In 1990 in Italy Cameroon became the first African nation to reach the quarterfinals in World Cup Football, defeating on the way among others, Argentina, the holder of the title. Following this glorious precedent, the performance of the Indomitable Lions, the Cameroonian national team, in the 1994 World Cup which took place in the United States, left a lot to be desired. Cameroon was eliminated from the competition after the first round, following a humiliating 6:1 defeat by Russia. In Cameroon, the country's early elimination gave rise to an anti-French and anti-(neo)colonial discourse centering on the French head coach, Henri Michel. This paper will analyze this discourse based on the reactions of Cameroonians to the events of the 1994 World Cup in a call-in radio program, Bonjour l'Amérique, and on personal discussions and observations in Cameroon at the time.

The issue of expatriate coaches merits our attention because a quick survey of African national teams will show that very often they tend to employ foreign coaches. What is more, these coaches are not only foreign, but also white, and often come from among the ranks of the former colonial masters of the country. This raises the spectre of colonialism, and forces people to rethink these issues and their relationship to their erstwhile "ancestors", the French. Football is not the only crucial field in Africa which is dominated by foreigners. Frequently we find that when talking about expatriate coaches, Cameroonians make the jump from football to the fate of the country, using the sport as a metaphor. Thus, employing metonymy, Henri Michel also stands for the French, and even for all whites; and so the question of the relationship of Cameroonians to Henri Michel also becomes the question of the relationship of Cameroonians to France, and when blaming Henri Michel for the poor showing of Cameroon it is also France that is being blamed.

Cameroon has had a succession of expatriate coaches over the years, some French, some German, there were also some Yugoslav coaches in the 1980s, and finally in 1990 the victorious "Italia" squad was led by a Soviet[1]. In recent years the pattern in Cameroon has been for national/local coaches to qualify the national team for international competitions only to have to relinquish their powers to incoming foreign coaches who then take the team to the next, international level. This was the case in 1994 when Henri Michel was engaged to lead the Indomitable Lions to the World Cup in the United States, just a few months before the beginning of that competition. I am writing this paper in the wake of Cameroon's quarter final elimination from the African Nations Cup when the team was led by a Cameroonian coach. It is not yet clear whether history will repeat itself with the national coach being replaced by an expatriate with less than four months before the World Cup in France takes place.

The resources to which expatriate coaches have access are far from the same as those at the disposal of local coaches. To begin with, the salaries of foreign coaches are significantly higher than those of locals. The latter are civil servants, and being appointed to be the coach of the national team does not bring any immediate financial benefit. (Although, in the event of a victory they do receive generous bonuses. The issue of bonuses is one of the sore points of Cameroonian football; this question, however, is beyond the scope of the present paper.) Furthermore, it is widely known in Cameroon that expatriate coaches work under much better conditions than local ones. For example they have a car with a government provided petrol allowance to go prospecting for players which, according to Cameroonian coaches, would never be the case for Cameroonians. The injustice of these practices does not escape anyone's notice, and Cameroonian coaches, as well as the general public, are quick to draw attention to this.

During the 1994 World Cup, Cameroonian Radio (CRTV) put in place a call-in radio program, Bonjour l'Amérique. The program ran from the beginning of the World Cup until the end, for three and a half hours every morning and for two hours in the early afternoon, under the title of Hi America. This latter program was designed to accommodate the country's Anglophone minority, although there were Anglophone callers to the morning version as well, and Francophone callers intervened in the afternoon too. This program was the first of its kind in the country's history, in as much as it gave an opportunity to Cameroonians to express themselves freely, especially in the first few weeks of the program. In fact, people were jubilant over the mere fact of this freedom of expression and for some time after, discussed what had passed on the program in heated conversations all over Yaoundé.

The commentary that the lackluster performance and humiliation of the Lions elicited from Cameroonians ranged widely. Bonjour l'Amérique began as a forum for the expression of popular support for the national team and consisted of journalistic commentary, interviews with invited guests and reports by CRTV special correspondents from the United States. Listeners were encouraged to call in and those listeners who could not join in by phone could send in letters which were read over the airwaves. Some listeners even made their way to the studio to be heard "live". All ten provincial stations of CRTV made daily appearances as well, providing their own editorials, invited guests, and "man-in-the-street" interviews. As the competition progressed the program became a forum for the expression of the bitterness Cameroonians felt at their elimination and for their attempts to find explanations for what had happened and for propositions for improvements in the future.[2]

In looking for explanations for Cameroon's early elimination, opinions varied widely from blaming the political regime, through tribalism, to blaming the goalkeeper of the team, but some of the most heated debate centered around Henri Michel, the coach.

