Football

Football (pronounced foot-bawl)

(1) As Association Football (in some places known for historic reasons as "soccer"), a game in which two opposing teams of 11 players each defend goal-nets at opposite ends of a field, points being scored by placing the ball in an opponent’s net.

(2) As American football (still sometimes called "Gridiron" outside North America), a game in which two opposing teams of 11 players each defend goals at opposite ends of a field having goal posts at each end, with points being scored either by carrying the ball across the opponent's goal line or kicking it over the crossbar between the opponent's goal posts.

(3) By association (sometimes officially and sometimes as an alternative or informal name), any of various games played with spherical or ellipsoid balls, based usually on two teams competing (variously) to kick, head, carry, or otherwise propel the ball in the direction of each other's territory, the mechanisms of scoring varying according to the rules of the code (Rugby Union, Rugby League, Canadian Football, Australian Rules Football, Gaelic Football etc).

(4) The inflated ball (of various sizes and either spherical or ellipsoid in shape and historically made of leather but now often synthetic) used in football, the Rugby codes etc.

(5) Any person, thing or abstraction treated roughly, tossed about or a problem or (in the phrase “political football”) an issue repeatedly passed from one group or person to another and treated as a pretext for argument (often to gain political advantage) instead of being resolved.

(6) In slang (originally in the US military but now widely used), a briefcase containing the codes and options the US president would use to launch a nuclear attack, carried by a military aide and kept available to the president at all times (used as Nuclear Football, Atomic football, Black Box or Black Bag) (by convention with initial capitals).

(7) Used as a modifier: football club, football ground, football fanatic, football pitch, football hooligan, football fan, football ultra, football match etc.

(8) In commercial use, something sold at a reduced or special price.

1350-1400: From the Middle English fut ball, fotbal & footbal, the construct being foot + ball, the name derived from the games which involved kicking the ball.  Foot was from the Middle English fut, fot, fote & foot, from the Old English fōt, from the Proto-West Germanic fōt, from the Proto-Germanic fōts, from the primitive Indo-European pṓds.  Ball was from the Middle English bal, ball & balle, from the (unattested) Old English beall & bealla (round object, ball) or the Old Norse bǫllr (a ball), both from the Proto-Germanic balluz & ballô (ball), from the primitive Indo-European boln- (bubble), from the primitive Indo-European bel- (to blow, inflate, swell).  It was cognate with the Old Saxon ball, the Dutch bal, the Old High German bal & ballo (from which Modern German gained Ball (ball) & Ballen (bale)).  The related forms in Romance languages are borrowings from the Germanic.  Football is a noun & verb, footballer & footballization are nouns, footballing is a verb & adjective and footballed is a verb; the noun plural is footballs.

Lindsay Lohan in “gridiron” gear, Life Size (2000).  Born in 1986, Ms Lohan missed the fashion industry's first fetishization of shoulder pads.

Although in international use now less common (“NFL” now preferred), the term "gridiron" is still used to describe American football including the NFL (National Football League).  The word "gridiron" refers to the marking originally painted on the field: two intersecting series of parallel lines running the length & breadth of the field which produced a cross-hatched effect recalling the gridirons used on stoves.  After the 1919-1920 season, the grid was replaced with the yard lines still in use today but the name stuck.  In the thirteenth century, a gridiron was an instrument of torture on which victims were chained before being burned by fire and in the same vein (though less gruesomely), in the sixteenth century it described a similar wrought grate on which meat and fish were broiled over hot coals (the same concept as the modern BBQ (barbecue)).  In modern use, it's used of lattice-like structures (though not necessarily of iron) including in ship repair where an grid of metal is used as an open frame supporting vessels, permitting examination, cleaning and repairs when out of the water,  In the slang of live theatre, it's a raised framework from which lighting is suspended.  An interesting (though no longer permitted) use emerged in twentieth century New Zealand land law where "to grid iron" was to purchase land with the boundaries drawn so remaining adjacent parcels were smaller than the minimum able to be registered in fee simple (ie a freehold title), thus preserving the buyer's view and eliminating any threat of gaining undesirable neighbors.  Globally, the cultural and economic impacts of soccer have long been obvious.  Although Lord Moran (Charles Wilson, 1882-1977; President of the RCP (Royal College of Physicians) 1941-1949) thought England eventually would be remembered for her school of physics and lyric poets, the less romantic Sir Richard Turnbull (1909–1998; long serving UK colonial administrator) told Denis Healey (1917–2015; UK defence minister 1964-1970) that “…when the British Empire finally sank beneath the waves of history, it would leave behind it only two monuments: one was the game of Association Football, the other was the expression ‘fuck off’”.  

"Fuck off" has of course flourished in Australia and New Zealand and in some suburbs conversations without it being heard at least once are rare but soccer was different.  It was different in Australia because of Australian Football which, while occasionally called “Aussie Rules” has long been commonly known as football (or footy) so the round-ball game became soccer and the name Socceroo (the construct being socce(r) + (kanga)roo)) was adopted as the official name for the national team.  Australian Football is a game in which points can be scored only by kicking the football between the goalposts and its rules first were written at a time when rugby was quite similar.  In the mid-nineteenth century, although in rugby the concept of the "try" (a player with ball in hand grounding the ball behind the opposition's tryline), there were no points awarded for the achievement; what the try's position on the tryline determined was the place on the field from which the conversion (kicking the football between the goalposts) would be taken and the closer to the posts a try was scored, the easier the kick.  In Japan, where the dominant influence on the language in the twentieth century was the US, the most common form is サッカー(sakkā, from soccer).  In the US, a hybrid (with a few unique innovations) of rugby and association football emerged and was soon more popular than either.  The early name was “gridiron football” but in the pragmatic American way, that quickly became simply “football” but, elsewhere on planet Earth, because that that word described very different games, “gridiron” survived as a piece of product differentiation.  Realizing the linguistic battle was lost, the USFA (United States Football Association), which had formed in the 1910s as the official organizing body of American soccer, in 1945 changed its name to the USSFA (United States Soccer Football Association) before deciding to remove any confusion, deleting entirely any use of “football”.

Ivana Knöll at the FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association (the International Federation of Association Football that, for historic reasons, recognizes more countries than the UN (United Nations))) World Cup in Qatar, 2022.

Noted Instagram influencer, German-born Ivana Knöll (b 1992) was a finalist in the Miss Croatia competition in 2016 and was probably the most photographed fan to appear at the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar, always attired in a variety of outfits using the Croatian national symbol of the red and white checkerboard, matching the home strip worn by the team.  Her outfits were much admired and she was a popular accessory sought by Qatari men for their selfies.  She has reappeared at the 2026 World Cup and her swimwear line (including the Crokini (the construct being Cro(atia) + (bi)kini)) is now available through her KnollDoll website.

In Australia & New Zealand, “footy” is the common slang used in all of the four major codes.  Slang terms for footballs include moleskin, pill, peanut, pigskin, pillow & pineapple.  The names are an allusion to the shape and that so many start with the letter “p” is thought mere coincidence.  The figurative sense of “something idly kicked around, something subject to hard use and many vicissitudes” which is the ancestor of the “political football” was in use as early as the 1530s while the US military slang referencing the portable device carrying the materials required for a US president to launch nuclear strikes emerged in the 1960s.  Football (in the sense of soccer) is called “the world game”: and like the game, forms of the word have spread to many languages including the Arabic كرة القدم‎ (calque), the Czech fotbal, the Dutch: voetbal (calque), the German Fußball (Fussball) (calque), the Hebrew כדורגל‎ (calque), the Japanese フットボール (futtobōru), the Korean 풋볼 (putbol), the Maltese futbol, the Portuguese futebol, the Romanian fotbal, the Russian футбо́л (futból), the Spanish fútbol, the Thai ฟุตบอล (fút-bɔn) and the Turkish futbol.  

