The versus between Messi and Maradona They tend to be resolved in the field of football. Dribbling, goals, leadership and titles, finals lost or won are discussed. Sometimes one wins, sometimes the other. But there is another level where their differences place them on opposite paths. Where the versus is much more revealing and much less romantic: politics.
The scene that triggered the latest controversy occurred in Washington. Lionel Messi and Inter MiamiMLS champions, were received at the White House by donald trump. The protocol is old: the United States invites the champion teams and the president poses for the photo. But the context changes everything. Trump is undergoing a military escalation with Iran and, true to his style, took advantage of the meeting to talk about the ongoing operation.
Messi listened, applauded and then smiled for the photos.
In a matter of minutes, social networks did their job. Especially from progressive sectors, the instant moral judgment appeared: Messi, they said, was legitimizing one of the most controversial politicians on the planet. The digital court ruled on memes, ironies and a nickname that circulated with enthusiasm: “Trump’s jerk”.
The scene has something absurd. Messi did not say a word about politics. But in the 21st century even silence is interpreted as alignment. And there inevitably appears the contrast with Diego Maradonathe footballer for whom politics was never an area to avoid, but rather a stage to conquer.
Because “El Diego” did not limit himself to giving his opinion: militated. He faced the FIFAdenounced the Vatican Because of his “golden ceiling,” he proclaimed himself an enemy of the “empire” and turned each interview into a mix of Latin American revolution and television show. Maradona was a character perfectly adapted to the political climate of the end of the 20th century: populist, provocative, excessive.
His friends were also carefully chosen to fuel that story. Fidel Castro was the most famous. Diego visited him in Havana (where today those who denigrate him remember that they enabled pedophilia), he talked about the revolution and ended up tattooing his face on his leg. He also hugged Hugo Chavezwhom he accompanied at public events, campaigns and gestures of support.
That’s it, the legend.
The curious thing is that the same internet that destroys Messi today for a photo with Trump prefers to forget some uncomfortable details about Diego. For example, for years he maintained a very close relationship with the Chavista regime, even participating as an intermediary in commercial operations linked to the purchase of food from Europe.
While Venezuela was going through one of the worst humanitarian crises on the continentMaradona continued posing with Chávez first and then with Maduro, receiving payments for different media and political collaborations. But that chapter rarely appears in the epic narrative.
In the sentimental memory of the networks, Maradona continues to be the defender of the poorthe rebel who faced global power. The image is powerful, of course. Also conveniently incomplete.
Because if something characterized Diego it was his incomparable talent for turn politics into spectacle. He was not so much a militant as an artist of political gesture. He knew perfectly well what image to build: the rebel who insulted George Bush for his “war crimes” (he never recognized the human rights violations in Cuba or Venezuela), the Latin American who rejected awards in the United States to travel to Cuba, the popular idol who spoke against the elites while moving between sheikhs and million-dollar contracts.
Contradiction was never a problem. On the contrary: it was part of the character.
There appears the deepest difference with Messi, the idol of globalization. A footballer trained in the silent diplomacy of corporate sports. He doesn’t give his opinion, he doesn’t shout, he doesn’t lead ideological crusades. He limits himself to playing, winning and posing for whatever institutional photo he gets. For many that is lukewarm. For others, simple intelligence.
Maradona, on the other hand, was a baroque idolmade of epic, excess and contradiction. A sublime player who needed to transform every gesture into a political act, even when that gesture ended up aligning him with regimes that had little to offer.
That is why contemporary moral judgment is so curious. The same networks that today destroy Messi for appearing next to Trump They are the ones who sculpt the bronze of Diego as if he had been some kind of Che Guevara in ankle boots. Maybe the truth is more uncomfortable.
Neither Messi is an operator of Trumpism nor was Maradona a pure revolutionary. One represents the calculated neutrality of the global idol. The other represented the political theatricality of the popular idolwith all its inconsistencies. But in times of digital outrage, nuances often lose.
So the scene is served as a metaphor for the era: Messi applauds in silence in the White House and he is crucified on the internet. Maradona embraced authoritarian leaders and they still call him the people’s rebel. Football, like politics, also knows how to create mythologies.
Image gallery
