6/12/18 · Institutional

"Simeone and Guardiola are great coaches, but their conflict management could be better"

Photo: UOC

Photo: UOC

Xavier Pastor , Master's Degree in Conflict Management and Resolution professor

 

Xavier Pastor teaches courses on Conflict Management and Resolution as part of the UOC master's degree of the same name. He is also director of the postgraduate degree in Public Conflict Resolution and Community Mediation at the University of Girona (UdG). In the last few years he has worked with professors and students at both universities to explore how mediation and conflict resolution formulas resolve confrontations and episodes of violence in the field of sport, especially grassroots sport. This has resulted in a book, La resolución de conflictos y la mediación en el deporte [Conflict Resolution and Mediation in Sport], coordinated by Pastor and just published by Editorial UOC. In this interview he talks about conflicts and how they affect sport and politics.

 

 

Xavier Pastor teaches courses on Conflict Management and Resolution as part of the UOC master's degree of the same name. He is also director of the postgraduate degree in Public Conflict Resolution and Community Mediation at the University of Girona (UdG). In the last few years he has worked with professors and students at both universities to explore how mediation and conflict resolution formulas resolve confrontations and episodes of violence in the field of sport, especially grassroots sport. This has resulted in a book, La resolución de conflictos y la mediación en el deporte [Conflict Resolution and Mediation in Sport], coordinated by Pastor and just published by Editorial UOC. In this interview he talks about conflicts and how they affect sport and politics.

 

The World Cup in Russia is about to get underway, and it's a massive stage for good or poor conflict management in football…

In the last European Championships, in France, there was trouble between fans from England and Russia, and I wouldn't rule out a repeat of this at the World Cup. There could also be other problems between other fans, relating to hostilities on or off the field and with shorter or longer histories. When geopolitical relationships between the two countries are good, the chances are that the rivalry will be kept to just the game itself. But if relationships aren't so good, the two sides may see each other as enemies, and more aggressive attitudes and behaviour can emerge. In the World Cup anything can happen, and just like in any other conflict situation, we can't wait till the last minute to deal with it; if we do, we'll see unexpected results. We have to work on it beforehand. For example, seeing the politicians having their photo taken together before the game, or the coaches getting along well together rather than stirring things up, can make a difference.

You are a political scientist and have specialized in conflictology. What led you there?

Politics should be a field for managing conflict in societies. When I did my degree, I saw a lack of focus on conflict and tools to manage it. However, it is true that conflict management has only been studied quite recently. In Europe we've enjoyed barely 80 years of peace: current diplomacy emerged above all out of the construction of the Berlin Wall, when someone might have pressed the button and destroyed the world. And applying this type of management to low-intensity conflicts is a way of improving how societies work every day.

You say conflict is not negative. Why do we tend to see it as such?

Because we associate it with violence. If we consider the history of Europe, it is a continent where there have always been fights, conflicts that have been resolved with violence. In the field of war, conflict is associated with the person or state, creating the famous image of the enemy. Thus, when we have a conflict, we think about how to damage the other party instead of focusing on the conflict and what we need. Applied to today, this is the relationship between Catalonia and Spain. There is no willingness to discuss the root issue and so it has escalated. But, in the end, conflict management is about not being afraid to explain what someone really wants. This fear is usually present because showing ourselves as we are is considered a weakness.

Is this the same in all societies?

It has been discovered that most societies, regardless of continent, always have figures who act as arbiters or mediators when there is a conflict between members of the community, clan or tribe. For example, the Nuer tribe in the Sudan have a person called the “leopard-skin chief", who receives the parties in conflict and asks them to explain themselves. Thus, one side explains their problem to the other, and the other listens, which helps avoid misunderstandings. And this is broadly similar to what we do in mediation. In fact, judges in the judicial system should also follow this logic. But they're overstretched. If you have a conflict over noise with a neighbour, you can't resolve it amongst yourselves and you have to wait two years for a judge to rule, you'll suffer. Mediation can resolve this, because, although you are no doubt bothered by the noise, your neighbour may well be annoyed by something else. But, as we don't talk, we don't have time to communicate and or to understand what the other wants. We think we can do everything without others. This predisposes us to conflict; I'm not saying this is the cause, but it is a factor.

And we need a mediator.

There are conflict resolution professionals. But, luckily, there are people who intuitively also play these roles and act as such in society.

The book you have just published focuses on conflicts in the world of grassroots sport. What are their characteristics?

