Rachel Quon makes me uncomfortable.
I’m sure she’s a wonderful young woman, smart and athletic. I’m also fairly certain that she’s sincere in her desire to give the Canadian national team the old college try.
I have nothing against Quon personally. I barely knew who she was a week ago, actually.
I did know one thing, however.
Rachel Quon is American.
She was born in the United States, grew up in the United States and went to college in the United States. She even represented the United States internationally as a member of the U-20 (and below) youth teams.
This young woman is the walking, talking and kicking personification of apple pie.
Well, except she’s now gone all maple syrup.
[PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
And, again, that makes me uncomfortable.
I’m not about to go screaming from the rooftop that she’s a traitor, or Judas or anything of the sort. But, as much as I can understand the logic of the decision and appreciate how she might help the Canadian team, I simply cannot support her inclusion.
It goes against what I believe the spirit of international football should be. She’s not representing her country She’s representing a country her father happened to be born in and went to university in before leaving. Without speaking to her personally (and I’m working on that) I can’t speak to her motivations, but I can speak to her passport. It has an eagle on it.
Canadian fans are understandably angry at the long list of Canadian born and trained players that have decided to jump ship to play for countries that they have peripheral relationships with. This is no different and to swing around to defend Quon while screaming for Sydney Leroux’s head is to define cognitive dissonance.
There will be two types of arguments against this.
There will be the camp that view international football the same way that they view club football. They won’t see any problem with her decision because they believe that a player should make a choice based on what is best for their career. They don’t factor issues of nationalism into these decisions and see nothing wrong with players choosing to play for countries they aren’t actually from.
There is little point arguing with this camp because their position is so philosophically different from mine that we will never find common ground.
The second camp that will support the Quon call-up are the “as long as it’s down” camp – that is to say that they do not support players that “upgrade” their international position (i.e. turn down, say, Wales and Canada to play for England), but are OK with players that “settle” for lesser countries so that they can have an international career. So, Quon is acceptable, to this camp, because she didn’t have an opportunity to play for the United States.
I agree that this is more palatable – they aren’t glory hunters – but it still, to me, doesn’t speak to the core essence of what international football should be. It should be about representing your country and about the pride that evokes.
That’s not to say that I don’t believe it’s possible for someone to switch their national loyalties. People move to different countries all the time for many different reasons. I have no problem with someone representing a country they weren’t born in, but now live in. They chose to live there. They are every bit as legitimate a citizen and can be every bit the patriot that someone born in the country can be.
That, to me, is the bottom line: To represent a country internationally you should be a citizen. I wouldn’t even mind allowing players to switch national teams, but only if they actually switch nationalities.
Is this a naïve view? Probably. The more cynical approach to international football is winning the day. But, it’s a view I consistently hold, regardless of whether a situation benefits Canada or not.
What do you think?