He initiated Fidel Castro into the art of penalty shoot-out, he wore the likeness of Che Guevara on his right upper arm, and he demonstrated together with Evo Morales against George Bush Jr.: Diego Armando Maradona was not only a magician on the field, but also a figurehead of the political left in South America.
In the West, however, he was seen by many as a political muddle because of his unconditional support for Cuba and Venezuela. On the first anniversary of his death, Glenn Jäger now presents a political biography of Maradona with “In den Farben des Südens”, which the author wants to be understood as a “defense document”. In an interview with ntv.de Jäger talks about a footballer as an anti-colonial rebel, about pro-Maradona demonstrations in Bangladesh and the political significance of the “hand of God”.
ntv.de: You end the book with the iconic finger, one of the last remaining pictures of Maradona: World Cup 2018, Argentina versus Nigeria, shortly before the end the Albiceleste fell 2-1, and Edelfan Maradona stretched two middle fingers in ecstasy Height. At first the gesture pleased you, write – but you didn’t understand the finger until later. What is there to understand?
Glenn Jäger: The reactions the next day surprised me when it was said that he had misbehaved. For me it was an expression of joy, not an insult to my opponent. It wasn’t the first time either: Before a game with Napoli against Lazio Rome, the opposing coach insulted him, Maradona then scored three goals – after the last goal he ran to the bank and showed him the finger.
But the finger is also a symbol. As early as the 1980s, Maradona was considered to be someone who stood up. Against FIFA, which played in the midday heat of the 1986 World Cup in order to be able to show live images in Europe at prime time. Someone who didn’t move to River Plate in Argentina, to FC Bayern Munich, Argentina, but to Boca Juniors. And politically, too, he always followed the motto: You can do us.
Where did Maradona stand politically?
The subtitle of my book, “In the colors of the south”, provides the leitmotif: It embodies a path to independence for Latin America. His friendship with Fidel Castro is famous; he has always defended Cuba, but also moderate left-wing governments such as those under Kirchner in Argentina or Lula in Brazil. The common denominator: a course independent of the USA.
There is an interesting anecdote: In 1987 a marketing company offered him a million dollar deal, but he would have had to take dual citizenship, US and Argentine, for that. Maradona refused, perhaps intuitively at the time, but later this condensed into a political awareness: We have to go our way in Latin America, we are not the backyard of the USA. And with that he won the hearts of the South, also on other continents: After his doping ban at the 1994 World Cup, 20,000 people took to the streets for him in Bangladesh and India. These people saw some kind of anti-colonial rebels or standard-bearers of the south in Maradona.
At the same time he admitted national impulses: his biggest game, the World Cup quarter-finals against England in 1986, was seen in both countries as a revenge for the Falklands War in 1982. “We didn’t think of anything else,” said Maradona. Was he also some kind of patriot or nationalist?
Glenn Jäger, born in 1971, is the managing director of PapyRossa Verlag in Cologne. In 2018 he published the book “In the sand – Qatar, FIFA and the 2022 World Cup”.
It’s not that easy. Patriot, in the sense of: It’s our country and it’s our colors that I play for. But he also distanced himself from the military junta that ruled in 1982 – and at the same time said: No matter how you feel about the government, the English have no business in the Falkland Islands.
Maradona has always called himself a man of the people. In fact, he not only acknowledged his roots in the poor district of Villa Fiorito, but also lived his origins. In 2005, for example, when he met a new friend, she did not come from the circle of stars and starlets in which he moved – but from Villa Fiorito. Is Maradona one of the few to whom the sentence: “He hasn’t forgotten where he comes from” applies?
It is not a matter of course that you not only acknowledge your origins, but also when you suddenly find yourself at the top, strangle with this world in which you are suddenly passed around. In his autobiography, Maradona once complained about meeting the Prince of Monaco – he had invited them to dinner, but in the end Maradona was supposed to pay himself. He’s squandered a lot – swanky cars, big watches – but he never got used to the demeanor of the super-rich.
