How Soccer is Ruining America: A Jeremiad

Soccer is running America into the ground, and there is very little anyone can do about it. Social critics have long observed that we live in a therapeutic society that treats young people as if they can do no wrong. Every kid is a winner, and nobody is ever left behind, no matter how many times they watch the ball going the other way. Whether the dumbing down of America or soccer came first is hard to say, but soccer is clearly an important means by which American energy, drive, and competitiveness is being undermined to the point of no return.

What other game, to put it bluntly, is so boring to watch? (Bowling and golf come to mind, but the sound of crashing pins and the sight of the well-attired strolling on perfectly kept greens are at least inherently pleasurable activities.) The linear, two-dimensional action of soccer is like the rocking of a boat but without any storm and while the boat has not even left the dock. Think of two posses pursuing their prey in opposite directions without any bullets in their guns. Soccer is the fluoridation of the American sporting scene.

For those who think I jest, let me put forth four points, which is more points than most fans will see in a week of games—and more points than most soccer players have scored since their pee-wee days.

1) Any sport that limits you to using your feet, with the occasional bang of the head, has something very wrong with it. Indeed, soccer is a liberal’s dream of tragedy: It creates an egalitarian playing field by rigorously enforcing a uniform disability. Anthropologists commonly define man according to his use of hands. We have the thumb, an opposable digit that God gave us to distinguish us from animals that walk on all fours. The thumb lets us do things like throw baseballs and fold our hands in prayer. We can even talk with our hands. Have you ever seen a deaf person trying to talk with their feet? When you are really angry and acting like an animal, you kick out with your feet. Only fools punch a wall with their hands. The Iraqi who threw his shoes at President Bush was following his primordial instincts. Showing someone your feet, or sticking your shoes in someone’s face, is the ultimate sign of disrespect. Do kids ever say, “Trick or Treat, smell my hands”? Did Jesus wash his disciples’ hands at the Last Supper? No, hands are divine (they are one of the body parts most frequently attributed to God), while feet are in need of redemption. In all the portraits of God’s wrath, never once is he pictured as wanting to step on us or kick us; he does not stoop that low.

2) Sporting should be about breaking kids down before you start building them up. Take baseball, for example. When I was a kid, baseball was the most popular sport precisely because it was so demanding. Even its language was intimidating, with bases, bats, strikes, and outs. Striding up to the plate gave each of us a chance to act like we were starring in a Western movie, and tapping the bat to the plate gave us our first experience with inventing self-indulgent personal rituals. The boy chosen to be the pitcher was inevitably the first kid on the team to reach puberty, and he threw a hard ball right at you.

Thus, you had to face the fear of disfigurement as well as the statistical probability of striking out. The spectacle of your failure was so public that it was like having all of your friends invited to your home to watch your dad forcing you to eat your vegetables. We also spent a lot of time in the outfield chanting, “Hey batter batter!” as if we were Buddhist monks on steroids. Our chanting was compensatory behavior, a way of making the time go by, which is surely why at soccer games today it is the parents who do all of the yelling.

3) Everyone knows that soccer is a foreign invasion, but few people know exactly what is wrong with that. More than having to do with its origin, soccer is a European sport because it is all about death and despair. Americans would never invent a sport where the better you get the less you score. Even the way most games end, in sudden death, suggests something of an old-fashioned duel. How could anyone enjoy a game where so much energy results in so little advantage, and which typically ends with a penalty kick out, as if it is the audience that needs to be put out of its misery. Shootouts are such an anticlimax to the game and are so unpredictable that the teams might as well flip a coin to see who wins—indeed, they might as well flip the coin before the game, and not play at all.

4) And then there is the question of gender. I know my daughter will kick me when she reads this, but soccer is a game for girls. Girls are too smart to waste an entire day playing baseball, and they do not have the bloodlust for football. Soccer penalizes shoving and burns countless calories, and the margins of victory are almost always too narrow to afford any gloating. As a display of nearly death-defying stamina, soccer mimics the paradigmatic feminine experience of childbirth more than the masculine business of destroying your opponent with insurmountable power.

Let me conclude on a note of despair appropriate to my topic. There is no way to run away from soccer, if only because it is a sport all about running. It is as relentless as it is easy, and it is as tiring to play as it is tedious to watch. The real tragedy is that soccer is a foreign invasion, but it is not a plot to overthrow America. For those inclined toward paranoia, it would be easy to blame soccer’s success on the political left, which, after all, worked for years to bring European decadence and despair to America. The left tried to make existentialism, Marxism, post-structuralism, and deconstructionism fashionable in order to weaken the clarity, pragmatism, and drive of American culture. What the left could not accomplish through these intellectual fads, one might suspect, they are trying to accomplish through sport.

