After reading the article and the thread, especially your comments, I went back and read the article again, more carefully. I think the point the author was making is that an obsessive interest in sports, standing alone, doesn't make a good parent. I think he's criticizing parents who, as he says, put in their "x hours" on sports and think they've punched their card, without honoring certain other obligations of parenthood. I'd agree with that. Having said that, though, I also think his own anecdote is kind of strange, since it seems like he really did want his father at his games. It sounds more like he made peace with his father's approach later and at least saw some value in it, though he still was disappointed by it. I am not so sure he is saying that is the best approach, just that attending every game doesn't make you a good parent any more than missing games makes you a bad one. The article isn't very artfully written, I don't think.
There's a long long way between being obsessive and being uninterested. The writer of the article seems to think that being uninvolved is better than over involved. There is a middle ground which the writer seems to ignore.