How important was politics in Maradona’s life anyway?
Increasingly important, but also present at a young age. In 1979 Argentina became world junior champions, the team was received in the presidential palace. Maradona shakes hands with the president, but later he gives away his jersey to the sister of a political prisoner. When asked why in the world he’s doing this, he simply replies: Why not?
That was his intuitive demeanor as a young man. It was only as a player in Naples that he dealt more closely with Che Guevara, whose face he suddenly saw on flags in Italy, at demonstrations and strikes. In Argentina, Che Guevara was either kept secret or was considered a terrorist. In 1987 Maradona met Fidel Castro for the first time in Cuba.
He wore Che Guevara and Fidel Castro as tattoos, in 2000 he dedicated his award as “Footballer of the Century” to the two revolutionaries …
… to the horror of the assembled world press, yes. With his admiration for Guevara and Castro he didn’t hold back all his life. That is part of its attraction, especially for many people from the south.
In this country, bourgeois media in particular call him a political aberration. You also want your book to be understood as a “defense”. Does Maradona need a defender?
I am quoting a few obituaries in which he did not get off well. The “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” saw him as someone who “liked to connect with the mighty of this world” – one wonders how much power a Fidel Castro had, compared to other politicians of this world who have already been in the cabin of the Guys show up. I get the impression that when the drug stories came up, a lot of the media first took pity on Maradona, then looked down on him as he began to defend Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela and other countries in South America. There red lines were crossed. I, on the other hand, say: It is legitimate to act like that.
The obituaries also addressed his darker side, some of which contradicted his political convictions: Maradona supported the fight for the right to abortion by the feminist movement in Argentina, but beat his girlfriend. How does that work together?
The struggle against the abortion ban has a long tradition in the class Maradona comes from. Since he has clearly shown the flag. And yes, Maradona was not free from machismo, and there is nothing to gloss over the blows against his girlfriend. It is interesting that there are different tendencies in feminist circles in Argentina: Some say it is not excusable. The others say they do not want to excuse specific misconduct – and yet Maradona is to a certain extent the victim of a patriarchal system.
In your book you quote the great author Eduardo Galeano from Uruguay, who wrote that a footballer like Maradona should always be political as long as he does not become uncomfortable for the masters of the world and the masters of FIFA. Is that still true?
I think so. With Maradona it was like this: he was an exceptional figure, he could afford to open his mouth without being sawed off. FIFA needed Maradona for its show business. See the 1994 World Cup in the USA: The doping ban had not yet expired properly, but it was ensured that he could get fit and play. A World Cup with Maradona was better for FIFA for marketing reasons than a World Cup without Maradona.
Would a political superstar like Maradona be conceivable today? And is it possible for someone like Maradona to make a move that feels as wrong as the one from Barca to PSG?
Good question. In any case, someone like Maradona would do very well today. Whereby: The journalist Tobias Escher wrote that today’s youth academies have sanded all corners and edges, I found that very apt. Whether it would have been a success or whether Maradona would have let it go is another question.
The legendary goal with the “hand of God” would have taken the VAR away from him and Argentina and all soccer fans …
That was what made the time so special. I don’t want to discuss the pros and cons of the VAR, but of course there is something. You don’t want to miss this goal. The game wasn’t really sensational until the second goal, the solo run over almost the entire field. There was still enough magic in the game that would have worked today.
That shouldn’t sound culturally pessimistic, but did Maradona die last person who embodied the magic of football, this utopian promise of the game, not only on the pitch, but also next to it?
I guess so. At least that’s what makes Maradona so attractive. A journalist once said: We not only remember his game, but also how it felt to see him play, because he fired the imagination, went beyond what already existed, both on the pitch and in his political stance . In this totality you have to see the character, the player, the person Maradona.
Christian Bartlau spoke to Glenn Jäger