Abstract
The word puto introduced semantic controversy into the 2014 World Cup. The word has been equated by some to a homophobic slur among the ranks of fag and faggot. American media and equality activists petitioned against the use of the word in Entertainment and Sports Programming Network and Univision broadcasts. Mexican soccer fans who used the word in a chant during matches argue that the word has no homophobic context in its use and is instead geared at distracting the opposing team. The Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) opened up an investigation into the use of the word by Mexican soccer fans and concluded that it was not a violation of their code of conduct and permitted its use; however, debate around the word still exists. Even though the debate was covered thoroughly by American media, stories failed to express the views and perspectives of those in support of the chant. The current study employed a textual analysis of tweets defending the chat that included the hashtag #FIFAputos. Employing the theoretical lens of McCormack’s homosexually themed language, the findings add nuance to the cultural, temporal, and spatial context of semantic meaning. Four themes also organically evolved from the analysis.
Keywords
After the first round of Group A games at the 2014 World Cup, the Fare network (monitoring body for discriminatory behavior at the tournament) notified Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) that both Mexico and Brazil had used the word puto in an offensive fashion aimed at opposing goalkeepers (Rumsby, 2014a). Puto is usually chanted as an insult when the opposing team’s goalkeeper has the ball (Zeigler, 2014a) and is viewed by some as a derogatory slur for being homosexual (Associated Press [AP], 2014). The chant was first noted at Mexican matches in Guadalajara in 2003 (Fanbolero, 2012) and then at Olympic qualifying matches in 2004 (Zeigler, 2014a). The word continues to generate controversy due to its homophobic nature (Spencer, 2014).
FIFA confirmed on June 18, 2014, that it had opened disciplinary proceedings against Mexico due to spectators’ improper conduct (FIFA, 2014). The impending sanction sparked global debate over the meaning and the effects of what American and Mexican antidiscrimination organizations are calling a derogatory and gay slur (Castillo & Noel, 2014). FIFA eventually ruled in June 2014 that the Mexican Federation was not liable for its spectators’ conduct (Guthrie, 2014) and allowed Mexican and Brazilian fans to continue the chant.
FIFA was criticized for invalidating the perspectives of those who see puto as a slur for being homosexual (Zeigler, 2014b). Some of the American public and gay rights organizations also criticized American broadcasters Entertainment and Sports Programming Network (ESPN) and Univision for failing to adopt a watchdog role and to censor the word from their broadcasts. Andres Aradillas-Lopez, a Mexican-born professor of economics at Penn State, condemned Univision: They may be a Spanish-speaking network, but they are still operating in U.S. soil …. Why is it OK to broadcast the word “faggot” on TV …. Is this OK because FIFA (the benchmark of morality) says it is OK? (Zeigler, 2014b, para. 7)
Mexican organizations, celebrities, and citizens also spoke out against the use of the word puto. Some gay Mexicans argued the word translates literally as “faggot” and offensively targets Mexican homosexuals (Spencer, 2014). Mexico’s antidiscrimination agency, Consejo Nacional para Prevenir la Discriminacíón (Conapred), stated, “The cry of ‘puto’ is an expression of disdain and rejection … it reflects the homophobia, machismo and misogyny that our society still suffers” (CNN México, 2014). Mexican actor Diego Luna stated soccer is a reflection of society, “We live in a classist, racist, homophobic society into which we are very assimilated …” (EFE, 2014, para. 4). Álvaro Cueva, a Mexican journalist, criticized Mexicans for inventing theories to justify the chant instead of recognizing and correcting the error (Guthrie, 2014).
Miguel Herrera, Mexico’s soccer coach, defended the chanting, “We’re with our fans. It’s something they do to pressure the opposing goalkeeper” (AP, 2014, para. 3). Mexican fans present at the 2014 World Cup argue that the use of the word puto had been culturally misinterpreted and that Americans did not understand Mexican idiosyncrasy and soccer as a way of life in Mexico; they argued that the word was merely a form of support (Castillo & Noel, 2014). Fans claim the chant is common in soccer and is not used as a homophobic remark, but instead is more of a war cry, only yelled when the goalkeeper is about to hit the ball (Zeigler, 2014a). They equate it to yelling “chicken” in the United States (Castillo & Noel, 2014). For Mexican fans, it is more about distraction than it is about vilification.