Yet this suspicion would be mistaken. Soccer is of foreign origin, that is certainly true, but its promotion and implementation are thoroughly domestic. Soccer is a self-inflicted wound. Americans have nobody to blame but themselves. Conservative suburban families, the backbone of America, have turned to soccer in droves. Baseball is too intimidating, football too brutal, and basketball takes too much time to develop the required skills. American parents in the past several decades are overworked and exhausted, but their children are overweight and neglected. Soccer is the perfect antidote to television and video games. It forces kids to run and run, and everyone can play their role, no matter how minor or irrelevant to the game. Soccer and relevision are the peanut butter and jelly of parenting.

I should know. I am an overworked teacher, with books to read and books to write, and before I put in a video for the kids to watch while I work in the evenings, they need to have spent some of their energy. Otherwise, they want to play with me! Last year all three of my kids were on three different soccer teams at the same time. My daughter is on a traveling team, and she is quite good. I had to sign a form that said, among other things, I would not do anything embarrassing to her or the team during the game. I told the coach I could not sign it. She was perplexed and worried. “Why not,” she asked? “Are you one of those parents who yells at their kids? “Not at all,” I replied, “I read books on the sidelines during the game, and this embarrasses my daughter to no end.” That is my one way of protesting the rise of this pitiful sport. Nonetheless, I must say that my kids and I come home from a soccer game a very happy family.

Face it. Soccer sucks.

So you don't like soccer, that's fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but the statistics don't support your premise.

Soccer is the most popular sport in the World. It is apolitical, it is not "socialist" or fascist" or "Republican" or "communist". It transcends politics and pre-dates most political ideologies.

Over 200 countries compete against each other at at national level for "The Word Cup". There are tens of thousands of professional teams worldwide, there is international club competition, there are hundreds of domestic professional leagues, there are more professional soccer matches every day of the year than there are game in an entire NFL season.

there are at least three Dedicated , full time soccer channels on US TV, plus ESPN carries extensive soccer coverage including all of the Champions' League from Europe.

So the product is obviously popular and is growing in popularity.

So how do you think that is happening if the product sucks?

The real question is why do you feel the need to rail against it when you clearly have no interest in, or knowledge of, the game? Especially when the claims you make are non-specific, patently ludicrous, and emotionally charged.

Why don't you just live and let live. it's a free country, we are allowed the pursuit of happiness.

Wow it took you 17 days to come up with that reply.

Yes, for some reason, I didn't see your reply when you posted it.

if you don’t like it too bad, go make your own world champions.

No I wouldn't do that because it devalues the term "World Champion" which was my point in the first place.

The NFL wants it both ways.

Either, Football IS a world sport, in which case you shouldn't exclude the other participating countries from entering the "World Championship" or it ISN'T a world sport, in which case a "World Championship" is a meaningless title.

You are confusing the "best in the world" with "world champions". They are frequently NOT the same thing - that's why we hold World Championships instead of just working it out from the form book - Look at The Patriots last year, on form they were the best, but they lost The Super Bowl.

I used to race sailboats in World Championship competition all over the planet. That was competition, frequently held in a strange and new place, against 100 plus world class competitors (several of whom were National Champions in their own countries). You had to deal with foreign food, different cultures, jet lag, language barriers, and any number of other issues as you tried to perform at your best.

Those were real world championships, they had all the components and conditions of such. If you won, there was no dispute that you had won a World Championship, in a neutral venue, against all comers from all over the World and you could rightly call yourself "World Champion". We also had Regional, National, European, and Far Eastern Championships.. again, they had the components that validated their status, and if you won you could feel rightly proud.

But the NFL's scheme is just a scam, it's intended to hype up the status of a domestic competition with socialist type "feel good" self-esteem in order to maximize their take.

The term “world champion” has no value, that’s the problem wit your point. It’s just a couple of words thrown together periodically by various sports/ competition groups to label this year’s winner of something.

the NFL doesn’t want it EITHER of the ways you’re discussing. They’ve got their league, they’ve got their playoffs, they’ve got their winner, they call their winner the World Champions because it’s their winner and they can call them whatever the hell they want.

Sorry but I’m not confusing anything. Nowhere did I ever say anything that even vaguely hints that I think “world champ” is the same as best in the world. That would be YOUR confusion actually when you were complaining that the Phillies couldn’t possibly be World Champions because the US baseball team lost in the WBC. Out here in reality where people understand sports we know that the World Champion (or league champion, or whatever the label is) isn’t even necessarily the best team in that league that year. My Steelers are the World Champions of the NFL but they weren’t the best team in the league for the 2008 season, that would go probably to the Tennessee Titans, my the Steelers won the playoff games necessary to get to the Super Bowl and won the Super Bowl and therefore ARE the WORLD CHAMPIONS whether you or the Titans like it or not.

Sorry but the sailing competition is just as silly to label a world champion as anybody else. Sailing competitions take a really long time, and often run in a challenge cup format which lets the previous winner set the rules, which tends to make things kind of stupid.