The Nuclear Football

USN (US Navy) Commander walking across the White House lawn, carrying the “Football” onto Marine One (the presidential helicopter).

The “Football” (also as Nuclear Football, Atomic Football, Black Box or Black Bag) is a briefcase (reputedly made of a reinforced material with a black leather skin) which a military aide to the US president carries so at all times when the Commander-in-Chief is remote from designated command centres (such as the White House Situation Room), orders to the military can be issued including the command to authorize the launch of nuclear weapons.  The Football contains lists of the codes needed to transmit the launch order and the essential technical documentation required to determine the form a nuclear attack should assume.  Apparently, there’s also a check-list of the domestic measures immediately to be executed in the event of an attack including the imposition of martial law and the closing of US airspace to civilian aviation.  This was an outgrowth of the SIOP (Single Integrated Operational Plan) Execution Handbook which codified in one publication all essential information needed in the circumstances, something developed during the administration of John Kennedy (JFK, 1917–1963; POTUS 1961-1963) but in the way of things familiar to those acquainted with bureaucratic inertia, the physical size (and thus the weight) of the contents grew and there are reports the package now weights in excess of 20 kg (45 lb).  Of course, everything could be contained on a single USB stick (and the Football presumably includes a number of these) but because it’s something of a doomsday device, everything needs to be accessible in a WCS (worst case scenario) in which electronic devices are for whatever reason unable to be used.

Despite the troubled state of the world, the Nuclear Football has of late not much been in the news but it did gain a mention in one reaction to crooked Hillary Clinton’s (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) criticism of the UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship) 250 event staged in June 2026 by Donald Trump (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) in the grounds of the White House.  Crooked Hillary had damned the idea of UFC 250 as soon as it had been announced and renewed her attack just before the event began posting: “Remember, during today's literal cage match on the White House grounds: No matter what, it's not his house.  It's our house.  Get a hat, coaster, or sticker to support groups and candidates who will respect the form and the function of the people's house.”  Sensibly, her post was on an account that blocked replies from others than those she’d pre-approved.

Despite that attempt preemptively to censor, the backlash was not long coming, crooked Hillary accused of “selective outrage”, those commenting mentioning some of the scandals from the eight years she and her husband (Bill Clinton (b 1946; POTUS 1993-2001)) lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Scandals associated with crooked Hillary are of course not hard to find and from among those located in the White House, her critics included the pair “literally renting out the Lincoln Bedroom” and, of course, the then president’s salacious behavior with youthful intern MonicaLewinsky (b 1973, with whom Bill Clinton “did not have sexual relations”).  Also mentioned was the “well-documented vandalism and theft of furniture” that occurred upon Bill & Hill vacating the building, the GAO (Government Accountability Office) assessing the damage alone at US$15,000.  Amusingly, the Clinton acolytes had responded to that by saying the damage “was commensurate with that of prior administrations” which is just a glossed admission of guilt meaning: “They did it too”.  At law, it’s known as the tu quoque (from the Latin tu quoque, (literally “and thou also”), best translated as “you did too”) defense; it’s rarely invoked because it’s just an admission of guilt and, in most cases, is not useful even as at attempt at mitigation.  It wasn’t permitted at the Nuremberg Trial (1945-1946) of the Nazi war criminals and in his memoirs (1952) wily old Franz von Papen (1879-1969; Chancellor of Germany 1932 & vice chancellor 1933-1934 who secured one of three acquittals at the trial) admitted “It is true that the tu quoque is a bad defence”.

One who really warmed the chance to reply to crooked Hillary’s critique was the retired USAF (US Air Force) lieutenant colonel who for two years “…carried the Nuclear Football for your husband inside that 'people's house' you're suddenly so precious about.  I saw it all up close for two years… while Bill was getting blow jobs in the Oval Office from an intern and groping female Air Force enlisted crew on Air Force One.  You lecture about 'respect for the institution' while your husband lost the nuclear codes.  And when you finally slinked out in 2001?  You and your crew trashed the place—vandalism, theft, the Government Accountability Office confirmed it.  Sit down, bitch, the adults are back in charge.”  Compared with that, the post on the Republican Party’s official account verged on an act of kindness, suggesting crooked Hillary should “sit this one out.”  

Set of the War Room in Dr Strangelove (1964).  It’s presumably apocryphal but it’s said Ronald Reagan (1911-2004, POTUS 1981-1989) remarked his only disappointment upon becoming president was that the White House Situation Room was more like something in which an insurance company might conduct seminars than the film’s dramatic War Room set.

The first known use of something recognizable as a “Football” was during the second administration (1957-1961) of Dwight Eisenhower (1890-1969; POTUS 1953-1961) although in those days it contained purely the vital information and none of the independent communications connectivity which apparently was added only in 1977.  Quite when first it was called "the Football" isn’t known but the term was in use during the Kennedy years and all agree it was based on the idea of the football “being passed” as happens in the game, the link being that it’s carried 24/7/365 by an on-duty military officer.  There’s also the story that “Football” was a refinement (possibly a euphemistic one) of the earlier (and also unattributed) nickname “dropkick”.  In the game of football the dropkick can be used to transfer the ball to another player and it was used as a codename in the film Dr Strangelove, a dark comedy of nuclear destruction.  However whether art imitated life or it was the other way around isn’t known and "Football" anyway prevailed.

The arrival of the Football in Hiroshima in May 2023 with Joe Biden (b 1942; POTUS 2021-2025) who was in town for the G7 (Group of Seven advanced democratic economies) meeting was noted on Japanese Social Media although it wasn’t the first time the Football had been in the city which was the target of the first nuclear attack, Barack Obama (b 1961; POTUS 2009-2017) visiting in 2016.  By the time President Obama stepped off the Air Force One, the Football enabled him to unleash within 30 minutes the equivalent of over 22,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs which, while rather less than in 1969 when the size of the US nuclear arsenal peaked, was still quite an increase on the two deliverable weapons available in August 1945.  The thermo-nuclear (fusion) devices in use since the 1950s were also a thousand-fold (and beyond) more powerful than the fission bombs deployed against Hiroshima and Nagasaki although, as a footnote, while for decades the Hiroshima bomb was a genuine one-off (using uranium rather than plutonium), analysts believe in recent years uranium may again have become fashionable with recent adopters such as Pakistan and the DPRK (Democratic Republic of Korea (North Korea)) building them because of the relative simplicity of construction.

For obvious reasons, the US constitution is silent on the matter of nuclear weapons and despite attempts by the Congress to wrest war-making powers from the executive, the implications of the title “Commander-in-Chief” mean it’s the POTUS who enjoys the singular right to order the use of nuclear weapons.  Congress, the courts, the Secretary of War (Defense) and the military top brass have no veto over a presidential launch order, that arrangement a product of the understanding during the high Cold War the warning time of a nuclear attack on the US would be only a few minutes.  A president can of course consult military and civilian advisers but is not bound to follow their advice.  Under the SOP (standard operating procedure), the specifics of the order would be derived from the pre-planned response options carried in the Nuclear Football; as well as target choices there is also the nature of the strike, ranging from “limited” to “massive”.  For the POTUS’s order to be acted upon, they must verify their identity by use of a token (called “the biscuit”) which contains unique authentication codes (on a challenge-response model).  A physical card always carried by the POTUS, the frequency with which the biscuit is updated has never been released but analysts suspect there’s an adherence to standard cryptographic security practices which would dictate a regular (perhaps daily) swaps.  Once authenticated, the order is transmitted through the NC3 system (nuclear command, control and communications), ending up with those personnel who trigger the launch(es).

