Last summer, we reflected on the state of the game and culture in the United States in this podcast. It is my intention to address the issue to some extent each summer, and the World Cup finals provides an excellent interval to do just that. Unfortunately, I was rochambeaued last week by a well-respected (by us) journalist from 442 magazine. Usually, you can bank on his analysis like you can bank on Manchester City overpaying for a player. His article entitled "Why (some) Americans loathe soccer", however, was not as much trite as it was short-sighted.
The article stipulates that because there are a few Americans of the conservative persuasion that may have a limited world view, that "many American patriots can’t contemplate the sport..." without associating it with European Socialism. Besides this statement being insulting to Americans on both sides of the political divide, it completely disregards the notion that anything successful has detractors. I would ask Mr. Simpson if it is beyond the capability of "many" Americans to look beyond what the "experts" he cites are saying. If the argument is that Americans don't have free will or even comprehensive thought processes, well, that is a different article altogether.
Naturally, this all has evoked some spirited responses on the part of Mr. Simpson's readership. To be fair, nothing Mr. Simpson says is inclusively wrong. It's just not as right as it could be. The diminution begins in the title of the article where the word 'some' is offered to be easily removed by the parenthesis in which it is placed. Even though in the first paragraph he cited one American personality's struggle to grasp the oft-confused origins of the sport, it doesn't mean that the quotes and citations provided didn't happen. This is why, when speaking in terms of America's perception of the association between soccer and socialism, it would have been more appropriate to present such an article as an indication of America's past with the sport rather than it's sole future.
I myself once alluded to the same principle suggested by Mr. Simpson. Here is an excerpt from that paper:
Despite what may seem logical, the United States did not escape this net. Soccer was making its mark on Americans. The U.S. placed third in the first World Cup, an international soccer competition between nations, in 1930. In 1950, the U.S. team defeated one of the strongest national sides of that period, England, 1-0 (United States Soccer Federation, 2007).
Unfortunately, soccer’s fate in America was decided by something other than merit. The Cold War affected much more than the nuclear program. Congressmen such as Joe McCarthy, in their attempt to cleanse society of the [Communist] presence, declared cultural war on many aspects of life. Soccer to them, because it was embraced on a global scale, was a communist sport. To them, it was a sport that was fundamentally un-American. It seemed the whole concept went against the ideals of America. Instead, those lawmakers pushed Americans to watch sports with a higher emphasis on the Individual athlete. Sports like baseball, America’s past time, glorified the individual performance. American football was gaining popularity as well. This sentiment continued for decades. In 1986, congressman Jack Kemp spoke in front of the U.S. Congress to oppose a resolution to support an American bid to host the World Cup. In his speech, he mentioned that football is 'democratic, capitalism, whereas soccer is a European socialist [sport]' (Foer, 2004, p. 241).
There was a large gap between that game against England in 1950 and the arrival of Pele to the New York Cosmos in 1975. However, the presence of Pele and European stars such as Franz Beckenbauer and Johan Cruyff exploded soccer into the American consciousness once again. Over the following five years, the North American Soccer League thrived. Americans, lured by the star names came out in droves. The Cosmos sold out Giants stadium for their 1978 Championship game (United States Soccer Federation, 2007). Regrettably, the league folded in the mid-eighties due to league over-expansion and the controversial decision to award the 1986 World Cup to Mexico. Nonetheless, the league’s existence is regarded as the catalyst to the rise in popularity of the game among the country’s youth. When these young Americans grew up and had children, they realized the value of their children learning a competitive, team-oriented and non-violent game. The soccer mom phenomenon was born, and to this day, soccer remains one of the most popular sports among American youths (Foer, 2004, p. 237). This is a trend that was recycled when the U.S. hosted the World Cup in ’94. The Americans unbelievably went through to the second round before losing 1-0 to the eventual champion, Brazil, widely considered the best team of the time (United States Soccer Federation, 2007).
Soccer remains one of the most popular youth sports in the country. Participation has consistently risen since the late 1980’s when 15 million kids played it (Higers, 2006). Many Americans have a natural attachment to the game that developed as a child and young adult. The point is that in the U.S., there are now two generations with a specialized relationship to soccer and a third one is presently developing on recreational fields all over the U.S."
As American soccer fans, it is our duty not to unqualifiedly reject how foreigners see our admittedly at times awkward embrace to the world's game. Instead, we must interpret the misguided historical notions that are introduced as just a small part of a complex relationship we have as Americans with soccer. In short, it would be difficult to create an article which can comprehensively answer the 'American soccer question' in 620 words. It would be fair to say that this sentiment, which translates to presumption, is what most negative responders find the most objectionable about Mr. Simpson's article.
I would direct Mr. Simpson to a piece written by a popular American blogger named Bill Simmons. In this particular article, the author responds to series of questions from his readers. At one point (about half way down the page), he responds to a reader's question about the popularity of soccer among Americans by asking his colleague, soccer blogger Michael Davies, to reflect.