So what does puto really mean? That’s the epicenter of the debate. The word has many meanings in the Spanish language. As a noun, it is defined as a man who copulates with a person of the same gender. As an adjective, it’s defined as a rhetorical resource to mean the opposite of the noun it’s modifying or describing, or as a derogatory rating (Diccionario de la Real Academia Española, n.d.). Even the media is not in agreement as to what the actual meaning of puto is. LA Weekly reported that “puto is faggot in Spanish” (Romero, 2012, para. 1), and The Telegraph, a British newspaper, agreed stating it was a “faggot chant” (Rumsby, 2014b). Conversely, the Irish Times wrote that puto translates into whore (Irish Times, 2014), whereas The Washington Post and Slate Web Magazine noted that the word roughly means gay prostitute (Jaramillo, 2014; Payne, 2014). When you enter puto into Google Translate, it states the English translation of the word is “fucking.” This might be due to the fact that puto can be conjugated in similarly versatile ways (Jaramillo, 2014). Televisa anchorman Joaquin López-Dóriga stated, “puto … has the meaning that one wishes to give to it” (Guthrie, 2014, para. 9).
Throughout the controversy, a majority of Western news outlets and online media sites were predominately engaged with the views of Americans and equality organizations protesting the use of the word, however, for the most part, neglected the voice of those (predominately Mexican soccer fans) whom defended its use. A majority of those in defense of the chant took to Twitter and created the hashtag #FIFAputos. Thus, the current study aims to understand the cultural nuances of those who defend the use of the word puto at soccer matches. Utilizing the theoretical lens of McCormack’s (2011) homosexually themed language and employing a textual analysis of the hashtag #FIFAputos on Twitter, the current study examines the way in which culture and intent provide context and nuance for the use of the word puto. The goal of the study is to contribute to the research on cultural differences, homosexually themed language, and global discourse through mediated spaces.
Literature Review
Homosexual Epithets in Sport
The words faggot and fag are traditionally correlated with antigay attitudes (Burn, 2000; Franklin, 2000) and instill a homophobic belief that being a homosexual is one of the worst things a person can be and is something to be ashamed of (Cashman, 2014). Fag is commonly used in sports to reify masculinity and insult rival players (Hughson, 2000), serving as discourse in which boys discipline themselves and each other (Kimmel, 2008; Pascoe, 2005). Discourses of masculinity are often negotiated through indirect means such as using derogatory and sexually intimidating terms (Kiesling, 2002).
Academic scholarship investigating the usage of homosexual epithets in sport has principally come to one of two conclusions. The first faction of scholars argues that homophobic language in sports restricts the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) athletes by policing masculine behavior, resulting in the stigmatization of nonmasculine males (Mazzie, 2014; O’Mahoney, 2014). Fans target opposing players (and sometimes officials) by shouting or chanting homosexual epithets such as poofter, nonce, wanker, dickhead, and fag at them (Giulianotti, 1999a). Because of this stigmatization, many gay athletes choose to remain in the closet (E. Anderson, 2002). Giulianotti (1999a) argues this overt masculinity stems from the fundamental inception of the sport by male elites; the game’s organizational hierarchies continue to sustain male authority and the playing aesthetics advocate traditional masculinity.
An alternative faction of scholars has largely expressed that homosexually themed language in sport has recently taken on a less damaging configuration and may have constructive implications (E. Anderson, 2011; Cleland & Cashmore, 2016; McCormack & Anderson, 2010a). Previous research examining the actual lived experiences of gay men in sport found that perceptions of the sport atmosphere were not overly negative (Cavalier, 2011). E. Anderson (2009, 2011) credits this association to a cultural shift from homophobia to a stigmatization of homophobia. A gay-positive culture influences gay-positive experiences of gay athletes.
Puto in Sports Research
Studies that include the word puto itself are sparse in academic literature (Alabarces, Zucal, & Moreira, 2008; Cabrera, 2013; Zucal, 2007). Academics such as Andres Aradillas-Lopez have publicly affirmed that the use of puto in soccer is indeed homophobic in interviews with American media (Rumsby, 2014b), and only recently have there been inquiries into the usage of the word and its implications in sport and mediated communication (Alabarces et al., 2008; Cabrera, 2013; Zucal, 2007).