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

So, in the legal sense, there are no checks & balances operating upon what unarguably is the most serious and consequential act a POTUS could take.  There are steps in the process at which the actions of individuals could stop the strike but that would demand a direct defiance of the chain of command.  The role of the Secretary of War (Defense) is to verify the authenticity of the order and then transmit it to the military where, as a direct order from the Commander-in-Chief, it should unquestionably be carried out.  However, military officers are required to refuse to carry out an order if they deem it clearly unlawful under the laws of armed conflict (and that would include a strike aimed at a purely civilian target with no military rationale).  The legal theory underpinning that is well-understood but what was intriguing was that during the first Trump administration, it was alleged senior military officers had decided among themselves to act as an informal “review committee” of orders coming from the White House, effectively creating a “sandbox” where, if thought necessary, orders could be “buried” while the generals and admirals discussed what to do.  When that was revealed, there was controversy but the approach wasn’t without precedent.  During the administration of Richard Nixon (1913-1994; VPOTUS 1953-1961 & POTUS 1969-1974) it wasn’t unusual for the president when “tired and emotional” to order military strikes on targets here and there (he never suggested using nuclear weapons).  Those orders his aides ignored and when the next morning dutifully they reported their disobedience, the president’s response was always: “Good”.

Soccer

Soccer (pronounced sok-er)

(1) A form of 11-a-side football played between two teams, in which the spherical ball may be advanced by kicking or by bouncing it off any part of the body (excluding the arms and hands unless re-starting the game by throwing in the ball from the sideline), the object being to score points by putting the ball in the opponent’s goal-net. The special position of goalkeeper may, within certain positional limitations, use their arms and hands to catch, carry, throw, or stop the ball.

(2) In the slang of Australian Rules Football (AFL, the old VFL), to kick the football directly off the ground, without use of the hands.

1888: A coining in British English, a colloquial term for Association Football, the construct presumably (As)soc(iation football) +c+ -er.  The other forms were socker (1885) & socca (1889), the first known instance of "soccer" noted in 1888, the word coming into general use between 1890-1895 and it evolved from slang to a standard noun.  The special verb use (soccered & soccering) happens in Australian Rules Football and describes a player kicking the football directly off the ground, without the use of the hands.  The forms soccerer & soccerist both mean “a soccer player” but are now used only humorously.  Soccerplex (a sports complex with facilities for playing soccer but with other ancillary (other sports, training, gyms, commercial outlets etc) installations is a word unique to North America.  A Socceroo is a member of the Socceroos (the Australian national soccer team, the construct being socce(r) + (kanga)roos.  Soccermania describes an intense enthusiasm for soccer which may manifest as an obsessive interest; the forms soccermananic and soccerology are both non-standard but have been used in the context of the afflicted.  Soccermania differs from soccer hooligan (or football hooligan, exemplified by the violent Italian “Ultras”) in that it doesn’t usually manifest as violent or anti-social behaviour.  Soccer is a noun & verb, soccerplex, soccermania, soccerer & soccerists are nouns, soccered & soccering are verbs and soccerlike is an adjective; the only noun plural in even occasional use is soccerplexes although plurals of the derived forms (soccer fields, soccer players, soccer balls, soccer clubs etc) are common.  

The –er suffix was from the Middle English –er & -ere, from the Old English -ere, from the Proto-Germanic -ārijaz, thought usually to have been borrowed from Latin –ārius and reinforced by the synonymous but unrelated Old French –or & -eor (the Anglo-Norman variant was -our), from the Latin -(ā)tor, from the primitive Indo-European -tōr.  Usually, the –er suffix was added to verbs to create a person or thing that does an action indicated by the root verb; used to form an agent noun and if added to a noun it usually denoted an occupation.  However, there was also the special case of the “slang –er”, which etymologists sometimes call the “Oxford –er” because of the association (though not the origin) of the practice with the university in the nineteenth century.  The slang –er was used as a suffix to make jocular or convenient formations from common or proper names and appears to first have been English schoolboy use in the 1860s before entering the vernacular via its introduction to Oxford University slang from Rugby School, the Oxford English Dictionary even identifying the first documented instance “at University College, in Michaelmas Term, 1875".  The first coining was probably rugger (the game of Rugby) and constructs on the same model include brekker (breakfast), fresher (freshman), leccer (lecture), footer (football), fiver (five-pound note) and tenner (ten-shilling note).  The practice continued in the twentieth century and some coinings endured in the plural such as preggers (pregnant), bonkers (behaving as if bonked on the head) and starkers (stark naked).  Given it was originally the work of schoolboys, some have expressed surprise they didn’t instead render a verbal shorthand of “Association Football” in a form using “ass” (although at Oxford briefly it was used as assoccer before quickly being truncated).

Football-type games have been documented for centuries and it seems likely something similar was probably played in prehistoric times on occasions when young people congregated but the point of Association Football was that in 1863 it codified a set of rules, allowing structured competitions to be formed.  Prior to that, clubs and schools played many variations of the game and this caused difficulties when the young men met at university, finding no general agreement on the rules.  Those at the University of Cambridge did create their own rule book but it was one of many, this proliferation leading to the formation of the association, the discussions eventually producing not only the rules of what would emerge as modern football (soccer) but also the schism which saw some schools and clubs go in another direction and play what became known first as rugby football and later simply rugby.  Later still, when it suffered its own schism and the professional code rugby league emerged, the name “rugby union” was used to distinguish the original and to this day the clipped terms “Rugby” & “Union” remain in use.

To most in the US, the word "football" means something different than in much of the world so it's not clear what Lindsay Lohan thought she was being invited to when Carolyn Radford (b 1982; Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Mansfield Town Stags) extended the offer of a seat at a match.  It’s not known if Ms Lohan did manage to catch a game but the promise of her presence clearly inspired the players because the Stags, then languishing in the non-League (fifth level) division of the English football league system, in 2024 gained promotion to League One (the old third division).  

In most parts of the world, the game is known as football but in places where other forms of (closely or vaguely) similar ball sports had become popular and referred to either officially or casually as “football”, soccer was adopted as the preferred term for what was, at the elite level, a minority sport.  Thus in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa & Ireland the game came to be called soccer although, in New Zealand, beginning in the late twentieth century, “football” increasingly supplanted “soccer”, the assumption being that because the volume of overseas matches televised (with the native commentary) vastly exceeded that of local content, the word became accepted.  Additionally, because the rugby codes (historically rugby union and increasingly after the 1980s rugby league so dominated) and the common slang was “footy” rather than “football”, the latter in that sense never achieved the critical mass needed to entrench use.  Globally, the cultural and economic impacts of soccer have long been obvious.  Although Lord Moran (Charles Wilson, 1882-1977; president of the Royal College of Physicians 1941-1949) thought England eventually would be remembered for her school of physics and lyric poets, the less romantic Sir Richard Turnbull (1909–1998; long serving UK colonial administrator) told Denis Healey (1917–2015; UK defence minister 1964-1970) that “…when the British Empire finally sank beneath the waves of history, it would leave behind it only two monuments: one was the game of Association Football, the other was the expression ‘fuck off’”.  

