslims - across various levels of affinity for Islam - who may not even know a word of Arabic will call him Zayn ad-Din, almost matter-of-factly.

His Algerian origin is a point of identification for others - especially given French repression and massacre there. These empathizers may be Algerians or from one of the many other groups of historical recipients of French brutality. And, to extend it a step further for the sake of drawing lofty and unfounded conclusions, Zidane can, thus, by being a member of the colonized, also become a symbol for all those who have been colonized by anyone - Belgians, Dutch, British, etc. (If you recall, there was a similar empathy with the Senegalese at the last World Cup because they destroyed the French squad, all the while being members - many - of them, of the French 1st division league.)

And adding still another flavor to his appeal, Zidane grew up in the projects, making him a socioeconomic icon, as well. To top it off, he is generally shy, understated, and calm, (despite a few documented incidents of serious anger), and carries himself with a certain dignified and urbane manner which probably garners the sympathy of the bourgeousie and upper echelons of French society. (Not to mention he is probably the best overall footballer in recent history.)

Zizou represents so much to so many that even though his last action on the pitch was completely stupid and arguably played a role in France's loss, we will, apparently, never define him by it. (Last count I heard at the time of his interview had 60% of the French public as having "already forgiven" him.)

This is particular notable because it is loosely defining how we barter goods and services when it comes to the purchase of goodwill and the benefit of the doubt. Zizou provides economic, political, and social capital in varying degrees to varying sectors of the societies in which he lives and plays, and the international community, as a whole.

It is almost certainly true that a lesser player (in any of the ways described above) reacting to the very same Materazzi, even, against comments of identical bite would not be so readily excused. (As a side note, the sociology of Zizou defending comments against women in his family is not insignificant in the public rush to defend him. It adds to his hero image the element of a protector of virtue.)

I contend that if Sagnol, solid French player that he was, were called something derogatory, or his kin insulted, and he reacted in a way that similarly damaged the team's performance, there would be little sympathy. "It's just a part of the game," he would be chided. "Everyone deals with it," he would be scolded. But what Materazzi did was not insult Sagnol. He insulted Zizou.

It is worth examining what Zidane has come to embody in the aftermath versus what Materazzi has:

The latter has been taken, unfairly, as the representative of a nation and a people - and the remnants of a war from about 100 years ago. (Yes, I know that fascism didn't die after they lost, but I am being illustrative of the contrast.) One article I read implied Materazzi's vile tongue was symptomatic of an evil, racist tide from Lazio to Lisbon, pervading the realm of FIFA.

Zidane, contrarywise, has come to personify the downtrodden, the disenfranchised, the honest and hard-working, and the oppressed; he is decidedly not a personification of anything French, however - not in the eyes of the population described in the first paragraph.

Let us flip the story in hopes of an experiment impossible to prove:

Suppose Marco Materazzi nailed Zinedine Zidane because the latter insulted the former similarly and was roughed up similarly throughout the game, etc., etc., and so forth.

What would be the outcry and who would be demonized and who would be idolized?

The answer to this question is representative of what we, as humans, are willing to overlook when a satisfactory level of goods and services have been exchanged. No matter if that turning of the cheek is unfair. (Recall that the rasul, 'alayhis-salatu was-salam, said "la darara wa la dirar" and that definitive "sabr" is to be exercised at the moment of pain/injury/etc. if it is to be valid. As a Muslim, Zidane was, in fact, in the wrong.)

This would have all been a lot easier for most of us if we hadn't made this man a champion for each of our respective points of empathy. To paraphrase another modern icon, "[he] can't be [our] Superman."

My personal answer to why I was so struck with emotion while watching the final (and speculating for days after) is that I created a pedestal for someone who didn't deserve one instead of for the only person who does and ever will.