If you compare football today with the 1980s, it has extensively modernized: the facilities, the kit... now the shirts allow sweat to evaporate, and boots are very sophisticated. Technically, coaches know a lot about football but not so much about emotional management. And people still behave violently; this problem hasn't changed. On the terraces, players' parents don't know how to behave; they want to be useful to the club but tend to take an active part in conflicts on the football pitch at weekends. We wondered if this was exclusive to football and decided to research it in water polo, handball, basketball, indoor football or even Olympic rowing, where we even saw conflict situations in the boats. And we continue to research others sports. Now we want to look at hockey.

In the book you explain that competitiveness is a source of conflicts.

In fact, it's neither good nor bad. It depends on how it's managed. But if when you lose, with your blood pressure up and feeling angry, you look for guilty parties on the pitch or court, you'll find them: the referee, the coach, the parents on the terraces... We began to see that the key piece in all situations is the coach. The supporters on the terraces will take their cue from the coach.

Is there a famous coach who you think has been a good example in terms of conflict management?

FC Barcelona coach Ernesto Valverde is someone who has a very respectful attitude towards the media and players. He's very fair. And look how Barça plays now. The way coaches talk will be the way their teams play. They educate them. But the world of football is full of poor examples. We have to turn things around, which can only be done from below and only if the coach is respectful and calm. If he is calm, the public in the stadium will be too.

Can you describe a recent case of a poor example?

Atlético Madrid coach Cholo Simeone and Manchester City coach Pep Guardiola are great coaches but also recent examples of failings in conflict management. Simeone did not lead his team in the Europa League final against Olympique de Marseille because of a fine for insulting a referee in a match against Arsenal. I think he could have avoided the expulsion and helped his team more. The referee will not change either his behaviour or his decision: complaining is pointless. Moreover, in the Champions League quarter-final second leg match between Liverpool and Manchester City Guardiola gestured to the referee to shut up indicating that they would discuss it later. I think he was a victim of managing defeat.

In the book, apart from football, you talk about lots of other grassroots sports, such as handball, basketball, water polo or even rowing. But you also explain that the world of rugby is an exception.

There is a very interesting saying that holds that rugby is a thug's game played by gentlemen and football is a gentleman's game played by thugs. Rugby fans know it's a tough game, resulting in cut eyebrows and broken arms, and I think that's why spectators are calmer or at least no one gets upset about any clashes. In football, when things become rough, the spectators get worked up, complain, shout, become aggressive and refuse to believe that the referee has made the right decision. The opposite of rugby. However, rugby is a minority sport and has, for example, the so-called third time, where the players go for a beer together and good-humouredly discuss what's happened. In many grassroots sports, where coaches often know each other, we think that this could be transformed into a “first time" when the coaches introduce the parents of the two teams before the game and they can have a coffee together. In the end, whatever is done is the responsibility of the clubs. At the moment, they're shirking this responsibility.

(...)

Often, if parents complain about the coach but he has taken the team to the top, the club will invite the parents to leave and tell them: “if he talks to the kids like that, it's to help them grow up". If, in contrast, the coach doesn't achieve good results and the parents complain, the club will ask the coach to leave. And if we learn that competitiveness or conflict is about eliminating others, the person, we will then apply it to all areas of life.

Let's return to politics today. What would you suggest for managing the conflict between Catalonia and Spain?

We are now at a point of difficult return. A while ago, I thought we could use political mediation: this is normally done by prestigious, high-level politicians who are not active, but who we have to listen to. In these cases, these mediators usually suggest a solution. I thought we could look for politicians from each side, who fully understand the constitutional framework, such as Miquel Roca and Herrero de Miñón, both fathers of the Spanish Constitution. Herrero de Miñón spent a long time battling for the Senate to be a truly territorial chamber. I thought that mediation with the participation of these two figures, or others of prestige and recognized by both sides, could provide the possibility of an agreement on a referendum or constitutional reform, in the sense demanded by the Catalan or Basque people. But now I think this is very difficult. I think the only solution will be for the European Union to convince the Spanish Government to open negotiations with no time limits: not the current president but a future one, who will not have an absolute majority and will need more support. He will probably have to reach an agreement to hold a referendum, applying 21st-century political solutions rather than policies of the past that treat Catalonia as if it were the last colony. In this context, Catalonia should be more flexible.

Press contact

You may also be interested in…

Most popular

See more on Institutional