"Fuck off" has of course flourished in Australia and in some suburbs conversations without it being heard at least once are rare but the adoption of "soccer" was different.  It was different in Australia because of Australian Football which, while occasionally called “Aussie Rules” has long been commonly known as football (or footy) so the round-ball game became soccer and the name Socceroo (the construct being socce(r) + (kanga)roo)) was adopted as the official name for the national team.  In Japan, where the dominant influence on the language in the twentieth century was the US, the most common form is サッカー(sakkā, from soccer).  In the US, a hybrid (with a few unique innovations) of rugby and association football emerged and was soon more popular than either.  The early name was “gridiron football” but in the pragmatic American way, that quickly became simply “football” although curiously, “gridiron” has survived among many foreign audiences.  Realizing the linguistic battle was lost, the USFA (United States Football Association), which had formed in the 1910s as the official organizing body of American soccer, in 1945 changed its name to the USSFA (United States Soccer Football Association) before deciding the advantages of product differentiation should be pursued, deleting entirely any use of “football”.  The other great US contribution to the language was the “soccer mom”, an encapsulation of a particular (usually white), middle-class demographic describing (1) a woman who often drives her school-age children to sporting activities and (2) in a quasi-disparaging sense, a white, middle-class woman who obsessively talks of her children’s successes and achievements.  There are derivative terms such as soccer dad & ballet dad but they’ve never achieved the same cultural traction.

At least some of those involved professionally with structural linguistics are football fans (maybe even afflicted by soccermania) and a number have discussed the soccer vs football phenomenon.  In most cases, the pattern of use easily is explained by the history of use in different parts of the world and the general tendency for “football” to be applied to the other sports in which kicking a ball is a part.  What however most interests those of a certain age is that the use in England of “soccer” seems now really to upset some people.  However, those old enough to remember the way things used to be done recal that as late as the 1970s, nobody seemed concerned about such things with “football” and “soccer” being used interchangeably.  All seem to agree the origin of “soccer” is uncertain but the use of the element “soc” from “association” is the most plausible explanation, despite the pronunciations not aligning.  Anyway, until there’s evidence of another origin, it’s thought to be soc(c) + -er and all agree the word definitely first was used at the University of Oxford as a coining by students.  By at least the mid-1880s it was appearing in print in various parts of England (the short-lived variant spelling “socker” thought a product of oral transmission and that may have seemed to make sense given socks are worn on the feet used to kick the ball), after which it spread to other parts of the English-speaking world.  The documentary evidence makes clear British newspapers preferred “football” but well into the 1980s “soccer” also often appeared, apparently without inducing many complaints.  So why in the twenty-first century is there among some in the UK an objection to hearing “their game” described as “soccer”?  Nobody seems to have linked that development to any specific event or social movement and it’s though just an example of (1) the English fans proprietorial attitude to the “world game” being “our game” and (2) a resistance to the “linguistic imperialism” of US English, a long established process greatly accelerated by the internet and social media.

The well connected Sepp Blatter (b 1936; President of FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association (the International Federation of Association Football) that, for historic reasons, recognizes more countries than the UN), 1998-2015) with people he has met.

(1) With Silvio Berlusconi (1936-2023; prime minister of Italy 1994-1995, 2001-2006 & 2008-2011).

(2) With Bill Clinton (b 1946; POTUS 1993-2001).

(3) With Elizabeth II (1926-2022; Queen of the UK and other places, 1952-2022).

(4) With the FIFA World Cup trophy (which hasn’t been a "cup" since 1974 when the finals were contested by 16 teams (expanded to 24 1n 1982, 32 in 1998 and 48 in 2026)).

(5) With Vladimir Putin (b 1952; Russian president or prime-minister since 1999).

(6) With Benjamin Netanyahu (b 1949; prime-minister of Israel 1996-1999, 2009-2021 and since 2022).

(7) With David Cameron (b 1966; UK prime-minister 2010-2016).

(8) With Sheikh Mohammed bin Hamad Al-Thani (b 1988; chief of Qatar's 2022 World Cup Bid).

(9) With Nicolas Sarközy (b 1955, French president 2007-2012).

(10) With Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (b 1954; Turkish president or prime-minister since 2003).

(11) With Boris Johnson (b 1964; UK prime-minister 2019-2022).

(12) With Kevin Rudd (b 1957; Australian prime-minister 2007-2010 & Jun-Sep 2013).

Unlike some sports where the influence of technology or improvements in this and that are so significant it verges on impossible usefully to compare players from different eras, probably few would disagree that among sports administrators, Sepp Blatter has achieved some of the most extraordinary things.  In office as president of FIFA between 1998-2015, Blatter devoted much of his time (and FIFA’s money) to building his power base among football’s influential in Asia and Africa.  This attracted some comment from the football community in places like Europe and South America but it was in May 2015 he really made the headlines when a joint operation by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Swiss investigators staged a raid on the Zürich hotel where FIFA were about to conduct their annual congress.  Seven FIFA executives were arrested and charged with racketeering & money laundering while a further seven officials and sports-marketing figures were indicted by the US DoJ (Department of Justice) for offenses reaching back more than two decades.  Shortly afterwards, the DoJ revealed four other executives and two companies had already pleaded guilty in the international probe, which involved the payment of some US$150 million in what were alleged to be bribes and kickbacks.  Despite it all, two days after the arrests, Blatter was re-elected president by nearly a two-thirds majority of the 209-member FIFA voting body.  Contrary to the president’s expectations, a public outcry ensued which in just a few days escalated so rapidly that Blatter called for a special session of the FIFA congress to be convened, vowing to resign once a successor had been elected.  In October 2015, following the announcements of further investigations of Blatter’s conduct, FIFA’s ethics committee suspended him from the organization for 90 days, appointing an acting president.

Two months later Blatter was found guilty of ethics violations and barred from football-related activities for eight years.  Some of the charges were pursuant to a US$2 million payment Blatter made in 2011 to Michel Platini (b 1955; president of UEFA (Union des associations européennes de football (Union of European Football Associations), the peak body controlling football in Europe) 2007-2015), the supporting documentation associated with the payment said to be about as extensive as what might be in the petty-cash tin, stapled to the receipt for a packet of biscuits.  Platini had long been assumed to be Blatter’s designated successor.  Blatter appealed the decision and in February 2016 FIFA’s appeals committee reduced the ban to six years, a ruling upheld by the CAS (Tribunal arbitral du sport (Court of Arbitration for Sport)) in December.  Under new FIFA President Gianni Infantino (b 1970; FIFA president since 2016), further investigations were undertaken and in December 2020, FIFA filed a criminal complaint against Blatter relating to his role in the FIFA Museum project before, in March 2021, citing financial wrongdoing in the payment of huge “bonuses”, imposing a fine of just over US$1 million and extending his ban from football for a further six years, beginning as soon as the original ban expired in October 2022.  That was bad enough but his life appeared to be getting worse when, in November 2021, Swiss authorities brought to trial fraud charges associated with the falsification of documents relating to the mysterious payments to Platini.  Some eight months later, Blatter and Platini were cleared of all charges.  Sepp Blatter has achieved extraordinary things.

Congress

Congress (pronounced kong-gris, kuhn-gres, kuhng-gris or khung-gres)

(1) The national legislative body of the US, a continuous institution consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives (initial capital).

(2) This body as it exists for a period of two years during which it has the same membership (other than replacements by necessity).  By convention, Congresses sequentially are numbered.

(3) A session of this body.

(4) The national legislative body of a nation (used especially in republics and it has been used also of political parties or movements (such as the South African liberation movement the ANC (African National Congress, founded in 1912) and India’s INC (the Indian National Congress, founded in 1885 during the British Raj)).

(5) A formal meeting or assembly of representatives for the discussion, arrangement, or promotion of some matter of common interest (in this context often a synonym of academy, society, convention, council or conference).  Use of congress in this sense is not restricted to governmental or other official bodies, associations, special interest groups and sporting organizations routinely using the term.

(6) The act of coming together; an encounter; meeting.