It should be kept in mind that it is quite customary to blame the coach when a team does not do well. This is not unique to Cameroon, nor is it unique to national teams. As coaches are wont to say in Cameroon: "when the team wins it is the players who played well, and when the team loses, it is the coach who is no good". However, in the kind of commentary presented by the listeners of Bonjour l'Amérique, there are many factors that go beyond the technical merits of the suitability of Henri Michel as the coach of the national team.

For Cameroonians Henri Michel became the scapegoat of the 1994 World Cup in many ways. We have to keep in mind that in the current political climate of Cameroon. France is seen by many Cameroonians who are opposed to President Biya's regime, as maintaining him in power against the will of the people. Therefore criticism of Henri Michel, and by extension of France, also reflects indirect criticism of the regime. The fact that Henri Michel was French contributed greatly to the chagrin of the people, for this reason and also because of Cameroon's colonial/neocolonial ties to France.

It is clear that, had the team done well, the government would have done its best to appropriate the victory as its own, as it had after the success of Italia 1990 and at other times too[3]. Following the "Lions" disappointing performance there were three possible objects of blame: the Government itself, Joseph-Antoine Bell the goalkeeper, and finally the French head coach. From the point of view of the government, the most important thing was to deflect blame from itself. Blaming Bell would have been ideal from the point of view of the Government. However, because of the very high-handedness with which the Government tried to silence him when he tried to tell his side of the story, public opinion turned in Bell's favour[4]. Blaming Henri Michel, despite the above mentioned political interest of the government in maintaining good relations with France, was the least harmful from the Government's point of view.

The listeners of Bonjour l'Amérique were not blind to this connection, and several contributors pointed it out. One listener was satisfied with merely raising the rhetorical question: "We are looking at Henri Michel, but at the end of the day who gave the orders to Henri Michel?"[5]. Others go further and firmly, if ironically, point out the connection:

Everyone complained that Henri Michel is a dictator, he deals with ... Let us remember that the President of the Republic asked him in France ... told him in France that he had the green light. Well, when it is the President of the Republic who gives the green light to someone, then this gentleman has no longer to be accountable to anyone.[6]

Football on the international level acts as an integrative force promoting nationalist feelings everywhere, and this is no different in Cameroon[7]. Many Cameroonians are aware of this and both in conversation and on the radio programs one frequently hears statements to the effect that football is the only thing holding Cameroon together as a nation. And indeed, it is true that when it comes to the national team, people are willing to put aside their political and other differences, at least in the heat of the moment of watching a match, and will root for Cameroon. This nationalism is also evident in some of the speakers demanding that a local Cameroonian coach head the national team. Many point out that there are Cameroonian coaches as equally well credentialed as the foreign coaches. They also remind the listeners that the national team had been qualified by local coaches, and Henri Michel only took over after the qualification had been achieved. An Anglophone woman caller for example says:

the national team qualified with people like Manga Onguéné and Jules Nyongha. I don't see why Henri Michel is there. He has not done anything at all and if I were the Cameroonian authority ... I would ask that he resign or we ... we dismiss him![8]

A little later she continues:

I believe this ... this is time we have to overcome our complex and trot out ... our nationals ... our nationals. When they were qualifying was Henri Michel there? He wasn't there. Why is it that when ... when ... when we qualify ... they ... they have to go and bring an expatriate to come and spoil our team?[9]

Similar comments abound, sometimes stressing the need for Cameroonians to take charge of their own affairs, as for example in the comments given by a man in Maroua, in the course of a man-in-the-street interview:

I say, when we are speaking about Cameroonian football, Cameroonians should be in charge of our ... our football. Because what I see actually, is that the coaches who ... the expatriates whom they bring here to Cameroon cannot really control things. When we speak ... when we speak on the national level, really it is still our coaches who can at least achieve something. When they bring the expatriate coaches we do not get to the outcome that we want. So, let us really, us Cameroonians do our thing so that, so that we can see what may [happen].[10]

We have seen what Jules Nyongha was capable of doing, and the other one.... Well, this is the result ... that is really ... [...] because if they bring a Westerner here ... that is something, that is somebody who has no patriotism.[11]

no matter who the coach is, no matter what his competence, it's not three months before the event that a country like Cameroon, which moreover has great ambitions in football, should have looked for a coach[12] .

we blame the ... the ... the coach, He... Henri Michel. Henri Michel finds a situation which is already rotten, he cannot work with a federation which does not exist, with a Ministry of Education [she corrects herself] ... of Youth and Sports which does not exist[13].