Some scholars have looked at other Spanish words that translate directly to homophobic slurs such as maricon, joto, and marica which carry the semantic nuances of the word fag in English (Cashman, 2012; Vidal-Ortiz, 2011). These terms carry machismo and misogynistic nuance (Castillo & Noel, 2014) by emasculating the targeted player on the field. Previous studies have found other homophobic slurs such as maricon to be used by Hispanic and Latino men to prove their masculinity (Cashman, 2012; Hughson, 2000) and to reify their ethnic identity in an extremely heteronormative, machismo Latin culture (Carris, 2011; Delgado, 2000).
Specific to the word puto, the research investigating its use in sport have all concluded that the word is used primarily to emasculate opponents and reify in-group masculine identities (Cabrera, 2013; Zucal, 2007). Alabarces, Zucal, and Moreira (2008) argue puto is not a direct reference to a homosexual, but more about a relationship of power and dominance between two competing entities. In an investigation of Argentinian soccer fans, Zucal (2007) echoed this sentiment, finding puto was used as a contradiction to masculinity, a lack of the masculine attributes of endurance, determination, and strength. To be a puto was to be dominated. Anyone not fitting within this model of masculinity was othered and considered a puto.
Cabrera (2013) further demonstrated this reification of masculinity through the semantic expression of puto in a series of interviews with Argentinian soccer fans. The Argentinian fans constructed their own identity through a semantic process that reified their own masculinity and emasculated others. For them, there was a clear dichotomy of macho and puto. The word centers on power and domination. Individuals labeled as putos are not considered “real men” and were dominated. Puto is a symbolic gesture of subordination and control, used to reify the in-group, the Argentinian soccer fans, as macho and real men.
The inception of the word puto cannot be directly pinpointed, however, as mentioned above, its first recorded use was at 2003 Mexican soccer matches in Guadalajara (Fanbolero, 2012). Even though the word serves multiple meanings and uses, it is still positioned outside of the heteronormative (Poppe, 2013). Therefore, whether it is used as a homosexual reference or as a way to emasculate others, it is utilized as a way to reference and police hegemonic ideals of masculinity. Puto is part of the Mexican sport lexicon and its chanting is ritualistic in nature. It’s a cultural expression that unifies Mexican soccer fans in one collective identity while in the sacred space of the stadium, allowing fans a voice to express themselves and participate in the match (Poppe, 2013).
Twitter and Sport
Social media provides users the ability to interact in real time on digitally mediated platforms concurrently (also before and after) while consuming sports content either in person or through mediated channels (Hutchins, 2011; Redhead, 2007). One such social media platform, Twitter, has quickly become an enduring channel in sport communication (Clavio & Kian, 2010), providing its users access to millions of other users worldwide who share a common fandom for a team, player, or sporting event. One feature of Twitter, the hashtag, allows its users to collectively interact over a specific phenomenon. A specific term or phrase is preceded by “#,” and used in tweets; all tweets containing the hashtag indicate they are related to the same topic or phenomenon. The current study investigates tweets utilizing the hashtag #FIFAputos.
Sanderson (2014) argues that it is imperative to study Twitter in order to better understand sport’s relation to society. The social media platform has been used by scholars to examine relationships between sport’s teams and their fans (Armstrong, Delia, & Giardina, 2014), athletes' tweets (Hambrick, Simmons, Greenhalgh, & Greenwell, 2010), and parasocial relationships between fans and athletes (Frederick, Lim, Clavio, & Walsh, 2012) among others. Similar to the current study, Twitter has also been used to research interactions among spectators, fans, athletes, and sports teams at major sporting events such as the 2009 Tour of Italy (Kassing & Sanderson, 2010), the 2011 World Series (Blaszka, Burch, Frederick, Clavio, & Walsh, 2012), the 2012 London Summer Olympics (Frederick, Burch, & Blaszka, 2013), the 2013 PGA Tour (Hull, 2014), and the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics (Girginova, 2015).
Twitter has quickly become a focus of academic and pragmatic exploration. Twitter is a form of communication (Sanderson, 2014) and should be researched as such. The discourse created on the platform gives insight into the ways in which individuals use words and language in cultural-specific spaces. The current study’s goal is to investigate Twitter as a means of communication for those who support the use of the word puto. Furthermore, it investigates how this faction of society challenges and constructs meaning of the word’s usage in Mexican soccer culture.
