WORLD CUP: AMERICAN FOOTBALL VS. SOCCER

WORLD CUP: AMERICAN FOOTBALL IS A SIGN OF NATION'S DECLINE
by MIKE FLYNN 14 Jun 2014, 12:00 PM PDT

Every four years, large swaths of the world pause to enjoy the World Cup, a tournament of the 32 best national teams in soccer. Like clockwork, American sports writers and fans mark the occasion with loud commentary about how "stupid" they find the sport. Barrels of ink are spilled and vocal cords strained assuring everyone that our "football" is better than soccer and, more American. Project much?

Setting aside whatever Freudian motivations necessitate such screeds, perhaps the question merits consideration. Is our "football" more American? I wish it weren't true, but, sadly, I'm afraid these writers and fans are probably right. 

Professional football in the US is, after all, a government-protected monopoly. A rapidly growing city can't just field its own team, but must first get approval from the cartel of football team owners. These cartel members can also usually count on taxpayers to foot the bill for building their stadiums. This cartel also ensures that teams can enjoy staying in the league regardless of performance. In the English Premier League (soccer) and most other leagues, the worst performing teams get thrown out of the league every year, until they can earn their place back. Americans of an older generation will remember this concept as a meritocracy. 

Professional athletes in this country, since this is America, are also represented by labor unions. Players of certain sports will occasionally go on strike due to wage and benefit concerns. Much of this strife arises because most American sports operate with "salary caps," limiting how much each team can pay its players. It is telling that this is a uniquely American concept, along with "revenue sharing" that is increasingly creeping into the soccer world. 

The oddness of American football is not simply confined to its organizational structure, i.e. its status as a government-protected cartel, reliant on taxpayer funding and relations with labor unions. The playing of the game itself is, sadly, unique to America. 

Every athlete has a clearly defined and limited "position." Teams run pre-set "plays" which are memorized by players and dictated by coaches on the sidelines. In football, coaches determine every play and the athletes just execute the plays. Individual players can execute these plays brilliantly, but they rarely have the opportunity to seize the initiative and execute a new pattern based on situations on the field.  

Even accounting for these particular anachronisms, I used to enjoy watched the NFL and I still enjoy watching college football. Unfortunately, both are becoming 4+ hour commercial loops, broken up by short-films of padded men throwing or running with a ball. 

I love watching soccer, and I love the World Cup, but I get that one's mileage may vary. To me, there is no greater display of individual initiative and excellence combined with great team play. Players on the field have to make their own, quick decisions based on real-time changes in the play. They don't rely on coaches to dictate their play and they can't take "time-outs" if their play starts to suffer. Even if injured, the clock keeps ticking down. 

I understand the easy, superficial complaints about soccer. I also find many American fans of soccer obnoxious in their self-professed love of the game. Any American using the word "pitch" to describe a soccer field is a person I don't want to know, for example. 

What I don't understand is the vitriol with which sport's commentators and writers feel the need to use when discussing soccer. The oft-repeated observation that football is "American" or "red-blooded" because of all the tackling reminds me of a short guy driving a Hummer. Have these people heard of rugby? France, of all places, after all, is a powerhouse of a sport which is American football without the pads. 

If sports writers can square that knot, then perhaps I'll listen to their criticisms about soccer. 

So, by all means, yell and scream how much more "American" football is today than soccer. Mostly, we soccer fans don't care. Deep down, though, as Americans, we're also afraid you might be right.  

[I found the above article on Breitbart.com.  There were many comments. usually critical of the international game and defending American football.  My comment follows:]

humura • 2 minutes ago

Soccer allows more to participate. Poor people with a ball can play. You need not invest in layers of padding, helmets, shoulder pads, etc. You don't have to be a Schwartzenegger, or super muscular, or super tall (as in basketball). You simply have to be good at the sport, and of average size or above. It is called football in most nations because it is a sport where you use your feet, unlike American football for most of the game. Indeed, calling the American game football is a case of false advertising.  Soccer is popular with most average people throughout the world because it is a sport that average people can, and many have, played. In both American and international football one can find corruption, bribes, and other problems. Sports are a part of life with many of life's usual temptations. However, Manchester United, Arsenal, Real Madrid, Barca, these are known like Coca Cola, around the world, so it is big business as well as sport. And if I say pitch for field or penal for penalty, so what, it is because in America I must often watch the sport on TV where AmerEnglish is less spoken. But when I travel in other countries, I need not understand their language when I tune in their sports channel to watch soccer, fussball, futball, football, or whatever you call it. It is the international sport whose popularity dwarfs that of American football. 