(7) An association, especially one composed of representatives of various organizations (often used interchangeably with conference, society or association).

(8) Familiar relations; dealings or intercourse.

(9) Sexual intercourse; coitus.

(10) The collective noun for a group of baboons (something which can delight those observing the antics of those in the US Congress).

(11) To assemble together (ie to meet in a congress).

1350–1400 From the Middle English congres & congress (body of attendants, following (the meaning in the fifteenth century extending to “meeting of armed formations” while the sense of “a coming together of people, a meeting of individuals” emerged in the 1520s), from the Latin congressus (both “a friendly meeting” & “a hostile encounter”), past participle of congredi (to meet with; to fight with), an assimilated form, the construct being con- (in the sense of “with, together”), + gradi (to walk, step), from gradus (a step (from the primitive Indo-European root ghredh- (to walk, go)).  The adjective congressional (of or pertaining to a congress) was an adaptation from the Latin congressionem and the most common use now is the sense of “of or pertaining to the US Congress”, dating from 1776.  As something new, in the UK it was initially treated as “a barbarous Americanism” but as early as 1816 it was pointed out in England that the Congress (the highest legislative body in the US) had been formed in defiance of the UK and the nation’s citizens were hardly likely to wait on ascent from London before forming and using the adjectival derivative.  Congress is a noun & verb, congressional & congressive are adjectives and congressionally is an adverb; the noun plural is congresses.

The use of “congress” to describe “sexual intercourse; coitus” dates from the 1580s but, except in historic references or as a deliberate archaism, use tends now to be as a euphemism.  There was however once a handy distinction (heard from pulpits and in legal proceedings) between the naked noun and “marital congress (sexual intercourse as performed by two people enjoying benefit of marriage), the latter quite respectable (if not much discussed), the former not always, especially if adulterous.  The special adjective uncongressed was coined in the science of genetics to describe “unaligned chromosomes”, a phenomenon presumably about as bad as it sounds.  By contrast, a marriage in which “sexual intercourse; coitus” was held not to have transpired was said to be “unconsummated”, something often unfortunate for one or both parties but useful because it was grounds upon which a bishop might declare an otherwise legally marriage annulled.  That had the advantage of creating the legal fiction the ceremony had “never happened” with the couple able to return to church to marry new partners, something historically not always possible for divorcees (although for those rich enough there were sometimes “word-arounds” that could persuade an appropriately compensated bishop).  In centuries gone by, being “married before the eyes of God” was no small thing with important legal and social implications.

Making a fine legal point, one apparently open to interpretation.

Crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; FLOTUS 1993-2001 & US secretary of state 2009-2013, left) watching attentively as her husband Bill Clinton (b 1946; POTUS 1993-2001) assured the nation “I did not have sexual relations with that woman… Miss Lewinsky.” (White House intern Monica Lewinsky (b 1973)), the White House, January 1998.  A trained lawyer and former Arkansas attorney-general, Mr Clinton may have been tempted to say “I did not have congress with that woman… Miss Lewinsky.”  At least arguably that could have be held to be “truthful” because “congress” generally is understood as coitus (penetrative sexual intercourse) where as “sexual relations” casts a wider net.  Whether such sophistry would have saved him from impeachment seems unlikely and nothing was going to save him from the wrath of crooked Hillary.  Unfortunately, in subsequent legal proceedings, we never got to hear Mr Clinton's deconstruction of “congress” but we did learn what the word “is” means and that his definition of “sexual relations” extended to “giving” oral sex but excluded “receiving” oral sex.  The latter distinction surprised a few but at least now we know.

“Congress grass” is a synonym for “famine weed” (Parthenium hysterophorus), a highly invasive plant noted for its devastating impact on agriculture, food security, and native ecosystems. The undesirable plant gained the name “famine weed” from the way aggressively it would colonize farmland and pastures, replacing nutritious native flora and releasing allelopathic chemicals that severely would stunt the growth of crops and grasses, leading to sharp declines in agricultural yields, famines associated with heavily infested regions.  In India, during the 1950s, the plant came derisively to be damned with the moniker “Congress grass” after the accidental introduction of the species by seeds in contaminated US wheat, imported during a national food shortage.  The name references not the US Congress but the INC (Indian National Congress, usually clipped to “the Congress”), in control of the national government that had arranged the importation.  Native to Central America, Parthenium hysterophorus is listed as invasive also in Australia and a number of African nations.

The specific sense of congress as “a meeting of delegates, formal meeting of persons having a representational character” was in use by at least the 1670s and in 1775 became the name for the national legislative body of the American states (with an initial upper case) which became the USA, the word chosen from a number of suggestions (legislative assembly, parliament etc).  The three sittings of the “Continental Congress” (representing the 13 American colonies seeking independence from imperial rule) were convened in 1774, 1775-1776 & 1776-1781.  The Congress of the Confederation (formally the United States in Congress Assembled) was the national governing body of the US between March 1781 and March 1789; established by the Articles of Confederation, it served as a transitional government between the Second Continental Congress and the modern US Congress which first sat on 4 March, 1789.

The US Capitol Building where the Congress sits, the House of Representatives housed in the south wing, the Senate in the north.  The original building was completed in 1800 and the final engineering sign-off of the dome structure came in 1867.  The last major structural changes were undertaken in 1962.

The US Congress is the is the legislative branch of the federal government, declared constitutionally “co-equal” with the executive and legislative branches although that’s a philosophical stance rather than a functional description, the Congress uniquely able to pass federal laws (in legal theory the occasionally infamous “Executive Orders” issued by POTUSs as unilateral actions under powers granted by Article II of the Constitution or federal law(s) are valid only to the extent they are constitutional and comply with federal law).  The Congress is divided into two houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives both of which are now elected by a popular vote; each state having two senators, the Senate has 100 members while in the House of Representatives there are 435, size of a state’s population determining its allocation.  Within each state, it is the legislature which has the power to determine electoral boundaries and over the years these processes have given rise to a rich vocabulary including “gerrymander”, “re-districting” & “electoral malapportionment”, the the memorable judicial maxim “legislators represent people, not trees and acres” handed down in a judgment by Chief Justice Earl Warren (1891–1974; Chief Justice of the US 1953-1969) in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)).  The way the Democrats and Republicans draw lines on maps to maximize the benefit of their respective parties and disadvantage their opponents has always been entertaining but, because the exercise ultimately is one of math, what will be interesting is (1) how the process will be perfected when optimized by the use of AI (artificial intelligence) and (2) how the courts (ultimately the USSC (US Supreme Court)) will rule on the lawfulness of increasingly exaggerated distortions.

Constitutionally, the formal title for someone holding a seat in the House of Representatives is “Representative” which makes sense but “Congressman”, although originally a term of derision, became common.  “Representative” remains the preferred term in formal writing (certainly official government documents) and when addressing a member, the convention being “Representative Name” although “The Honorable Name” is in certain contexts used.  “Congressman” & “Congresswoman” are however deeply entrenched in US English and seem to be the most popular forms used by the public and much of the media.  The first congresswoman was Jeannette Rankin (1880–1973), a women's rights advocate, in 1916 elected as a Republican in Montana for a single term (she served a second in 1941-1943); she remains the only woman ever elected to Congress from Montana.  The gender-neutral “Congressperson” belongs to the “modern” class of words (which predate the mainstreaming of wokism) including “chairperson”, “salesperson” etc.  It has been accepted by dictionaries and style guides with some media organizations recommending use although it’s said rarely to be heard in oral use.  Representatives are elected for two-year terms and senators for six so in the congressional elections conducted every two years; all 435 seats in the House are contested along with about a third of the Senate.