Theoretical Conceptualization
Because there is argument that the usage of puto is not entirely negative and its meaning is contextual, I argue that semantically it is more similar to the word gay. Much like puto, the word gay has been assigned multiple definitions throughout history, with the most conventional being homosexual (Leith, 1997; Nicolas & Skinner, 2012) which infers a violation of gender norms (Pascoe, 2005; Slaatten & Gabrys, 2014). Within the last decade, gay has been used in specific contextual instances as a term to imply negative nuances that are disconnected from any homosexual reference (Lalor & Rendle-Short, 2007) and are often a response to disliked or foolish behavior (Jewell & Morrison, 2010; McCormack & Anderson, 2010b).
McCormack (2011) argues that cultural context is essential in understanding the use of language with gay content, specifically how it is interpreted and its social effects. Because modern society is rapidly recognizing homosexuality in progressive approaches (McCormack, 2012), the valence in which homosexually themed language is expressed can oscillate from positive to negative depending on culture and conceptualization (McCormack, 2011). Culture in McCormack’s (2011) model is expressed on a continuum from gay friendly culture to homohysteric culture. The continuum is divided into four types or frameworks depending on the level of homohysteria: homophobic language, fag discourse, gay discourse, and homosexually themed language.
Homophobic language occurs in an extremely homohysteric culture with “pernicious intent and has a very negative social effect” (p. 673). Fag discourse is found in social environments that are slightly less homohysteric and contains both pernicious and nonpernicious intent. Because the intent of language is ambiguous, it still endorses negative social effects. Gay discourse is employed in a low homohysteric culture, where there is “no intent to marginalize or wound people” (p. 674); however, the word gay is still utilized in communication to express dissatisfaction or frustration. Homosexually themed language occurs in gay friendly cultures in practices that have positive social effects and fosters a welcoming environment. Overlap between the frameworks and exceptions may occur; however, the model provides a scaffold for academics dependent upon the cultural (both spatial and temporal) context of the given social environment.
The analysis of tweets created by those who defend the use of the word puto will aid in contextualizing the cultural nuances of the word’s meaning as well as provide insight into the level of homohysteria that is present. Thus, the following research question is raised:
Method
A textual analysis was employed on Twitter discourse containing the hashtag #FIFA putos to investigate ways in which those supporters of the chant interpreted and defended the use of puto. #FIFAputos was created on June 19 after the matches between Mexico and Cameroon and was utilized up until June 24, the day after FIFA withdrew sanctions against Mexico. An advanced search was conducted on the platform’s site for all tweets listed between the aforementioned dates containing the exact hashtag #FIFAputos. This yielded a purposive sample of 344 tweets (262 with attached images or memes, 8 with attached videos, and 74 with only text). The tweets were either entirely or mostly in Spanish.
Tweets were then coded and analyzed according to DeCuir-Gunby, Marshall, and McCulloch (2011), who stress data-driven codes. Raw information in the tweets was reduced into smaller units by lumping together data with similar levels of meaning. Themes within the subsamples were then identified. Another round of analysis was conducted to determine whether the resulting themes needed to be expanded or whether themes could be combined into a loftier theme. A third and final analysis was performed to determine the utility/reliability of the themes by comparing them with the theoretical framework.
Overall, four main themes organically evolved from this process: the miseducation of FIFA, puto is rooted in heritage and the stadium is a liminal space, FIFA is hypocritical, and gay undertone. Each theme is discussed in more detail below. Even though Twitter is considered a public sphere and anyone can access the site regardless of owning a Twitter account, the Twitter handles of each user were changed to pseudonyms to help protect the anonymity of the users. Also, because each Twitter user who utilized the hashtag cannot be verified as a “Mexican soccer fan,” the phrase “those in support of the chant” will be utilized for the remainder of the study.
Findings
The Miseducation of FIFA
One reoccurring sentiment found among supporters of the chant was that of FIFA needing to learn the different meanings of the word puto and realize the context in which the fans used the word was not derogatory to homosexuals. A number of tweets contained pictures of Spanish dictionary definitions of the word and addressed FIFA to “please know the difference between Homosexual: people who like other people from the same gender; and puto: the ones who read the tweet.” These memes insinuate that it is not the players who are putos, but rather FIFA officials themselves. There were also memes that included different conjugations of the word puto and how Mexicans use it. For example, one sentence on the meme read “cuando hace mucho calor decimos que puto calor hace,” which means “when it’s hot, we say it’s so fucking hot!” These tweets showed the versatility in use of the word.