English or Espanol in Soccer & USA

Hey Bob,
   Believe it or not, I will sometimes watch futbol on the Spanish channels because it is my favorite sport.  Indeeed, I learnt a few Spanish words as a consequence: penal, corrnerr kick, and gooooool!!!  When I played the game in NYC many fo those with whom I played knew Spanish, and many other languages.
   When I lived in Queens, New York, I recall going to the nearest hardware store to buy something.  No one could speak English.  I walked a few more blocks to another store where I could explain what I wanted and be understood.  The neighborhood had changed over years with more South American immigration.  Nothing wrong with that.  Or?  I began to receive my telephone bill in Spanish and not English.  I complained and that changed.  I went to vote.  No problem - Democrat, Republican, Liberal, the usual parties in NY.  However, on the propositions I could vote No or Si.  I had to look for a place to vote Yes.  The Democrats were doing their usual pandering.  During the 1990 World Cup, I remember watching the game between Columbia and Germany.  I was happy with the result, which I think was a German victory (or perhaps a tie).  It was late afternoon and I left my flat to head for the subway and had to cross a wide avenue.  The Colombianos of the neighborhood were out with a parade.
   For the final, on a Sunday as I recall, it was Argentina v. Germany.  It was a hot day, and I decided to go out before and after the game wearing a gold shirt, black bermuda shorts, and a red tie (I almost never wear a tie, and on a sweltering day!)  These were not the Argentine colors, so no one in the neighborhood paid attention.  I bought a newspaper and returned to my flat to watch the game.  It was a German victory.  I then left wearing the same clothing.  A large Argentine "victory" parade had assembled, which went on despite their defeat.  Because all the neighborhood had seen the game, and the German colors, they recognized what I was wearing.  Most were surprised that anyone would support the Euroteam.  Most were friendly, one wanted to throw some water on me.  A few blocks away I actually saw some of my teammates, who were all for Argentina.
   This enthusiasm I do not criticize at all.  Similarly, on the subway, the signs advertising Budweiser cerveza is paid for by a corporation.  It can pay it money as it sees fit.  But when government ads are in Spanish, why are my taxes paying to inform others and not inform me?  And why in Spanish and not French?  Or German?
   Why do they advertise for many jobs where a requirement is "bi-lingual"?  I am bi-lingual.  But that is not what they want.  They want someone who speaks Spanish.  So newcomers who learn English have an advantage over native Americans in getting jobs.  Worse, our government's affirmative action programs give them even more privileges over native Americans.  And I reject the absurd notion of our government that one's ancestors must have been born here about 500 years ago before you can be classified as a Native American.  I was born in the USA, I am an native American.
   I realized how poorly I do at learning languages now after my stint in China.  Two years, and I can count to ten!  But my purpose there was to teach English, not learn Chinese.  I worked in a court in Milwaukee.  Many came to me, "Anybody speaka Spanish."  I knew enough to get them into court and their plea - culpable, innocente, no objecion.  Many, Ok.  But there were some who have lived here 7 or 10 years, young people, and they still knew no English.  Our government paid for brochures in Spanish, for translators in court, etc.  I think of my days in China or Germany.  Had I had to go to court, I would have had to pay.  Why does the local government pay in the USA?  Charge the Mexican Embassy.  China had a reasonable system for deporting illegals.  Indeed, I admired the Chinese system on crime in general.
   I am old enough to remember when assimilation was the ideal, the melting pot.  I live near an Indian Casino, but never go.  In this state, if you are not Amerind, you cannot have a casino.  I call this racial discrimination.  I am happy that over the years most of the French language declined in Louisiana and I was given English as a language.  I can imagine the battles for separation as occurred in Canada because of language.  And the discrimination against English that occurs in Quebec today.  I think our immigration policies are insane, and think of the poem by Bertholt Brecht, the great German poet/playwright.  He fled Hitler's Germany and ended in Hollywood.  During the Cold War, he fled the US to return to East Germany.  After the 1953 uprising against the Communist regime, he wrote a poem that the government should now dissolve and elect a new people.  Sadly, that is what has been happening here for the past 5 decades.
   I am a strong opponent of multiculturalism.  I think the US and the West are headed in the wrong direction.  Is English a superior language?  In most ways, I suspect one language is like any other, each having easy sides; each its difficult sides (like spelling English).  But to what extent is a language the outgrowth of the culture of the people who speak it?  I recall that Eskimos may have many terms for snow.  That is part of their live, and essential part.  The language reflects it.  English reflects the ideas and experiences of those who speak it.  Freedom, liberty, equality, individualism, creativity, progress, rights are all words that express the history of the English-speaking people.  I have heard that the Chinese had no word for individualism.  I greatly admire the Chinese, but I choose to remain in the English milieu.
   Or to rephrase it, the people express themselves in their culture, and part of that culture is the language.  A nation of many languages will eventually come apart as Austria-Hungary.  Switzerland is the great exception, as it is on many other themes.  Individuals may learn a second or many languages.  It will even help in their understanding of their first.  But the government should have an official language to save money and avoid duplication, and to encourage a unified nation.
   By the way, though I disagree with him on social issues, I did vote for Buchanan for President in 2000.  Held my nose and voted Bush in 2004, and returned to the Libertarian fold in 2008.  In 2010 I did vote for one Democrat, the local Sheriff of Milwaukee, a Black man who attended Tea Party rallies.
   My politics have greatly changed over the decades.
   But I hope you write about yourself for Tulane.  Our experiences are different, so are out politics.  But perhaps our experiences can help explain so much of the change over the decades of our lives.
             Hugh----------27 June 2011