Posted on 05/31/2002 9:28:33 AM PDT by xsysmgr
The most-watched sporting event in the world has begun, and most of my fellow conservatives in America are going to miss it.
While some of you no doubt are thinking that the Super Bowl and World Series are both months away, the event I'm referring to is the World Cup of Soccer, watched by an estimated 3.5 billion people around the world, including millions in the United States, almost all of whom are apparently liberals.
As a movement conservative and rabid fan of the beautiful game (that's soccer, by the way), I find myself as something of a de facto missionary for the sport to the political and cultural right. What is it about soccer that makes it (in America) the nearly exclusive domain of liberal sports fans?
Growing up in Ohio, I started following the game at age 12 via the weekly PBS program (should have tipped me off right then) Soccer Made in Germany, which featured a condensed match segment accompanied by English commentary. Youth leagues were just getting started in our part of the state, and my interest grew as I started coaching kids and playing in high school, but even then it was made clear that I was involved in an outsiders' game in a conservative area.
When I took an announcement of a big victory to my high-school principal one morning, I was greeted with a dismissive glare — it's not a real sport, after all. When my coach, the parish priest in a mostly Catholic town (and thus the only person for whom it was acceptable to be a fan) threw a party to view the 1982 World Cup championship match, only three players showed up. Once, before an afternoon match, my mom informed me that if I didn't cut the grass beforehand, I couldn't go to my own game. Does the high-school quarterback have to mow the lawn before his games?
As I became a more avid follower of the game during the '90s, I started wondering why all the soccer fans I was meeting were political and cultural liberals. I had moved to Washington, D.C. in 1994 to work for a member of Congress, and even the fans from the midwest, south, and west I was coming across via the vast and intricate underground soccer network (it exists, trust me) tended to be liberals. With conventional media coverage of soccer not abundant in America, soccer fans turn to the Internet for information. But a casual survey on the preeminent web gathering place for American fanatics — bigsoccer.com — again demonstrates an overwhelming presence of liberals among the rank and file. If I deign, on the other hand, to ask a fellow conservative about the game, I am treated to the usual pejorative responses.
For the uninitiated (those of you who don't persecute soccer, but just tolerate those who persecute it), such responses include "Soccer is not a real sport"; "Soccer is for girls"; "Soccer is a Commie game"; "Soccer is boring"; and the most damning of all, "So… you watch soccer… ?"
It is fair to note that soccer has had very mixed reviews from the American public in general, not just from conservatives. While the sport as a national youth activity has grown by leaps and bounds (an estimated eight million children are playing this year), the professional game has struggled to catch on. The U.S. went for almost 15 years without a top-flight professional league, and only time will tell if major-league soccer, the well organized and energetic effort to establish such a league here, will become an American institution. Soccer's TV ratings in the U.S. are low. While the women's national team attracted a lot of attention when they won the Women's World Cup in 1999, fan interest in that appears to have been quite specific to that event, much as it was for the Men's World Cup held here in 1994.
The main drawback to soccer for "traditional Americans" is that it is a game requiring some patience to appreciate. Baseball, the thinking man's game, has been affected by this national attention-span deficit to some degree, and traditionalists bemoan how the channel-surfing highlight culture has hurt the game. Turn on a soccer match and you are not likely to see something spectacular immediately (it's kind of like a Rembrandt in that way). While the seasoned fan can recognize the difficulty and artistry of a lengthy and complex buildup to an attempt at goal — often unsuccessful — much of modern-day, sports-viewing America wants feverish action, and wants it now.
There is, of course, huge interest in the game among many of our immigrant communities. Fans follow their homeland teams via satellite and cable telecasts of matches from abroad. In some cities, thousands of fans will gather at a theatre or recreational center to watch a closed-circuit pay-per-view match from South America, Africa, or Asia. Go as an American to a viewing place with a predominantly foreign clientele and you will still draw looks of surprise that a "Yank" or "gringo" would be interested in "their" game.
This perhaps touches near the heart of the issue for a lot of conservatives. Americans have typically come up with their own games to dominate. We invented football (even taking "soccer's" proper name and redefining it to an almost Orwellian degree), basketball, and baseball and made those our major sports. To the degree that these are played and/or followed elsewhere, they are American exports. While baseball is popular in Japan and parts of Latin America, and basketball in Europe and Australia, they are still "American" games first and foremost. Soccer will never be that. In fact, American football in part began, as legend has it, when a game of "soccer" became too boring, prompting a player to pick up the ball and begin running with it, and the rest is gridiron "pointyball" history.
Golf and tennis are also "foreign" in their origins, but they are not linked as closely to their international roots as soccer, and at any rate already had made deep inroads in the American cultural establishment by the early 20th century.
While eschewing anything deemed international or, worse, "European" suits the isolationist streak among certain conservatives, it seems to me that a much more proper Ameri-centric response would be to embrace the game for the purpose of demonstrating American superiority through it. For instance, doesn't saying "We play the best football in the world" kind of have a hollow ring to it? I mean, who else is there? But if the U.S. were to produce professional soccer leagues that rivaled those in Italy, Spain, England and Germany, and a national team that could defeat the likes of Brazil, Argentina, and France, how much crow would the internationalists have to eat then?
To be honest, my attraction to soccer is just that I like the game. But if the lure of American superiority is enough to get you interested in the game (kind of like when Americans get interested in things like bobsledding and Greco-Roman wrestling during the Olympics), so be it.