A number of the tweets also poked fun at the idea that censorship of the word puto by FIFA was even a consideration. Laura tweeted, “Deberían prohibir la ola también, me parece una falta de respeto para los que no saben nadar” (translation: the concept is so ridiculous that FIFA should just ban the wave because it lacks respect for those who cannot swim). There were also several tweeted pictures of Pluto the dog with captions that read, “Creí que gritaban ¡Plutooo” (translation: I thought they were yelling at me Pluto!). These tweets used parody to give emphasis to the ludicrous nature of the censorship. Others used a picture of Pope Francis with his hands in the air and typed “Ehhhhhhhh!!! Putoooooo!!! jajajajajaja.” These tweets insinuated that the chant was condoned by the Pope and even he used it. The “jajajajajaja” at the end is the Spanish equivalent to “lol,” which blatantly makes fun of the puto dispute.
Others, like Luna, took the position that yelling puto was freedom of expression and tweeted, “El bullying infantile es lo peor que puede existir. Ya de grande está bien, ¡Es libertad de expression” (translation: Childhood bullying is the worst that can exist. But when you’re older it’s okay, it’s freedom of expression!), indicating that the players are all adults and the fans should be able to yell whatever they wanted. This theme was also manifested in tweets like those from Liz who tweeted a video of a crying baby and wrote, “Los de la FIFA creen que asi se sienten los jugadores” (translation: FIFA believes this is how the players feel). Previous studies in sports examining motivations and values that attracted consumers to their sports found freedom as the most common value cited by all respondents (McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig, 2002; Quester, Beverland, & Farrelly, 2006). They highlighted the freedom to express one’s creativity and individuality, freedom from daily grind, and freedom to be part of something not subject to the rules or structure of something more mainstream (Quester et al., 2006).
Puto Is Heritage and the Stadium a Liminal Space
Tweets incorporating images of Mayans sacrificing soccer players from Croatia and Cameroon were included in the tweets using #FIFAputos. Some fans, like Omar, tweeted a picture of an ancient Mayan ball game where the crowd chanted “ehhh! Puto!” with the text, “Orígenes del tradicional grito de Guerra” (translation: origins of the traditional war cry). These tweets claimed that the puto chant had originated in Mayan times and was a tradition for the Mexican people. Sam tweeted, “#FifaPutos learn the difference between discrimination & local jokes,” indicating that the puto chant was distinctive to Mexico and not generalizable to a global population.
The above suggests that the chant is used as a way to reify culture and even nationality. Giulianotti and Finn (1999) argue that soccer has provided “the most important setting within popular culture in which symbols and discourses of national identity may be displayed and mediated through mass communication” (p. 257). Soccer provides a constant cultural production, displayed for all. Giulianotti (1999b) found that soccer helped to establish a sense of national identity in Uruguay. For the supporters of the chant on Twitter, the chant reified their culture and their national heritage.
In the same light, the images of Mayan fans chanting puto in a sports arena was also indicative of how modern-day Mexicans still use the chant at soccer games. Several tweets addressed the issue that the chants were not used outside the walls of the soccer stadium, making it a liminal space. A majority of the behavior, such as the chanting, only happened when in the stadium. Pablo tweeted a picture of fans in a soccer stadium and wrote, “Aquí todo está permitido” (translation: Here, everything is permitted). Stefania tweeted a picture of a soccer stadium and wrote: “Por sí cuando vengan a México escuchan brotar estas palabras no se asusten! no sean putos” (translation: So if they come to Mexcio and hear these words yelled, they shouldn’t panic! Don’t be putos). Thus, indicating that for those who come to a Mexican soccer game, they should be prepared to hear the word puto.
Alex tweeted a picture depicting Mexican fans in masks and capes yelling and throwing their hands up above another picture of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert sipping tea with their pinkies raised. The caption read, “Aficionados. Como son en realidad. Como los quiere la FIFA” (translation: Aficionados. How they are in reality. How FIFA wants them to be). This picture was representative of the sentiment that Mexican fans are going to be rowdy and yell, and FIFA wants them to be prim and proper. Others, such as Yuri, tweeted pictures of Mexican fans with the text “Si ya saben lo que grito, por qué me invitas” (translation: If you already know how I yell, then why do you invite me?). If FIFA knows how the Mexican soccer fans behave and chant, then why do they invite them to participate in the World Cup? This particular tweet shows no remorse from the fans for their behavior and proposes a “take it or leave it” attitude toward FIFA. Mexican fans are who they are, they’ve always been that way, and they will always act in a particular way when in the liminal space of the stadium regardless what anyone says.
