Competition Without Catastrophe -- Is It Possible?

Although not the bloodiest World Cup in history, the 1982 World Cup is still remembered by millions of football fans who watched it. One tragedy from that tournament was so severe, ironic, and haunting that it continues to be preserved in football lore, as a reminder for future generations.

“The Night of Seville” (known as Night of Seville, Nacht von Sevilla in German, and Nuit de Séville in French) was the name given by the media to the 1982 World Cup semifinal between West Germany and France, held at the Ramón Sánchez Pizjuán Stadium in Seville, Spain. The match was heated. Not only because the temperature in Seville that night reached 32 degrees Celsius at 9:00 p.m. local time, but also because of the historical rivalry between Germany and France, two nations that had faced each other as enemies in two major wars: World War I and World War II.

The climax came when German goalkeeper Harald Schumacher crashed into French defender Patrick Battiston while trying to stop Battiston’s attack inside the penalty box. The collision was brutal. Battiston was knocked unconscious, lost two teeth, suffered three broken ribs, and sustained a spinal injury. Yet Charles Corver, the Dutch referee in charge of the match, handed down no punishment for the incident.

Football observers later recalled the moment as a reflection of unresolved resentment between the two sides. Ironically, France and Germany never refused to “go to war” on the football field even after World War I and II had ended. They first met in 1931, when Germany was still known as the Weimar Republic, a former empire that had recently been defeated by France. 

Competing without destruction: an old idea 

Competition of any kind is a natural trait of all living beings. The idea of survival of the fittest was understood by human ancestors tens and even hundreds of generations ago, as they lived and built their civilizations on Earth. They realized that competition could not be eliminated, because each side believed in its own version of truth, shaped by its own perspective.

Waringin Branjang Temple, the location of Mt. Kelud hermitage

Guided by their vision of the future, they initiated many efforts to protect both nature and its inhabitants amid competition that grew more intense over time. 

One approach taken by our ancestors was to “sacrifice” their greatest achievements for the sake of harmony among heirs to power and their supporters. King Airlangga, for example, sacrificed the Kingdom of Kahuripan, which he had built from the ground up as the successor to the Hindu Mataram Kingdom, for the welfare of his descendants. He divided Kahuripan into two kingdoms, Kadiri and Jenggala, effectively ending Kahuripan’s existence in 1042 CE, according to historical records.

However, a group of Brahmins descended from the Keling tribe, who lived on the slopes of Mount Kelud, objected when they were asked to join one of the two new kingdoms. They requested to remain neutral, maintaining their land as a place of retreat that anyone could visit to seek knowledge and guidance from scholars. The request was granted. The hermitage on the slopes of Mount Kelud still stands today, well preserved and used according to its original purpose, thanks to the descendants’ deep understanding of neutrality.

“Neutrality isn’t cool”

As time has passed, the path of neutrality has proven difficult and winding. Institutions like the United Nations and the International Criminal Court are increasingly seen as less neutral. Even the referee in the Night of Seville failed to uphold neutrality as expected. Observers have suggested this was because Corver was Dutch. At the time, the Netherlands had a better relationship with Germany than Germany did with France in many respects.

In politics, choosing neutrality has become ever more difficult, as opposing sides constantly try to win public sympathy and shape opinion in their favor. Preserving neutrality to maintain harmony and public welfare is often seen as incompatible with group interests. Neutral parties are even labeled as terrorists or radical ideologues, accused of obstructing certain groups from achieving their goals.

If competition is to remain healthy and productive, neutral groups should continue to exist as a form of catharsis, a space that accommodates voices from both sides. Of course, this vision will only resonate with those who understand that competition is not something to fear. It is a reality of life, one that shapes character and develops survival skills from generation to generation. (dswas).