Soccer, The Beautiful Game

Kim du Toit
May 23, 2002
2:20 PM CDT

Soccer gets a bad rap in the United States (I’ll call it “soccer” rather than by its real name, “football”, just to avoid confusion by Americans).  Perhaps this is because of the countries which play it well (England, Germany, Nigeria, Brazil, Argentina, and France, to name but a few); perhaps it’s because it truly is the “People’s Sport”, played all over the world, by everyone; or perhaps it’s just a regrettable reaction against soccer moms--in the U.S., largely middle class women (in contrast to the rest of the world, where soccer is the sport of the working class).

American journalists mirror this dislike.  It should come as no surprise that the elitist National Review regards soccer with the same disdain they show for farming collectives--in fact, soccer is often referred to as the “socialist” sport, simply because of its proletarian appeal.

Soccer a socialist game?  When most stars are of humble beginnings, yet through their skills and work ethic, they become millionaires?  Hardly a socialist result, is it?

And lest anyone think that removing hands from the game makes people more, ahem, equal on the playing field, let me respond in two parts--first, if you were to put a rank soccer amateur or beginner against Davor Suker, David Beckham or David Ginola and say: “Play!” it would be like pitting me against Michael Jordan at basketball.  Which leads me to my second point: basketball takes the use of feet out of its game, yet this “equalization” can hardly be described as “socialist”.  Basketball is socialist, though, for reasons which we’ll look at later.

The reason that soccer is followed by so many people is that kids all over the world (other than in the U.S.) grow up playing soccer, using anything as a football--a tennis ball, a tin can, whatever.  The genius of using the feet to play a sport means that you’re not tied to a specific object with which to play it.  And not needing a bat, basket or racket means that you can play soccer in unimaginably tight spaces.

It’s also a simple game.  The basic rules of soccer can be encapsulated in one short paragraph, whereas a pickup game of gridiron football requires more.  In soccer, anyone can touch the ball at any time, as long as he uses his feet or head (except the goalkeeper, who is the only exception).  No “eligible receivers”, “designated hitters”, “twenty-second-violations” or “icing”.  One referee to keep the game free of fouls, and two linesmen to judge whether the ball is still in or out of play.  That’s it (apart from offside, which is still simpler than the “blue line” rule).

Okay, let’s address the next, and to Americans, most common issue--that soccer is boring.  The lack of scoring is frequently bemoaned.

Is a baseball game with a final score of 12-8 more exciting than a virtual no-hitter with a 1-0 result?  Only to people who find a home run more exciting than watching a great pitcher.

Yet that is the secret of soccer--its complexity.  Where the uninitiated see a bunch of guys just passing the ball to each other, it is in fact the sight of one team carefully probing the other team’s defenses for a weakness--and when that weakness is found, exploiting it with rapier-like accuracy which can only be thwarted by incredible exertion or skill.  The only difference is that this fact-finding takes place on the field, by the players, in real time--rather than by the coaches, during the many time-outs that characterize most American sports (talk about BORING!).

Boring?  A soccer match takes 90 minutes to play, and with halftime, can be fitted into a 100-minute telecast.  Gridiron football has 100 minutes of total playing time, and can barely be fitted into three hours of TV time.  Good grief.  And call me un-American, but I’d rather watch twenty-two men dribbling a soccer ball and passing, than yet another car dealer commercial following a commercial for deodorant which preceded a commercial for heartburn medication.

When a game is played relatively slowly but without pause, the flow of the game is subject to a gradual build-up of suspense, or else radical changes in momentum.  This can be true of either baseball or soccer, both slow games, and neither without its moments of great excitement, or tedium.  That’s the joy of both.

And yes, there are occasions when the result is a 0-0 tie.  There could be a good reason for this.  It could be the result of simple bad play by both teams (admittedly boring).  In fact, a game where both teams are inept is bound to be boring, but this applies to any sport, not just soccer (think: Cubs/Expos).

On the other hand, a 0-0 tie could be the result of a total underdog, playing far beyond its capacity on paper, and keeping its mighty opponent from scoring at will by astonishing feats of grit, skill, and, yes, on occasion, luck.  When this happens, it’s almost the same as the favorite losing--and no one can call this boring.  It’s edge-of-the-seat stuff, the two-minute warning period played for an hour and a half.

Soccer is also a game that doesn’t discriminate against a player’s size, only against his lack of talent.  In fact, some of soccer’s greatest players have been less than 5’8” in height (Diego Maradona and Sir Stanley Matthews, to name but two), yet their prowess kept crowds gasping with amazement.  So soccer isn’t an elitist sport:  but it isn’t a socialist one, either.

Socialism attempts to deny any disparity, whether in size or ability, between individuals.  Indeed, my favorite aphorism about socialism is that it attempts to deny human nature, while capitalism merely exacerbates it.  Soccer creates a “level playing field” (yup, that’s where the saying comes from), but after that, buddy, you’re on your own, with only your talent and the unscripted relationship between you and your team mates to save you from defeat.

But it’s in the organization of the teams where soccer beats every other sport.  Teams which play in big markets such as Manchester, Milan, Madrid and Marseilles are richer and more successful than teams playing in Swindon, Saluzzo, Segovia and Sezanne--their larger fan base can support the better (and therefore more expensive) players.

That’s not to say that one of the smaller teams can never beat a bigger team, though.  And they don’t need a draft to make things equal, either.  Soccer simply creates divisions, groups of teams with approximate ability--and the teams can be promoted or relegated each season, depending entirely upon performance.  Soccer players are true free agents, and may play for whichever team in the world will pay their salary.  It’s the most competitive environment, anywhere.

Which brings me to my final point.  If America is the champion of unfettered capitalism, why the hell does the NFL (to use but one example) need an annual talent draft which favors the lesser teams?  Heck, if anything, gridiron football (and NBA basketball) are the more socialist sports--where an unelected “controlling authority” decides who can play for which team, in an attempt to make the teams “equal”.

Talk about un-American.