Liminality is described as “unstructured or rudimentarily structured and relatively undifferentiated comitatus, community or even communion of equal individuals who submit together to the general authority of the ritual elders” (Turner, 1969). Mexican fans view the soccer stadium as a ritual space separate from the rest of society that requires a clear separation of sacred from secular space and time (Herwig, 2009). Within this space, they are free to express behavior and discourse that would otherwise be deemed inappropriate in other areas of society. Soccer has been reasoned a masculine ritual, a space where the fans affirm what real men are in comparison to women, children, and homosexuals (Archetti, 1985). It is here that masculine attributes are localized, and the prototypical masculinity is constructed and maintained.
FIFA Is Hypocritical
There were several tweets that manifested a theme of hypocrisy by criticizing FIFA for hosting the 2018 World Cup in Russia and the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. Both countries have laws prohibiting homosexuality and the spreading of gay propaganda (McCabe, 2013). Concha was one of many tweeters who tweeted a meme with a quote from Alejandro Gomes (a journalist from Comex Masters, which is broadcasted on ESPN and FOX Sports) that read “Eeeeeeeehhh … ¡¡FIFAAA!! Persiguen un estúpido grito de ‘apoyo’, pero le dan un Mundial a Rusia, con todo y su ley Anti Gay y a Qatar que no tolera a los homosexuals” (translation: Eeeeeeeehhh FIFA, you pursue a stupid cry of support, yet you give the World Cup to Russia with all its antigay laws and to Qatar that does not tolerate homosexuals). Other tweets, like that of Roberto, reposted screenshots of Fernanda Familiar’s quote that read, Ahi te voy con todo FIFA: ¿Te parece discriminativo “puto” pero das el Mundial a Qatar? … Te tengo noticias FIFA, ¡ahi condenan a los hombres a muerte ¡por homosexualidad! Y háganle cómo quieran, que me responsabilizo al 100, de este puto señalamiento (translation: Here I go with everything FIFA: You think “puto” is discriminative but you give the World Cup to Qatar? I’ve got news for you FIFA, there they condemn men to death for homosexuality! And do what you want, blame me 100% for this fucking remark).
Gay Undertone
Although a majority of the tweeters using the hashtag #FIFAputos claimed that the chanting of puto was not pejorative in nature to homosexuals, there was a blatant gay undertone to some of the tweets. Several tweets, like that of Carmen, contained pictures of Juan Gabriel and Mexican actor Luis Gerardo Mendez with the text, “Ya se!!! Y si gritamos eeehhh Juanga Y Pum! La FIFA no sabe que pedo!” (translation: I know! What if we yelled eeehhh Juanga and bam! FIFA won’t know the difference). The tweeters used the word “Juanga” to refer to Latin artist Juan Gabriel, who is openly gay and is often heckled and berated with homophobic slurs in machismo Latin America (Baez, 2014). They equated using the word puto to the word Juanga.
Other tweets, similar to the one tweeted by Adan, used a meme of Gerard Piqué (Spanish professional soccer player for Futbol Club Barcelona and the Spain national team) and Zlatan Ibrahimovic (Swedish professional soccer player for French club Paris Saint-Germain and the Swedish national team) in a loving, off-field embrace with the text “No te preocupes amor la FIFA va a castigar a esos Mexicanos” (translation: Don’t worry my love, FIFA will punish those Mexicans). The picture itself had circulated the Internet in 2010 and prompted rumors of a homosexual relationship between the two men (Harrison, 2010). The picture was recirculated with the hashtag #FIFAputos to insinuate that FIFA was going to punish Mexicans for being antigay. This particular meme also equated the chanting by the Mexican soccer fans to disparaging homophobic discourse.
Discussion
Sport is a reflection of who we are and is ritualistic in nature, a space and time in which we can act out our identities (Cashman, 2014), as demonstrated by the Mexican soccer fans. This research adds to the body of literature on gay epithets such as faggot, fag, gay, and puto that have been found to be pervasive in sports culture (E. Anderson, 2005). Words such as these used in the domain of professional sports performance perpetuate the belief that the use of homosexual epithets are more acceptable in professional sports than in other contexts (Kimmel, 2008).
