Actually, now that I think about it, I remember something Vogts sais as a player in the Argentina WC: after his team, West Germany, got eliminated in the second group stage, the German press asked him what he made of the political situation in Argentina. Back then they were under that monster Videla, who was disappearing people left and right, and even the USA, that supported Pinochet, was creating distance from him. Vogts said he admired Argentina, because it was a country where Order reigned, and that he had not seen any political prisoners. Here: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/sport/fussball-historie-jubel-in-hoerweite-der-folterkammern-1.218882-2 If we judge a person by the friends he has, JK's long relationship to the likes of Vogts and Magath, both men with right-wing views, may be a clue of where his sympathies lay. That may add another layer to the Donovan exclusion, the guy being a well-known Liberal who eschews fundamentalists even in his charitable work.
I wouldn't really see that as a sign of political opinion - more for beeing naive and uninformed. Back in the day many German footballers came from working class backgrounds, left school at the age of 15 and weren't exactly well-versed in what was going on in the world.
Yes. Like Beckenbauer who claimed that slavery does not exist in Qatar because he didn't see slaves when he was there upon invitation by the Qatar FA.
The quote that's attributed to Beckenbauer is even more ignorant than that: "I have not seen a single slave in Qatar. They all run around freely, without chains." "Ich habe noch nicht einen einzigen Sklaven in Katar gesehen. Die laufen alle frei rum, ohne Ketten." http://www.huffingtonpost.de/ralfdieter-brunowsky/fc-bayern-muenchen-wo-ble_b_4322095.html
Link?? I'd be surprised if Donovan doesn't lean left given his background and personality but I've never seen any public comments from him on political issues.
With sports types you have to go by the company they keep. They're never asked about politics, so it's just a matter of the things they spouse, where they're seen, and who are their friends. That Klinsmann is friends with Felix Magath, and the latter belongs to the Egon Bahr circle (a right-wing ideologue), for example, is all the circumstantial evidence one may have. Donovan has avoided religious charities scrupulously. On the other hand, he's been part of Elton John's Starkey Hearing Foundation, whose roster is a sort of who-is-who among known UK and Hollywood Liberals. Back when the Galaxy was touring South East Asia, he was breaking away from the team (that was often going to Christian-based charities) to do his own work separately. That told me a bit: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=945148851985
Uhmmmmm they may share the same views considering team mgmt but friends is false. The same for Magath and Bahr. Did you make that up? Oh, and not that it matters but Bahr was a center/right-wing socialdemocrat and politician which in the US context translates as "batshit crazy lefty". Im curious: why this agenda of posting half-truths and conspiracies about Klinsis political/personal beliefs throughout this thread?
Oh please. Egon Bahr, admirer of Vladimir Yakunin, lover of the Bush dynasty, would NEVER be considered a "lefty" in the USA: http://vestnikkavkaza.net/analysis/politics/62648.html Bahr and Magath have been seen together several times. Since the 80s, actually. Felix gave an interview after a multiple-game match vs. Kasparov, back then, and mentioned Egon as a friend of his. As a chess fan, I remember that clearly, but since it's so old, I cannot find the interview online (same with the full interview of Vogts in Argentina, and his "family values" quote --sadly, the Internet is not complete).
It's an exercise on futility, to be honest. You can never "prove" such things. My original reply was to someone who had posted an old interview with Klinsmann and his emphasis on being "from a good family with values," and that reminded me that such is an old dog whistle in European politics for right-wing ideas. I don't care about politics, but about how politics interferes with football. Because I care about football. And I was just reading how many people think Carlos Tevez was left off the Argentina team because of his supposed political ideas, since he was seen with Macri, a declared enemy of the Kirchners, and Sabella is a (supposed) Kirchnerist. And that's not the only example. At any rate, if speculating about JK's homophobia provides some entertainment, why not speculate about his politics in general? All I can offer is circumstantial evidence, of course.
It pisses me off that people will whip out the bullshit labels over any slight. I'm not sure if those who do it are hyper-sensitive pansies or just looking to rag on Klinsmann to score "hater" points.
Okay. The implications of Rogers' comments and what might be deduced from them, as these pertain to the national team selection process, seem to me to be fair game. However, the more we focus on Klinsmann's views, per se, absent any reference to any actual USMNT-related events, the less supportable this thread becomes. I don't see any basis for rummaging around in Klinsi's political underwear drawer.
His position is one where personal judgement and values are very prominent. Especially when he's supposedly masterminding a complete re-organization of our soccer infrastructure. Discussing his ideologies and worldview and the potential issues that lie therein are very much fair game.
They’ve been fair game on this site, certainly. For example, there are numerous threads where Klinsmann’s rationales for choosing German born players, for excluding Landon Donovan, for emphasizing physical fitness, and more. have been subject to extensive critique, including some highly speculative takes (pro and con) on the attitudes that underpin the decisions in question. The difference is that these have all been connected to decisions he’s made that had some direct impact on the US team. I’m not so sure we’re talking about something that falls into the same category when it comes to Rogers’ comments about Klinsmann, particularly when we start triangulating off generalizations that connect homophobia with a certain political perspective.
For the most part this has been a fairly civil discussion and inquiry on what could have emerged as a moderator's greatest nightmare. The general consensus might be something like "Just because Jurgen chose (perhaps inappropriately) not to respond to Rogers communications is not immediately grounds to put him in the homophobic category. The next question, obviously, is "What was his motivation not to respond to Rogers'?" Are any of his insensitivities the result of having grown up in Germany during his youth and having to fight his way up from being a "baker's son"? Who can say, exactly what is going on, here? Do any of Jurgen's choices and biases have anything to do with growing up in a different culture? Very few of us are aware of German politics or their attitudes toward homosexuality. I think it is an interesting inquiry as it relates to the discussion. I get an email from a former player, typically I respond. It's hard to imagine the circumstances that might prevent me from doing so, particularly one who is requesting support, where typically they are only asking for support from a mentor. As far as Jurgen goes, it's hard to say what's underlying his failure/personal decision, here.
I don't think we have evidence to go very far in trying to answer the motivation question. The evidence in play supports ("doesn't yet refute" is probably a better way of putting it) a wide range of hypotheses. But to the point I'm getting at: Moderation in this forum has long been geared to damp down explicitly political discussions. This is based on 1. the preferences of what we believe to be a majority* of the posters here (*admittedly, we've made not systematic assessment) 2. the volatility and divisiveness of "political" discussions (they get off topic and out of hand more frequently than not, and they generate lots of complaints, plus they tend to devolve rather quickly into name calling) The move to treat Klinsmann's (or Donovan's, or anybody else's) supposed political views as an entertaining topic for speculation seems to fall beyond the scope of what we've allowed in the past.
I should add that I'm raising the question (that question being: should we allow this tangent about Klinsmann's politics continue?). I'm not yet providing an answer to it, though.
Since it's pertinent to some people's views of homosexuality, shouldn't we also bring his religion into this? (Per various sources, he's a Lutheran whose son attends the same Catholic high school that Rogers attended.)
Lutheran Buddhism? http://www.newyorker.com/the-sporting-scene/jrgen-klinsmanns-soccer-mandate PS: Yes, there are people who define as both, actually.
If Rogers is not brought in to camp then JK will need to provide an explanantion. Rogers has pace, is two footed, can play left and right back (he is two footed) as well as any mid field position. His player ratings are high and is showing great form. On top of that he alreday has national team and international experience. On top of this his team coach and several top players have vouched for him. So I say to JK-"Why Not" ?