One who would have been grateful “congressperson” wasn’t in general use in the early 1960s would have been the singer-songwriter Bob Dylan (b 1941) who released The Times They Are a-Changin' as the title-track of his 1964 album, “Come senators, congressmen” appearing as the first line of the third verse and suiting the rhythm of the work in a way “Come senators, congresspersons” wouldn’t have worked.

Come senators, congressmen

Please heed the call

Don't stand in the doorway

Don't block up the hall

For he that gets hurt

Will be he who has stalled

The battle outside ragin'

Will soon shake your windows

And rattle your walls

For the times they are a-changin'

Although The Times They Are a-Changin' now is regarded as a classic Dylan song and one of his standards, while internationally it enjoyed some success as a single, it was never released in that form in the US, included only on the original eponymous album and subsequent compilations.  Like much of Dylan’s work, there were several influences including biblical echos from Mark and Ecclesiastes.

Official portrait of George Santos while he was entitled to be styled “Representative the honorable George Santos”.

The first (openly) LGBTQQIAAOP Republican elected to Congress as a freshman (one's first elected presence there, a use borrowed from universities where it describes first-year students), George Anthony Devolder Santos (b 1988) entered Congress in the 2022 mid-term elections, taking the seat of New York's 3^rd congressional district.  Although he seems to have passed untroubled through the Republican Party’s candidate vetting process, after his election a number of media outlets investigated and found his public persona was almost wholly untrue and contained many dubious or blatantly false claims about, inter alia, his mother, personal biography, education, criminal record, work history, financial status, ancestry, ethnicity, sexual orientation & religion.  When confronted, Mr Santos did admit to lying about certain matters, was vague about some and ducked and weaved to avoid discussing others, especially the fraud charges in Brazil he evaded by fleeing the country.  Although a life-long Roman Catholic, Mr Santos on a number of occasions claimed to be Jewish, even fabricating stories about his family suffering losses during the Holocaust.  Later, after the lies were exposed, he told a newspaper “I never claimed to be Jewish.  I am Catholic. Because I learned my maternal family had a Jewish background I said I was ‘Jew-ish.”  In the right circumstances, delivered on-stage by a Jewish comedian, it might have been a good punch-line.

George Santos: The Congress's loss was OnlyFans' gain but unfortunately the new career didn't last because of an excessive number of “fan solicitations”.

Following an investigation by the House Ethics Committee and a federal indictment, the House of Representatives in 2023 voted 311–114 to expel Mr Santos, meaning he gained the dubious distinction of being the first member of Congress to have been expelled without having previously been convicted of a crime or having supported the Confederacy (the pro-slavery southern states opposed to the Union forces in the US Civil War (1861-1865)).  In other historic footnotes, he became the sixth member of the House to be expelled and the first Republican.  Subsequently, Mr Santos pled guilty to identity theft & wire fraud and in April 2025 was sentenced to a prison term of 87 months.  However, in October that year, after spending only some three months behind bars, Donald Trump (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) commuted his sentence, cancelling all unpaid fines and restitution, one of the reasons cited being Mr Santos's solid voting record in Congress (100% Republican).  There was a time when such a pardon would have attracted much comment but such has been Mr Trump’s use of his power to issue pardons, few now seem exceptional or even noteworthy.  The power to pardon (inherited from Kings of England who no longer discharge it as a personal right) is unusual in being the only power in the US Constitution not subject to “checks & balances”; it is a personal presidential prerogative.  Noting that, political scientists and legal scholars are looking forward to the pardons announced on the last day of Mr Trump’s term on the basis: “We ain’t seen nothing yet”.  Members of the House of Representatives typically are addressed as "the honorable" in formal use but this is a courtesy title and not a requirement.  It's a matter left to individual members and as far as is known, Mr Santos has not yet indicated whether he wishes people to continue to address him as “the honorable George Santos” but clearly he has a fan base.  In 2024, Mr Santos opened an OnlyFans page (US29.99 per month) but after only a few weeks he was forced to “abandon the platform due to the high volume of fan solicitations”.

Congressman Randy Fine (b 1974; Representative for Florida's 6^th congressional district since April 2025) in red MAGA (Make America Great Again) hat (left) and a rooster with a large red coxcomb (the fleshy red pate of a rooster, left).

The long familiar “congressman” actually started as a term of derision before entering mainstream use as a neutral descriptor, a milder form being the later plural noun “congressfolk”.  Because voters (and others) so often find cause to be critical of those in Congress, a rich vocabulary of variants has over the years appeared, “congressfolk” yielding “congressdope” while independently coined terms included “congresscritter” and congressjerk while the offensive, ethnic slur “congresscoon” was a label applied to the first black congressmen (the presence of whom in the Congress many whites found appalling and not just those south of the Mason-Dixon Line).  To this day, phrases such as “those fuckwits in Congress” or “the stupid Congress” are part of US vernacular English although literary standards have declined since 1780 when one wrote: “Ye coxcomb Congressmen, declaimers keen, Brisk puppets of the Philadelphia scene.”  

Even within the political class the word can be weaponized.  Although in passing over 900 bills the 80^th Congress (1947-1949) was hardly inert, it didn’t do everything the administration wanted so, on the campaign trail in 1948, the ever-combative Harry S. Truman (1884–1972; POTUS 1945-1953) dubbed it the “Do Nothing Congress” although the nickname was something of a “tar by association” tactic against his Republican opponent (Thomas E. Dewey (1902-1971) in the presidential election as much as it was against the legislators.  Most of the world fixates on presidential politics because of the drama and the cults of personality but domestically, it’s in the legislatures that lobbyists do their work and that’s where they make “campaign contributions” in exchange for getting the legislation which most benefits the corporations employing them.  “The business of America is business” was how former president Calvin Coolidge (1872–1933; POTUS 1923-1929) summed it up.  It’s not wholly dissimilar to the development of the English constitution; it took centuries to evolve but essentially, in exchange for getting the money he needed to fight his wars, the king approved the laws the politicians wished to pass.  In the US, the dynamic relationship is between politicians & corporations, mediated by the lobbyists and between the two sides, there's much interchanging of personnel which is why the system is sometimes described by political scientists as “incestuous”.  The dynamic of the system does of course shift; sometimes those in Congress have dominated the president and sometimes he has dominated them so in that sense Trump 2.0 (Mr Trump's second administration) is just a phase the system is going through.

The reformed Lindsay Lohan.  Congress hasn't much mended its ways.

Others have found inventive ways to color their critique of the Congress.  In March 2011, delivering an address to the annual Washington Conference of the Institute of International Bankers, Richard W. Fisher (b 1949; president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank (the “Dallas Fed”) 2005-2015), spent some time discussing the fiscal policy (ie the dynamics of government spending vs revenue (taxation and such)) of the US Congress, his concern that for long-term investment to be secured, investors must have “…confidence in the long-term prospects of where they invest.  In my judgment, it will be hard to secure that needed comfort until Congress makes clear it will refrain from the errant fiscal ways of the past, changes the way it taxes and spends and regulates, and places the nation demonstrably, and unalterably, on a path of fiscal rectitude.”  To illustrate his point in an immediately accessible way, Mr Fisher added that the country had “…suffered for too long from ‘Lindsay Lohan’ Congresses.  Like Ms. Lohan, the American Congress is a beautiful creation, blessed with enormous talent. But it has been waylaid by addiction—in the case of the Congress to spending and debt—and by a proclivity for shoplifting—in the case of the Congress to pocketing for their immediate gratification the economic future of our children and grandchildren and our grandchildren’s children.”  It may have been a bit of a “mean boy” way of putting it but doubtlessly his point was well understood by his audience, Ms Lohan then in her “troubled starlet” phase.  However, while Ms Lohan became an admirably reformed creature, the US Congress (which alone has the authority to authorize every dollar raised, borrowed and spent by the federal government) remains something of a fabulous beast, the national debt now some US$38 trillion and growing.