Let's take stock of what is happening to us today, because the problem with which we are faced [...] it is the management, the management ... of public goods, the management of people, the management even of structures ... because I put it to you to show me any department, any service where ... where we don't find Henri Michels, ... Joseph Antoine Bells. The problem is at every level. Look at the state of our stadiums, look at the national education system ... that is to say everywhere, in every domain. What is my proposition? It is very simple. That is to say, it is to cut the umbilical cord. To count on our own forces first, to count on our ... our own forces[14].

There also are two counter-arguments to the demand for national coaches. One is employed primarily by journalists and sports professionals but it is also echoed in some contributions by listeners. This is that foreign coaches are necessary because if the results are unsatisfactory and the coach is local, the population would attack the coach and his family. The second one is mostly found in listener contributions. This is the question of tribalism, where the argument runs that expatriate coaches are necessary because, not being Cameroonian, they can stay above the problems caused by tribalism. Here, for example, are the comments of a woman caller from Yaoundé:

In addition we ... Henri Michel here and there and everywhere, no, we are all tribalists and really we practice tribalism in Cameroon. If it had been Manga Onguéné or Jules Nyongha [the actual assistant coaches of Henri Michel] we would have said he had taken more Bamilekes than Ewondos. No, we shall always need an expatriate because we are too tribalistic in Cameroon. Too much. So, we are shooting at Henri Michel, we need such a person to come ... to settle our quarrels. Let's try in ... amongst ourselves to stop this tribalism, that way we would be able to go further. Thank you. Goodbye[15].

Others acknowledge the force of this argument but argue against having, of all whites, a French head coach. Another Maroua speaker says the following in a man-in-the-street interview:

Because ... to bring a French coach here to Cameroon, we want that to stop. Henri Michel is the last French coach who came here to Cameroon. To bring a coach to say that we have to ... that they propose a Cameroonian. We know that Cameroonians will always be Cameroonians. They won't improve anything this [way].... That they bring other coaches, because the Cameroonians will always [be tribalistic]. So, I myself, I propose that they bring a coach other than a Frenchman. This is what I wanted to say.[16]

This last statement already shows that some of the responses of the listeners of Bonjour l'Amérique go beyond mere nationalism and represent an undercurrent of strong anti-colonial sentiments. Even those people who acknowledge the need for an outsider as coach want to get away from the colonial legacy of the French presence, as another caller puts it succinctly: "already the choice of Henri Michel, it's as if it was a form of re-colonising, well, Africa"[17] . These sentiments gain their fullest expression in a discourse which is fully anti-colonial. They express the strongest anti-French sentiment, basically suggesting that, given that the French themselves have not qualified for the World Cup, it would be illusory for Cameroonians to think that a Frenchman would lead Cameroon to success.

A woman who has submitted a letter sets the stage for her contribution by stating that "since 1960, and even before the French did not want to give us our independence, but we got it at the price of blood," rejecting Henri Michel she continues a little later "we want our affairs to return into our own hands"[18].

Others go further in their statements outlining a veritable conspiracy theory, the following statement is from the Francophone man previously quoted who suggested that expatriate coaches cannot have the necessary patriotism to lead a national team. He continues, saying:

Let's look at the case of Henri Michel, he is a Frenchman. We know that France was eliminated by Bulgaria. I don't know how Henri Michel could find it in his heart of hearts to want to do something for ... for [... the line is bad] from his heart. The white man says to himself that the Negroes, the Negroes cannot ever advance ...[19]

Another caller placing the question into the context of international politics goes even further and describes the expatriate French coach of Cameroon during the crucial and humiliating Cameroon - Russia match as someone who was on a special mission to undermine Cameroon. He says:

I would like to call the attention of the Cameroonians to what happens on the international scene. We have seen the great powers who put everything into destabilizing other rising powers ... . I think that from the moment when Cameroon was, wasn't it, considered to be one of the great football nations of the world ... well, we must not forget about these little games. So, I see clearly that if we observe carefully Henri Michel's [behaviour] through this competition, his intrigues have shown that he was, wasn't he, a special agent [envoyé special] who came to destabilize our team in this World Cup. So, really if we look back at the Cameroon - Russia match, you will see his outbursts, you will see his outbursts of satisfaction, his eye movements, his attitude which was, wasn't it, one of a ... of a man who was satisfied at having accomplished a certain mission.[20]

In the very fact of their construction these narratives transcend the question of the actualities of football and become metaphors of the relationship of the colony/post-colony to the colonial/neocolonial power. Naturally, there is no way of knowing whether there is any factual basis to them, in fact they seem rather far-fetched to me, but that is not the point. Taken as symbolic statements they talk about a different layer of truth, that of colonial past and neocolonial present, where the intentions of the erstwhile masters have not changed and cannot change, because they are based on self-interest and pride (on both sides). It is, I think, in the sense of this deeper historical truth about the French that the significance of these remarks about the French head coach has to be understood. In short, it is clear to everyone that independence has not delivered to Africa the promise it held for prosperity or social and economic justice. The root causes of this failure are very often to be sought in the past, in colonial history, and in the exploitative neocolonial present. France, as well as other Western powers, continues to safeguard its own interests despite rhetoric to the contrary. Its interests are often served by upholding a status quo which may serve the local élites, but to the majority of Africans, seems to be contrary to the interests of the people. Thus victory on the football pitch against the former colonizers would take on dimensions well beyond the scope of the match itself, demonstrating the "revenge" of the underdog. As André Ntonfo has shown[21], this is the case even vicariously, as for example when Bulgaria beat France for the qualification to the 1994 World Cup, Cameroonians, despite their usual interest in and support for French football, were openly rejoicing. When defeat is the order of the day, blaming the French coach evokes history in a symbolic way and sees the shortcomings of the national team, and the nation itself, as the result of this history. Fantastic and hyperbolic as these narratives may seem, they are not so different from those explanations of the defeat mentioned above which take stock of the less than ideal circumstances in which Cameroonian football finds itself. These anti-colonial narratives see the same situation but take a wider view, and contextualize the problem differently.

[1](Cf. Ntonfo 1994a)

[2] For a more detailed analysis of changes in the tenor of the program see Paul N. Nkwi et Bea Vidacs. Football: Politics and power in Cameroon". In Gary Armstrong and Richard Giulianotti (eds.). Entering the field: New perspectives on world football. Oxford: Berg, 1997

[3] See Ntonfo on the aftermath of Cameroon's victory over Zimbabwe to clinch qualification to the 1994 World Cup.

[4] See Nkwi et Vidacs. "Football: Politics and Power in Cameroon".

[5] (29/7/1994)

[6] (5/7/1994)

[7] See Clignet and Stark 1974; Flynn 1971; Ntonfo, 1994a and b.

[8] (25/6/1994)

[9] (25/6/1994)

[10] (1/7/1994)

[11] (29/6/1994)

[12] (1/7/1994)

[13] (1/7/1994)

[14] (3/7/1994 )

[15] (29/6/1994)

[16] (1/7/1994)

[17] (29/6/1994)

[18] [Mme Oabon]

[19] (29/6/1994)

[20] (3/7/1994)

[21] André Ntonfo. Football et politique du football au Cameroun. Yaoundé: Editions du Crac, 1994a.

Bibliography

Remi et Maureen Stark Clignet. "Modernisation and Football in Cameroun". Journal of Modern African Studies. 12-3 (1974) 409-421.

Peter Flynn. "Sambas, Soccer and Nationalism". New Society. 19 August 1971.

Simon Kuper. Football against the enemy. London: Orion, 1994.

Paul N. Nkwi et Bea Vidacs. Football: Politics and power in Cameroon". In Gary Armstrong and Richard Giulianotti (eds.). Entering the field: New perspectives on world football. Oxford: Berg, 1997.

André Ntonfo. Football et politique du football au Cameroun. Yaoundé: Editions du Crac, 1994a.

André Ntonfo. "Ethnie et sport au Cameroun," in Ethnie et developpement national. Actes du Colloque de Yaoundé 1993. Yaoundé: Editions du Crac, 1994b.