The time is ripe. Following the explosion of youth leagues, the quality of the American player development system has improved exponentially. We are even making some inroads on the rosters of clubs in England, France, Germany, and Holland. If American conservatives dedicate themselves to backing American soccer, the resultant energy and optimistic buzz might just push the U.S. men's national team to the final rounds of this summer's World Cup, or at least lower the percentage of the fans sitting next to me who voted for Mondale, Dukakis, and Gore. Help a brother out already! Strike a blow for federalism, apple pie, and the gold standard, and make a commitment to watch the World Cup this June.
By the way, the matches, played in South Korea and Japan, are airing live at 2:30 a.m., 5 a.m., and 7:30 a.m. EST. Happy viewing.
— Robert Ziegler lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and children, and directs media relations for a nonprofit public-policy group.
Bingo!
Question of the day: "Ever hear the term Soccer-Dad?"
Speaks volumes, don't it?
The difference between soccer players and hockey players ought to be clear. When standing in the path of a 100-mph slapshot, very few hockey players turn around or cover their crotches.
I usually tend to ignore hockey in these sorts of arguments because I consider it a winter sport, and one that is played on a near-frictionless surface. But now that I think of it, there was no hill that Joey Kocur and Bob Probert couldn't take.
...and, when a soccer palyer does get hit (or slightly tapped) they roll and flail like they've been shot with a bazooka. Geez, give it a break.
I despise soccer! Can I use your quote?
I, too, have noticed that lefties love soccer. My theory (which other's here have touched on) is that they love it so much because it is not an established sport in the U.S. That way little Trevor and Ashley can play anyway they want: no one knows the rules and there is no standard for excellence to be gauged against.
BTW, hockey is only limited by the imaginations of those who play it. Saturday morning outdoor roller-hockey is a regular things for a bunch of us now!
No, with soccer the action is primarily non-existent.
People tend to move around non-stop on a city street too. That doesn't mean that activity will produce anything worth seeing.
Other than a scoring chance during NHL playoff overtime, there are no more gut wrenching, tense, what-sports-is-all about moments than the 30-60 seconds before the play that determines if your Super Bowl hopes live or die. If it turns to be 3 to 4 minutes and a few beer commercials, it's all the more glorious when the action resumes.
The pause lets the drama build (and, unlike soccer, allows the sport to be commercially viable) to a furious climax when the ball is snapped.
With soccer, the lack of any pause prevents the tension from building. Because of this, it's even more boring when nothing happens than it would be if all the non-events on the field were occasionally interrupted so you could run to the fridge. One suspects that even hard core soccer fans go to the bathroom or fridge with complete confidence that they can take their time and not miss anything even remotely consequential to the outcome of the game.
My theory (which other's here have touched on) is that they love it so much because it is not an established sport in the U.S.
Interesting theory, but soccer was popular in Europe long before there was such a thing as an "established" sport in the U.S.
As a Twins fan, I'd say bring it on. We can use someone we can score 17 runs against. :)
Personally, I prefer a 3-2, 2:20 game. Crisply played with good pitching and defense. Works every time.
BTW, nice screen name :)
I decided that Greg Maddux was the most dominating pitcher I've ever seen after watching one of his games a few years ago. He threw 78 pitches in a complete-game shutout that took only about 1:50 to play. It was supposed to be a "night" game, but it was still light out when he walked off the mound at the end of the game.
Of course, the plate is 24 inches wide for Maddux which doesn't hurt him. I saw your comment about injury time, and I'd just say that umpires and referees are subjective in every sport. Maddux gets a few inches off each corner, Shaq and MJ get every call they need, and Kerry Fraser is going to make the wrong call virtually every time he takes the ice in an NHL playoff game. If they didn't stop the clock in American football when there were injuries, you might see a demand for injury time in the NFL as well.
There's a trick to watching yachting. I learned this when the America's Cup races were in Sydney and the live coverage was on in the wee hours of the morning. Tape the race, then watch the whole race on fast forward. The boats speed through the water like CigarettesTM and tacking duels are really fun to watch. If something extraordinary happens, like a sail blow out or a capsize, switch back to real time to watch that part.
Come to think on it, that might work for soccer, too. When a player actually makes a shot on goal, one could switch to real time, then back to fast forward when the shot misses or gets blocked.
As far as subjective calls are concerned, you're absolutely correct. But once a sport allows its officials to clearly defy the senses of the spectators (where the calls aren't even marginal) it is no longer a sport but a staged event.
You have every right, yes. (You have every right to do lots of pointless things.) But don't tell me you "could care a fig leaf" what such people think about soccer in the process, then. Evidently, you do, and quite a bit.
And when people start criticizing other peoples and countries for their love of soccer when they have no interest in any of those peoples and countries,
I would like to point out that such "criticizing" does not usually come from out of the blue. Most often, it is a reaction to hearing arrogant lecturing about why we Should Like soccer. (Note that the comments you see in this thread are in response to a pro-soccer lecture.) If non-soccer fans never had to listen to pro-soccer spiels then there wouldn't be such a reaction in the first place.
As should have been obvious, I used "parliament" in the generic sense--small, rather than large "p."
And again, the U.S. has no (large or small P) "parliament". Best,
Couldn't agree with you more. Twins probably would have been a better feel in the NL than the Milwaukee Seligs anyway. Didn't the Metrodome used to have a high plexigraph wall out in left field that made it harder to hit balls out?
Speak for yourself.
And it doesn't make much sense to use the phrase "In other words" when what you are saying doesn't even resemble anything I said.
Again, personally, I don't "hate" soccer. I even kinda like to play it. I just don't care about it, and more to the point, I hate the zealous lecturing soccer evangelists.
And this wouldn't change one bit if the US won the World Cup.
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.