Senator Rebecca Ann Felton (1835–1930, left) and Senator Mitch McConnell (b 1942; US senator (Republican-Kentucky) since 1985; leader of the Senate Republican Conference 2007-2025, right).  The spooky resemblance between Senator Fulton (who in 1922 served for one day as a senator (Democratic-Georgia), appointed as a political manoeuvre) and Senator McConnell has led some to suggest he might be her reincarnated.  Some not so acquainted with history assumed the photograph of Senator Felton was Mitch McConnell in drag.

Members of the Senate, regardless of gender, are styled as “Senator” even though the Senate is a part of the Congress.  Although it has become common to describe the Senate and House respectively as “upper house” and “lower house” (reflecting the UK practice of so-describing the House of Lords and House of Commons), many political scientists claim that’s misleading and the two houses should be regarded as co-equal wings of the congress, each fulfilling a distinct function but not in a hierarchical structure.  They’re correct in asserting the use sits awkwardly with later constitutional development but the terminology is, in the US context, ancient, dating from at least the first federal Congress in 1789 when the Senate routinely was described as the “upper” chamber and the House the “lower”, simply reflecting the British parliamentary vocabulary with with those involved were familiar.

Federal Hall, New York City, circa 1950.

The framers of the US constitution did not use the terms “upper” and “lower”, something in keeping with spirit of an age that was the not exactly egalitarian but it certainly reflected their deliberately (if imperfectly) democratic, anti-aristocratic intentions.  The conceptual analogy can however be pursued, the Senate being smaller, the members granted longer terms with election originally being indirect by state legislatures while the house was directly elected (although the franchise was far from one of universal suffrage).  However, whatever the constitutional niceties, that arrangement did neatly map onto the bicameral model familiar in the UK and Europe where upper and lower chambers often were seen although surveys of early American political writing seems to hint there might have been some reluctance to use the traditional “upper” & “lower”, the Senate instead referred to as a “more select” or “more elevated” body; while many in the US political class were elitist, there was a reluctance to make that explicit.  That in 1789 members of the two houses first sat with senators assembling in a room on the first floor while representatives convened downstairs is a charming anecdote but is regarded by historians as a piece of architectural determinism, the downstairs room in New York’s Federal Hall being large enough for all the representatives, the less multitudinous senators able to fit upstairs.  Still, although the use “upper” & “lower” was already deeply embedded in the Anglo-American constitutional lexicon before Congress first met in the upstairs-downstairs arrangement, some did note the coincidence and it’s not impossible use of the terminology at least briefly was reinforced.  The room-allocation certainly didn’t create the use.

However, by the early nineteenth century, “upper house” and “lower house” routinely appeared as neutral descriptive terms in newspapers, parliamentary manuals, and political commentary, used of the Congress as well as state legislatures.  Modern political scientists have analysed the texts and concluded the use was merely of convenience as verbal shorthand because the terms were so well understood; it was in no way an attempt to “put meaning into the words of the constitution”.  Although there were obvious structural similarities with the UK parliament, the social and political history was different but while the powers of the House of Lords greatly were curtailed by the Parliament Acts (1911 & 1949), the US Senate became one of democracy’s more powerful “second chambers” in that it has a power of veto over executive appointments (judges, ambassadors, members of the cabinet etc) and no POTUS may have a treaty with a foreign entity ratified without the concurrence of the Senate.  Along with the Australian Senate (routinely and uncontroversially styled as an “upper house”) which has the power to force governments from office, the US Senate is one of the democratic world’s more powerful, the term in the jargon of political science being “strong bicameralism.”

Kim Jong-Un (Kim III, b 1982; Supreme Leader of DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)) since 2011) leads the bowing ceremony before the portraits of Kim Il-Sung (Kim I, 1912–1994; Great Leader of DPRK, 1948-1994, left) and Kim Jong-Il (Kim II, 1941-2011; Dear Leader of DPRK, 1994-2011, right), 9^th Congress of the WPK (Workers' Party of Korea), April 25 House of Culture, Pyongyang, 19-25 February 2026.  Unanimously, delegates paid tribute to the Supreme Leader and declared it the “best congress ever”.

In political use, although a “party congress” and “party caucus” both involve the party’s members meeting together, they are almost always different institutions.  By convention, a party congress is a large formal gathering of the membership or selected delegates.  These tend in scope to be national or regional and concerned with matters such as policy platforms, leadership and the endorsement of candidates although in recent decades they have become carefully managed (and scripted), set-piece events designed to demonstrate (or, for public purposes, to emulate) unity.  Held periodically and being now highly structured, they fulfil a ceremonial as well as practical purpose although functionally, most are now wholly unnecessary; dating from a time before modern communications when the only way for things to be “thrashed out” was for members to assemble to debate and vote, most “decisions” announced at party congresses have been worked out well in advance with the debates and announcements just “window-dressing” and a type of “brand identity”.  Most are now far removed from the origin in European, socialist or communist traditions but in authoritarian systems like those in the PRC (People’s Republic of China) or DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)), the visual choreography is tighter even than that imposed by political machines in the West.

A party caucus inherently is a smaller gathering because almost always it’s restricted to elected or appointed members within a legislature or other (sometimes nominally) deliberative body.  The exact practice differs between (and sometimes even within) countries but, as a general principle, in parliamentary systems a caucus describes all elected legislators from one party meeting privately to discuss matters such as strategy, leadership coordination, or internal discipline.  The terms “party congress” and “party room” are thus usually interchangeable although there are instances where “caucus” has for historic reasons become so associated with one party that others avoid the label.  An obvious example is the ALP (Australian Labor Party (or as some prefer, Agitprop, Lies & Propaganda)) where use of “caucus” is entrenched so other parties tend to use “party meeting”, “party room” etc.  Similarly, in the US, while the congressional Democrats collectively are a “caucus” (sharing the noun with baboons which seems a nice touch), the Republicans are a “conference”.  Membership can be “loose”, the self-described “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders (b 1941; senior US senator (Independent, Vermont) since 2007) having long “caucused with the Democrats”.  In the US, “caucus” was adopted for certain versions of “primary contests” in which candidates are selected (in other places the process might be called “pre-selection”).

Joe Biden (b 1942; VPOTUS 2009-2017 & POTUS 2021-2025) and his wife, Dr Jill Biden (b 1951) at a campaign stop during the Iowa Caucuses, Council Bluffs, Iowa, 30 November, 2019.

In the US, caucuses are now less common and the party machines would be delighted were they wholly to go extinct because, unlike primaries which are conducted at locations which are easily managed, caucuses are from the “horse & buggy” era and are geographically spread, often taking places in people’s houses.  For candidates, it can be a logistical nightmare but so culturally entrenched are the famous “Iowa Caucuses” which “kick off” the four-yearly cycle of presidential elections that whatever happens elsewhere, Iowa won’t be for turning.  In the US, there are also “sub-set caucuses” such as the “Congressional Black Caucus” and, upon formation in 1971, it was envisaged as a “non-party” gathering at which Democrats, Republicans and others could assemble to discuss matters of especial interest to the African-American community.  Remarkably, from time to time, Republicans have attended meetings.  The proliferation of caucuses within the Democratic Party has increased and there are caucuses labelled as “Jewish”, “Progressive”, “Muslim”, “women’s”, “African American”, “Education”, “Hispanic”, “Veterans”, “LGBTQ+”, “Pride”, “Stonewall”, Asian American & Pacific Islander”, “Native” and “Senior”; there may be more because the modern Democratic Party is a fissiparous beast.  