Perhaps the most imperative observation is that of soccer performed in a liminal space. The 2014 World Cup saw the integration of both legacy and social media to deliver the World Cup to citizens all across the globe. What was once a liminal experience has become a public experience for all to participate in via the media. The soccer field is viewed as a sacred and ritualistic space for some Mexican soccer fans and the experience, including behavior and discourse, may be so outrageous that it can only exist in an unofficial, established area such as the soccer stadium (Herwig, 2009). These results both parallel and contribute to previous research conducted in sports and liminal spaces (Boyd & Stahley, 2008; Eisenberg, 1984; Trujillo, 1992). Soccer is one of many sports that experience a tension between liminal spaces and governing authorities trying to impose structure and guidelines, in this case FIFA. The fans want to experience a sense of community and fluid fun, whereas FIFA represents big business and the bottom line (Boyd & Stahley, 2008; Turner, 1969).
ESPN and Univision broadcast this ritual to the rest of the world and have opened up this liminal space to outside perspective and criticism. Previous studies have found that the presence of media exacerbates the structure of authoritative organizations such as FIFA and breaks down the confines of the liminal space and the glory of the game (Aden & Reynolds, 1993; Boyd & Stahley, 2008; Goldstein & Bredemeier, 1977). Sport is best when it occurs in isolated natural territory (Aden & Reynolds, 1993). Prior to the broadcast of soccer matches, the behavior and discourse of soccer fans were not problematic. Now, with FIFA’s decision not to sanction the word puto, the chant is sure to remain part of the liminal ritual and has continued to be broadcast globally. The practice will, over time and across instances, solidify into a recurring structure (Peaslee, 2013).
The media have a responsibility to portray the most objective and unbiased portrayal through their journalistic lens, even if that media is a sports-heavy latent medium. Although both ESPN and Univision came out and stood in solidarity with LGBTQ fans calling for an inclusive World Cup (Payne, 2014), they also refused to take responsibility for the broadcast of the word puto and neither formulated actions to censor nor bleep out the word on their parts. L. Anderson and Lepore (2013) argue that no matter its history, intended or communicated meaning, past associations or who introduced it, once relevant individuals declare a word a slur, it becomes one. In the case of puto, the word is now considered a slur by some and the media should be cognizant of that. Arguably, the liminal spaces in which the soccer matches take place are completely separate in spatial, and sometimes temporal, perspectives. The media must be culturally cognizant of not only the place in which the soccer matches occur but also the places in which they are broadcast.
The broadcast of the liminal space also aided in the differences in language in different geographic locations. One criticism of FIFA, and generally the rest of the world, is that it did not understand the difference between the meanings and context of the word puto. If the meaning of a slur such as puto is dependent on interpretation, then it can be argued that intent may not always be established just by its mixed content (McCready, 2010). For some Mexican soccer fans, the word is culturally anchored in a meaning of jest and distraction, whereas most of the Western world generally regards puto to be homophobic in nature. It’s important to note that the individuals using the hashtag did not negate that puto couldn’t imply a homosexual male, but instead stated the word has several meanings and their intent did not align with a homophobic undertone. This finding is similar to that of Poulton and Durell (2014) who found the use of the word “Yid” to take on a multiplicity of meanings, intent, and rituals in English football fandom.
A specific meaning is attributed to a speaker’s use of a word in relation to the strength of evidence that the concept expressed by the word has a certain functional role within the speaker’s life (Rauti, 2010). In the case of puto, the word functions in a specific role for soccer fans much differently than it might function for American media or equality activists. Through the theoretical lens of McCormack’s (2011) framework of homosexually themed language, there is a low level of homohysteria manifested in the tweets containing the #FIFAputos. Although there were a few jabs of homosexual jokes present in the tweets, the main intent of the tweets was to distract opposing goal keepers. The word still carries homosexual undertones; however, the intent was not pernicious. Aside from the lower levels of homohysteria, the current study is similar to the findings of Cabrera (2013) and Zucal (2007) in Argentina; puto not only does refer to a homosexual role but also serves as an inciting (and arguable defensive) resource to reify masculinity. The use of the word puto by Mexican soccer fans in the specific instance of the 2014 World Cup is indicative of McCormack’s (2011) category of gay discourse, which is employed in a low homohysteric culture where there is “no intent to marginalize or wound people” (p. 674); however, the word gay is still utilized in communication to express dissatisfaction or frustration.
