Clive Davis links to this, by Steven Warshawsky, in the American Thinker:
Americans have neither the belief system nor the temperment for such a sisyphean sport as soccer. We are a society of doers, achievers, and builders. Our country is dynamic, constantly growing, and becoming ever bigger, richer, and stronger...We do not labor for the sake of laboring. And we like our sports teams to score. Scoring is a tangible accomplishment that can be identified, quantified, tabulated, compared, analyzed, and, above all else, increased. This is the American way.
That soccer may be “the most popular sport in the world” speaks volumes—but not about America’s lack of sporting knowledge or sophistication, as soccer aficionados like to argue. Rather, I think it reflects the static, crimped, and defeatest attitudes held by so many of the other peoples on earth.
Clive hopes it's a spoof. But the guy might be making as good a point as can be made by someone who calls it "soccer."
The thing is, football is about clinging onto hope when you know, really, that it's misplaced. We turn up for games hoping our team will finally put it all together and play the best football we've ever seen, even though we know they won't. And we hope each attack will lead to a goal, even though we know that most will peter out in disappointment.
Indeed, we calibrate our expectations to ensure this is the case; Gooners are disappointed when Thierry fails to score the greatest goals of all time in every game.
We non-Americans, with our defeatist attitudes, see in football (forgive the cliche) a metaphor for life. We continue hoping, even though such hopes are destined for disappointment. As a wise man said: "I can handle despair. It's the hope that's unbearable."
Football, like life, consists in long spells of frustration, punctuated by brief bursts of excitement, which we expect to end in failure. It's not about entertainment.
Americans, with honourable exceptions, just don't get this.
But here's the rub. It's our attitude to life - and hence the fact that football is part of our soul - that is accurate. It's Americans - or at least those who buy into Warshawsky's belief system - who are wrong.
For one thing, there' s less social mobility in the US than in Europe - which suggests the US is no more a society of achievers (at least among those born into poor homes) than Europe.
And remember - Willy Loman and the characters in Edward Hopper's paintings are not only Americans, but quintessential Americans.
Perhaps, then, American conservatives' dislike for football reflects a deeper malaise in their psyche - the belief that optimism is justified and their refusal to accept that failure is an inevitable part of life.
It just goes to show that some Americans are a) stupid combined with b) blindly optimistic
Oh and c) they are easily entertained by their sports. Who finds baseball exciting FFS?
Whereas we know we are being stupid and blindly optimistic, but it only lasts for 90 minutes. Normal cynicism is resumed after that.
Posted by: angry economist | July 14, 2006 at 01:41 PM
When my nipper was seven we sent her to a week of "sports camp". When it was finished we asked her which sport was best. "American Football". "Why?" "Well, you get to wear thus sooooper helmet and this luuuuuvly uniform." That's when I realised that American Football is camp.
Posted by: dearieme | July 14, 2006 at 02:43 PM
I've never been to America, but I've watched baseball and American football on TV. And it would be inconceivable for a whole 'end' to start singing anything as social democratic as 'You'll Never Walk Alone'. THAT'S the difference. Our 'firms' are larger than theirs as well.
Posted by: paulie | July 14, 2006 at 03:36 PM
Here's a link to a British blogger who shared the US conservative desire for "entertainment" in football:
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2006/07/group_vs_knocko.html#comments
Frankly, I think the points you make here are far more valid than his. Hopefully, he'll be along to learn something about the game.
Posted by: James Hamilton | July 14, 2006 at 05:50 PM
As all journalists know, there's nothing worse than an attentive reader.
My earlier post was not a call for more "entertaining" football. In lamenting the low goals-per-game ratio, I was bemoaning the lack of good attacking play. England and Portugal didn't draw 0-0 because two great defences outplayed two great attacks. It was because both teams were crap.
As a Gooner of long standing, I love good defending. But how many strikers in the World Cup would have caused TA (pbuh) any problem at all? He could have shut out Pauleta, Klose and Toni put together without dropping his cigar.
Posted by: chris | July 16, 2006 at 01:50 PM