Watercolor of a Viennese ball.  So frequent were the balls at the Congress of Vienna, the Prince de Ligne famously observed “Le Congrès dance beaucoup, mais il ne marche pas” (Congress dances much, but it doesn't walk).

There are many aspects to the relationship between the US and PRC and following the May 2026 meeting in Beijing between Xi Jinping (b 1953; General Secretary of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) and paramount leader of the PRC since 2012) and Donald Trump, analysts covered most of them.  There was much on trade, tariffs, military actions (calling events such as invasions “wars” has become unfashionable) in the Middle East or Ukraine, AI (artificial intelligence), oil, the renegade province of Taiwan and more.  What was however most striking about President Xi’s narrative was his observation the PRC and US had much more to gain from “cooperation” than “conflict”.  What Mr Xi seemed to be suggesting was different from earlier concepts which had at times characterized the relationship between the US and the Soviet Union; he wasn’t advocating a revival of “peaceful co-existence” or “détente” but something like a genuine, if unofficial, partnership based on mutual interest.  Although it’s speculative, it seems likely President Xi admires the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815) when the ruling elites met over some nine months to construct a post-Napoleonic Europe divided between the great powers, a structure in which (1) the ruling class would be spared another unpleasantness like the French Revolution (1789) and (2) a perpetual balance of power would be maintained, ensuring peace.  That in the two centuries since, the Congress has attached much criticism, largely for imposing a stultifying air of reaction on the continent, does not render the structure irrational nor detract from the rationale and some historians have come to regard the congress more fondly; while it’s not true the consequence was a exactly century of peace in Europe, it created a framework which meant a goodly number of decades notably less blood-soaked than what came before and certainly what followed after 1914.

In geopolitics, for authoritarian leaders to suggest “cooperation” with those more liberal is not new.  Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) in 1940, not best pleased at being at war with the British (the nation he regarded still as Germany’s natural ally), offered London what to many in the British establishment seemed a tempting deal, given the army had just been forced into an hasty and ignominious retreat from the beaches of Dunkirk.  As Hitler imagined the globe under his new order in which the German Empire would extend from the English Channel to the Urals, one feature which fitted in nicely was the British Empire and in return for offering his obviously potent military to assist in its defence, all he wanted from the British was an end to hostilities and “non-interference” in a Europe now under German occupation or hegemony.  The British had their own reasons for rejecting that kind offer but, after the tide of the war had turned, they heard something similar (and possibly about as sincere) from comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953).  At the Yalta Conference in February 1945, the British and Americans first heard comrade Stalin’s idea that the ideal arrangement for the upcoming post-war world was that the Soviets wouldn’t interfere in the way the countries in the Western sphere of influence were handled and in return he expected no interference in the Soviet sphere (basically those nations unfortunate enough to end up behind what came to be called the Iron Curtain).

Deals being done: The Congress of Vienna (1819), engraving by Jean-Baptiste Isabey (1767–1855).

However, the circumstances of 2026 differ greatly from the world of 1815 and what could be achieved at the Congress of Vienna by Lord Castlereagh (1769–1822; UK foreign secretary 1812-1822) and Prince Klemens von Metternich (1773-1859; Foreign Minister of the Austrian Empire 1809-1848 & Chancellor 1821-1848) was a function of what was unique about that time and place.  The so-called Concert System (known also as the Vienna System in a nod to the epoch-making congress) in which the spheres of influence of Europe’s five great powers (Austria, France, Prussia, Russia and the UK) were effectively formalized with mechanisms created to resolve disputes by means other than armed conflict, while a model which could be mapped onto the geopolitical map of 2026 is of course an implausible resurrection because things are different.  Still, Mr Xi is a diligent student of history and is aware how much more productive can be great-power cooperation than conflict, outcome of the latter sometimes as bad for the “winners” as the “losers”.  What he’ll have noticed is Donald Trump genuinely is unique among post-war presidents in that he avowedly has no interest in “spreading democracy” around the globe, content if other countries, whatever their political arrangements buy US goods and services; he cares not at all whether or not they buy the US Constitution.

As Mr Xi could have told him, that’s a sensible position to take because a system which suits one national culture may wholly be incompatible with others and what’s remarkable is not that the US, debatably for the first time since the 1920s, now has a “pragmatic president” but that it took so long for them to get one.  What most distinguished US foreign policy since 1945 was the way it was affected by the much-discussed national characteristic of “exceptionalism”, a collective confidence that proved an asset in a venture like sending men to walk on the moon but in foreign policy has on occasions led the Americans astray.  Essentially, the problem is the idealistic American belief that every problem can be overcome (exemplified by the Pentagon’s standard doctrine of “overwhelming force”) whereas less ambitious realists understand some problems are insoluble and need just endlessly to be “managed”, witness the way the British for so long ran the Raj with a relative handful of troops and administrators.

Horse trading at the Yalta Conference, February 1945, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR, 1882–1945, POTUS 1933-1945, left), comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953, centre) and Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955, right).

The cartoon was by Ernest Howard "E.H." Shepard (1879–1976) and appeared in Punch some days after the conference communiqués were published.  In the UK it was titled The Pellmell of the European Puzzle but, in many other markets, that was changed to The European Hotch-Potch because “pell-mell” was thought obscure.  Pellmell (also as pell-mell) traditionally was used in the sense of “hasty and uncontrolled” so it was at least half-right to apply the term to what was done at Yalta.  Pellmell was from the French pêle-mêle, from the Old French pesle-mesle, reputedly a rhyme based on the stem of mesler (to mix, meddle).  Unlike the Congress of Vienna which absorbed some nine leisurely months between September 1814-June 1815, the Yalta Conference was done in little more than a week but although there were many dinners, there were no balls and no dancing.  So intractable was the position of comrade Stalin on matters of consequence to him, had it lasted nine months it's doubtful the outcomes would greatly have differed.   

President Xi (left) and President Trump (right).  While structuralists might disagree, behaviorists would likely find more similarities than differences.     

While something like a “Congress of Singapore” with global or even extensive regional ambitions would be overreach, it’s not difficult to imagine Mr Xi and Mr Trump at a table demonstrating the “art of the deal(s)”, each sacrificing the odd pawn to secure an uncontested rook or knight (or even a bishop).  The pawns of course might object to being “shuffled around” but as Mr Xi would explain to them: “twas ever thus” and their people will much prefer the fruits of an increasing co-prosperity to abstractions like democracy and the chimera of free speech.  Mr Trump’s background was in the world of corporations and deals rather than politics (as he one admitted, he “bought” politicians as required and was impressed by how cheap they were) so he can relate to someone like Mr Xi who functions as the CEO of a corporate state, more than he can presidents or prime ministers juggling the competing interests upon which they depend.  Like Mr Trump who wants as little as possible to do with the internal affairs of America’s customers (ie other countries), Mr Xi has no wish to waste effort or resources in the pointless business of attempting to impose Beijing’s way of running the PRC on others; good relations and mutually beneficial trade ties are much more sensible goals.  In Mr Xi and Mr Trump, not since a couple of horse-traders like comrade Stalin and Winston Churchill were running their countries have two great powers been headed by a pair more suited to “doing deals”.  While problems like Kashmir and Palestine will need “endless management”, in other places, there is scope for a couple of realists to “cooperate” and because Mr Trump (mostly) has purged the US system of tiresome idealists, for the first time in living memory, at least slight progress may be possible.  As at Yalta, there might be victims but where deals are there to be done, someone always has to pay the price.