Even the most casual of observers will have noticed the frenzy surrounding the All Whites at the Fifa World Cup over the last two weeks. Almost overnight television, newspapers, websites and blogs propelled previously unknowns like Winston Reid, Mark Paston, and Shane Smeltz to a moment in the national media spotlight.
What drove the media frenzy?
Most obviously, international sport fits easily with the idea of national identity.
I say "idea" because national identity is just that.
Closely scrutinised, however, national identities falsely idealise "us" as unified, harmonious and alike when in reality many social divides exist.
They also differentiate "us" from other nationalities, who are often characterised in unflattering terms.
The unfancied All Whites easily slotted into media narratives of courageous battlers, punching above their weight on the world stage.
Media stories during the World Cup emphasised mythic "Kiwi" qualities - hard work and battling against the odds - as the key to the All Whites' performances.
These are, of course, longstanding stories with roots in the pioneering European settler culture.
The media was also quick to caricature other nations.
Following the All Whites' second game, for example, the Italians were widely derided as simply deceitful cheats.
Reflecting a transtasman rivalry, the New Zealand media gleefully mocked Australia's poor early showing in the tournament.
Interestingly, the Italian media was as ungracious towards the All Whites as the New Zealand media was towards the Socceroos. Notably, the New Zealand press was quicker to decry their Italian equivalent rather than reflect on their own stance.
The media interest in the Maori roots of some All Whites players (e.g.
Winston Reid after his dramatic equalising goal against Slovakia) stands in sharp contrast to its silence about the ethnic backgrounds of players such as Smeltz and Ivan Vicelich.
Yet, these stances capture a long-standing predisposition towards New Zealand as bicultural, rather than multicultural nation.
That is, they reveal a selective inclusiveness.
The media fascination with Maori roots is part of a bigger - largely unspoken - criteria determining which sports teams can emerge as worthy national representatives.
For the team - and football by extension - to be representative of the nation at large, it must be "racially" inclusive.
In featuring Maori players it allays the anxieties of a nation still coming to terms with the imbalances of colonialism.
Correspondingly, complexities such as Reid's previous allegiance to Danish national teams have received little attention.
The media's selective emphasis on ethnicity also reinforced the widely aired myth of sport as a "level playing field", open to all.
Football playing statistics collected by Sparc paint a different picture: Pakeha dominate the game with 64.7% of players (actually a slight proportional under-representation), while Maori are under-represented with just 7.3% (while making up 14.7% of the overall population).
Interestingly, the 14.6% of "Asians" who participate in football nationally had no representatives in the All Whites.
The media made no mention of this.
In short, the media discussions of diversity contribute to selective illusions of representativeness and inclusiveness.
The media coverage also exposed some other, deeper, sporting games in New Zealand.
Following the All Whites' victory over Bahrain to qualify for the World Cup finals, the players donned T-shirts proclaiming "white is the new black". The slogan, of course, challenged the dominance of men's rugby in the sporting imagination.
In the era of corporate sport, it is hardly surprising that Nike quickly seized upon the slogan "White is the new black".
It provided ready ammunition in Nike's corporate battle with adidas, which sponsors All Black rugby, and has hitherto monopolised exposure and hence the New Zealand market.
Which sports "count the most" and hence enjoy funding, exposure and adulation are the result of interest groups struggling to promote given sports.
What ends up as a "national sport" is ordinarily one that embodies the values of dominant interest groups.
Rugby's historical appeal has been grounded in male, middle class, pakeha-dominated values.
Invariably, however, these groups claim their sport to represent the whole nation's values and character.
Media have been central in promoting such ideas.
While success is a key feature of being deemed an appropriate national symbol it is not the only one.
If this were the case, the perennially successful women's national rugby team would be household names.
National identities are made - but slowly and over time - and they will not change overnight following the World Cup.
Football's moment in the media spotlight has signalled some interesting new themes, yet while the colour of the jersey may be different, familiar ideas are at play.
Perhaps the narratives are updated, with new names and unique twists.
But fundamentally, the New Zealand media idealises Kiwis and stereotypes other nationalities.
These are alluring but simplistic readings of the event.
Media coverage of the World Cup told Kiwis as much about their national anxieties as it did about football.
Mark Falcous is a senior lecturer in the School of Physical Education, University of Otago.