There’s no scam or scheme. The problem here is that you put way more weight into the words “world champion” than they deserve. It’s a silly thing to get upset over. The NFL, and the MLB, and your sailing group, and FIFA, and anybody else who feels like it, get to declare get to declare a World Champion in their league for all the same reason:
it’s their league
it’s their champion
they get to call them whatever they want

And if you don’t like it that’s not their problem.

The term “world champion” has no value, that’s the problem wit (sic) your point.

Well that's where we'll have to agree to differ.

In my world, a World Champion is champion of a world wide sport that has defeated all comers on a world stage at a World Championship.

To you, as you say, it's a meaningless title that anyone can use as they see fit. And frankly that's a shame.

And what is the point of a title if it has no meaning?

As for your comments about sailing championships, your knowledge is obviously extremely limited. The only competition where the previous winner sets the format for the next competition is the America's Cup, which isn't a world championship anyway, it's a challenge cup.

In the real world it’s just a couple of words. Leagues can name their champions whatever they want. A league could call it’s champion the King of all Siam if they want, they don’t even have to have anything to do with Siam, it could even be a womens league, because it’s their league and they can call it what they please.

Doesn’t really matter what your precious sailing championship did. I guarantee if I wanted to go through the rules I could find a reason why it’s completely bogus to call it a world champion. Except I wouldn’t because I don’t care. I don’t care what any league call their champion.

Really your own argument shows how painfully silly your complaint is. There has never in the history of sports been a world champion that defeated all comers. There’s always going to be some sort of rules system that limits who vies for the championship. And even in sports with a system that has all members of the league play each other at least once, the league itself is artificially limited, and nobody beats everybody. So in your world, according to your rule, there has never and will never be a “World Champion” in any sport, including the one you participated in.

You really are pretty uninformed aren't you?

If you participate in an international sport (doesn't matter what sport it is), and the international governing body of the sport stages a competition that is designated as The World Championships for that sport, and all the best talent from all over the World gather together to contest that championship then the winner is rightly called "World Champion". It's as simple as that.

It may just be a "couple of words" to you, but words mean something, and just because you, or anyone else, cares to label yourself as something doesn't make it so.

By your argument we can all get fake degrees and false medals and become instant professors or war heroes.

The world doesn't work like that.

I like football and soccer - there's room for both. Hell the best football kickers are former soccer players.

Things I like about soccer: fluid game, strategy builds during play, endurance/stamina, amazing footskills. Down side: low scoring, refs can throw a game pretty easy, soccer player act more than hollywood and flail on the ground like girls.

Things I like about football: power, speed, strength, line up and play smashmouth, strategy of play calling. Down side: stop and go play drags out, bad injuries/long-term wear on body

I've made peace with soccer and football and can appreciate the athleticism of both. I would also like to see more kids enjoy shooting sports and fencing.

“All of the best talent” is a far cry from “defeat all comers”. And then of course you have the problem of just who is the “international governing body”, how did they decide who is “the best talent”, how did they construct the tournament, are the winners really the World Champions? The simple reality is that ALL competitions that declare world champions have limitations on the participants and really are not, by the demands you have laid out, creation true world champions.

It’s not just a couple of words to me. It’s just a couple of words PERIOD.

And now we see your problem. You don’t understand that it’s JUST SPORTS. There’s a big difference between a sports champion and a war hero. ALL sports champions are, at their core, false medals, because it’s just sports. Keep your sports in perspective, “world champion” is just a meaningless couple of words and all “world champions” are in the end not really world champions, and there isn’t a world championship on the planet that’s worth the lowliest military medal ever given out.

You really are a moron, aren’t you?

Don’t waste my time.

Why don’t you go and tell Michael Schumacher that he really isn’t a World Champion? Or maybe the Italian Soccer Team?

There are thousands of sporting World Championships that have universal credibility based on their structure, their authority, and the contestants.

The Super Bowl isn’t one of them.

Now stop wasting my time because you make no sense and you are a know-nothing.

In fact you are probably the “World Champion know nothing” ..LOL!

You really need to cram the insults. They just prove you’re taking this far too personally.

It’s YOUR definition of world champion that Michael Schumacher and the Italian Soccer team fail to live up to. So you go tell them.

Sorry bub but every single event that the controlling league calls a world championship IS A WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP. Because they said so. That’s the point. Their league, their champion, their name for the champion.

Stop wasting your own time. You’re the guy that came back 17 days later, you’re the guy throwing insults, you’re the guy with a definition of “world champion” that is impossible, you’re the guy not making any sense, and you’re the guy who knows he’s lost the logical argument so he has to resort to insults.

There is nothing “impossible” about the definition I gave of a World Champion, it is the model used by just about every international sport, namely:

1 A World Champion is the winner of a World Championship.

2 The World Championship is a competition structured and conducted by the international governing body of the sport in question.