Although the current study exemplifies an analysis of all the tweets utilizing #FIFAputos during the 2014 World Cup, some online content defending the use of puto (those not containing the hashtag) may have been overlooked. Also, each Twitter user whose tweets were analyzed cannot be verified as a Mexican soccer fan, and the results are not able to be generalized to all Mexican soccer fans. Nonetheless, the current study does, however, highlight the intentional use of Twitter to voice a side of public opinion that was absent from mainstream, traditional media. It demonstrates the collective agency of social media users and provides a nuanced representation of this specific group’s interpretation of the word puto.
The tweets were also limited to 140 characters, which, to some, is not an enormous amount of content. In spite of this, the space constraint forces users to convey their intentions in direct and simple manners. Twitter allows users to add images and videos, which were also analyzed in the current study. Because Twitter is a global platform, tweets in Spanish, English, and Spanglish from both the United States and Mexico were able to be evaluated. The current study serves as a case study and opens the door for future, and broader research, in this area.
Future research should look at those Western soccer fans who object to the use of the word puto, specifically considering mediated platforms. Giulianotti’s (1999a) concept of the “postfan,” which was derived from John Urry’s (1990) notion of the posttourist and applied to soccer, would be a suitable lens from which to examine this phenomenon. Giulianotti suggests that postfans embody a sense of reflexivity and are “cognizant of the constructed nature of fan reputations, and the vagaries of the media in exaggerating or inventing such identities” (p. 148). These ironic and critical stances toward power and those in power may shed light on the role of fans in combating homophobia in sport. Although the idea of the postfan has been limited to physical spaces, applying it to mediated spaces would be of scholarly benefit.
Conclusion
Even though some scholars point to a decline in homohysteria in organized sports (E. Anderson, 2009, 2011), the empiricism of their findings is restricted to Western countries like the United States and the UK, while studies conducted in Latin American countries, Argentina and Uruguay, for example (Alabarces et al., 2008; Cabrera, 2013; Zucal, 2007), point to a more homohysteric social environment. McCormack’s (2011) model of homosexually themed discourse is well suited to explain how these different levels of homohysteria aid in distinguishing the intent of language, how that language is interpreted, and the resulting social effects.
The current study demonstrates how mediated platforms provide a space of overlap between the types of language. Televised soccer matches broadcast the liminal spaces and ritualistic experiences of the Mexican soccer field into societies around the globe, leaving open local-specific practices for critique and appraisal. Twitter provides a space not only for this assessment to be communicated but also for the rebuttal and defense of those practices. Those who challenge the pejorative and homophobic meaning of the word puto were able to utilize Twitter as a space to communicate the denotation of not only the word, but its usage in Mexican soccer culture.
Slurs are performatives that vary in transgression and express negative attitudes, communicating offensive content toward a target(s) (L. Anderson & Lepore, 2013; Bach, 1999). Much like the use of the word puto in soccer, the struggle for meaning is a result of the speaker’s immersion in a discursive debate over what is appropriate, or not appropriate, and their ideological analysis of the word's inclusion or omission from verbal outbursts (Cashman, 2012; King & Clarke, 2002). Interpretation is contingent upon the identity, intention, and context of both the speaker and the hearer (Cashman, 2012).
Damaging connotations about the LGBTQ community should never be amalgamated with negative attitudes about homosexuality and nonheteronormative gender identities that are sometimes used to describe them (Cashman, 2014). This is especially important with future World Cup host countries, Russia and Qatar, having antigay laws that inflict harsh penalties against the LGBTQ community and often ignoring vigilante violence against LGBTQ members. Although FIFA has added the term “sexual orientation” to the list of items to respect (alongside gender, race, ethnic origin, religion, and class) in its opening statement before every match (FIFA, 2014), its decision in June 2014 to allow fans to continue to chant puto may be viewed by some as permission for discrimination against the LGBTQ community. There is still much work to be done on the organization’s part to ensure the comfort and safety of its LGBTQ players and fans worldwide, particularly in respect to the cultural nuances of individual competing nations.
As Giulianotti (1999a) suggests, soccer possesses its own symbolic space that is mediated through mass (and now social) media in a “symbiotic relationship with political, cultural, and economic realms” (p. 5). The meaning of each match, in both its liminal and mediated spaces, is contextual to not only previous fixtures but also broader, global, and transnational discourses.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.