3 The international governing body is that organization that administers the sport world wide and is typically an umbrella for all the individual National organizations.

For instance:

FIFA administers Soccer world wide and runs the World Cup. Underneath FIFA are regional organizations such as UEFA, CONCACAF, etc that run regional international competitions at both the club and inter-country level, Below them are the individual national organizations running their respective domestic competitions.

In motorsports you have the FIA that administers international racing such as Formula 1, the World Touring Car Championship and a host of other International competitions. It provides an umbrella for national organizations, world wide.

In sailing the international governing body is ISAF. They publish the rules, maintain world standings, and provide an umbrella for national organizations. They also run a World Cup competition in certain classes.

Other international classes have there own World Championships staged jointly under the auspices of ISAF and the respective International Class Association in conjunction with their National Class Associations.

I could go on, there are countless examples of sports that function this way, tennis, cricket, rugby, swimming, gymnastics etc, etc.....EXCEPT American Football.

American Football’s World governing body is IFAF, it holds World Championships every four years just like soccer’s World Cup. IFAF has 50 member nations. The USA member organization is USAF. The NFL is listed as a “partner” to IFAF and has employees on USAF’s board.

The most recent American Football World Championship was held two years ago in Japan.

So the NFL’s unilateral declaration of a “World Champion” is completely at odds with just about every sport in the entire world.

But by YOUR Definition, it doesn’t matter because anyone can call any competition anything they like.

That is the liberal “feel good” way of awarding yourself undeserved credit. There is no gravitas to the title in that situation.

It’s like all the liberals calling hillary clinton “the smartest woman in the world” - there is absolutely no evidence to support that conjecture whatsoever, but by constantly saying so they think they will confer that title on her.

You say winners can call themselves the “King of Siam” if they want. OK, but it would be meaningless to do so wouldn’t it because they wouldn’t actually be the King of Siam and everyone would know it (just like the NFL “world Champions”), so why bother?

So go to Thailand and announce that you are the King of Siam and see what His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej has to say about that. He might have you arrested, but you could tell him “hey - it’s just words”.

But that’s not the definition you gave. Here’s the definition you gave in post 229:
In my world, a World Champion is champion of a world wide sport that has defeated all comers on a world stage at a World Championship.

Note the important phrase “defeated all comers”. That’s impossible. By your definition, which you put forth in 229, there has never been a world champion in any sport ever. Now if you want to back track on that go ahead, but acknowledge what you said.

Meanwhile your new definition is much closer to the truth. The problem is you’re all hung up on this international thing. You got item 1 right, a World Champion is the winner of the World Championship. But after that you’re way off in a silly never never land that puts way too much importance on sports, silly worlds, and international approval. A World Championship is any competition where-in the governing body (international or not) SAYS it’s a World Championship.

Because the reality is ANY group declaring they have the World Championship IS a unilateral decision. FIFA, FIA, ISAF and anybody else you want to mention were just as unilateral in their declarations of running World Championships as the NFL and MLB. Remember FIFA was declaring World Champions even they were just a European organization.

There’s nothing that says these groups SHOULD be running the World Championship other than the fact that the decided the do. There could be a split in any of these organizations similar to the IRL-CART argument or various boxing associations, and there could easily be multiple World Champions in that sport until the schism is healed.

Sorry but all the liberal feel good in this discussion is coming from you, the guy worshiping international governing bodies.

Ahh you’re finally starting to get the point. Yes it would be worthless to declare their champion the King of all Siam. Just as it’s worthless to declare a champion the World Champion, or the Stanley Cup Champion or any other title. It’s ALL worthless because it’s JUST SPORTS. We bother because sports are fun, but sports and sports titles have no meaning, no worth. They’re just silly little titles we attach to silly little games that we spend far too much time following. And arguing about.

My definition is entirely consistent. “All Comers” means every one who partcipated in the event. Depending on the structure of the competition, some participants may have got eliminated in qualifying for the final World Championship tournament, such as in the World Cup. But the winner of the final event can be perceived to have legitimately triumphed over all.

Your point about potential splits in Authority is a legitmate one, however there is no argument for the most part about most sports.

Certainly IRL-CART would have a legitmate claim to call their winners “World Champions”. It is an international competition with drivers from all over the world and has multiple international venues. But the winners would be the “IRL-CART World Champion” as opposed to the “Formula 1 World Champion”. Neither would label themselves the “World Driving Champion” though either might think they are.

As for FIFA, their first World Cup in 1930 had 16 teams from all over the world, including the USA!

As for having a World Champion of a non-international sport, well that is just an exercise in futility and a hollow title.

As I said before, why not call them “Intergallactic Champions”? It is just as meaningful. I guess it’s OK for those who like to be big fish in little ponds..

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.