"Davies: 'I completely agree that many die-hard soccer fans in the U.S. have learned to become just as annoying and condescending as die-hard soccer fans in England and all over the world. Globalization is a wonderful thing. But that doesn't seem to be the main premise of the Q from Zanesville. What BP is actually arguing is that soccer still isn't going anywhere in the U.S. And whatever Glenn Beck says, it's just tough to argue against the empirical data -- TV ratings, website traffic, bar tabs. They're all going up during and around soccer games. That seems to indicate that however annoying or casual the fans are, or however annoying they are to each other, they are still watching. Yes, the World Cup more than anything else. But U.S. interest in the English Premier League and Champions League and the ratings and website traffic surrounding those leagues is growing significantly, too. There are even people who watch Major League Soccer. And that may be the biggest miracle of all. And the biggest proof that soccer must be going somewhere here. It's like Daniel Kellison's [former executive producer of 'The Man Show' and 'Jimmy Kimmel Live'] heterosexuality test: Any man can have sex with a model, but only the most heterosexual of men can bring himself to have sex with a truly unattractive woman. The fact that American soccer fans can sit through 90 minutes of MLS is proof of a love of soccer beyond anything the rest of the world can possibly fathom.'"
"Davies: 'I completely agree that many die-hard soccer fans in the U.S. have learned to become just as annoying and condescending as die-hard soccer fans in England and all over the world. Globalization is a wonderful thing. But that doesn't seem to be the main premise of the Q from Zanesville. What BP is actually arguing is that soccer still isn't going anywhere in the U.S. And whatever Glenn Beck says, it's just tough to argue against the empirical data -- TV ratings, website traffic, bar tabs. They're all going up during and around soccer games. That seems to indicate that however annoying or casual the fans are, or however annoying they are to each other, they are still watching. Yes, the World Cup more than anything else. But U.S. interest in the English Premier League and Champions League and the ratings and website traffic surrounding those leagues is growing significantly, too. There are even people who watch Major League Soccer. And that may be the biggest miracle of all. And the biggest proof that soccer must be going somewhere here. It's like Daniel Kellison's [former executive producer of 'The Man Show' and 'Jimmy Kimmel Live'] heterosexuality test: Any man can have sex with a model, but only the most heterosexual of men can bring himself to have sex with a truly unattractive woman. The fact that American soccer fans can sit through 90 minutes of MLS is proof of a love of soccer beyond anything the rest of the world can possibly fathom.'"
His response, while humorous, also touches on the important point that the steady rate of growth of the sport of soccer in the U.S. is undeniable. One would do well to remember that the MLS is still a teenager. It seems absurd to me if the expectation is that Americans must apologize that our league is not a century-plus old. Despite the league's young existence, as Mr. Davies suggests, there is irrefutable proof that the game's footing is on solid ground in the U.S. I shouldn't need to cite that the Seattle Sounders have sold out their past 25 games at Qwest Field to prove that the MLS has found its stride with its latest expansions. Philadelphia, Toronto, Portland and Vancouver already have passionate and self-maintaining fan-bases. The MLS facilitates all of this while competing with four, possibly five, sports leagues which are older and more popular.
I was especially disappointed that Mr. Simpson decided to fall back onto the prosaic argument that Americans must hate soccer because Osama bin Laden has used it as a recruiting tool to indoctrinate young terrorist minds. It's interesting to me that this fact was shared in the same context that the rest of the article was cast (suggesting Americans and others assume bin Laden used soccer because its philosophy is closer to his values). This argument is completely preposterous. The author corroborates the ludicrousness of the proposition by mentioning that bin Laden is an Arsenal fan, as if al Qaeda didn't attack the London Tube as well (which has a stop called Arsenal). The truth is that industrial European football represents the same western ideals that Mr. bin Laden has sworn against, conclusively proving that:
1. Bin Laden is willing to hypocritically compromise his flawed ideals in order to advance his repulsive cause.
And,
2. If knitting and baking were the activities the youth of the Muslim world was most interested in, then ol' boy would distribute his malevolent jihadist propaganda via home-ec classes.
Unfortunately, the assumptive theory of "Why (some) Americans loathe soccer" does not conclude with this defective example. The author suggests the cited article, "Jihadists Love the World Cup", was inspired by a comment to the U.S. Senate by anthropologist Scott Atran, who is an American, but also French, National. I wonder if intending to suggest that the Americans and the French finally agree on something could be considered Mr. Simpson's boldest statement! Sadly it is quickly negated when, astonishingly, he discredits his own point. We're told that this article, which supports his hypothesis, is in the same Newsweek magazine that has rapidly declining subscription statistics. Wouldn't a decrease in popularity suggest the weakening grasp that a periodical of this type has on the current mindset of the times?
Thankfully, after summarily marginalizing an entire country of fans, Mr. Simpson returns to the commentator we are accustomed to by concluding with an insightfully true statement about the nature of the game:
"The round-ball game has been used as a – oh go on then – political football for almost as long as it has been a sport. But so far, to the chagrin of many dictators, columnists and rabble-rousers, attempts to link the game with a particular political philosophy, government or terrorist organisation have all come to naught.
Football is too unpredictable, amorphous and organic to be easily tailored to a cause..."
The presupposition that we are not able to comprehend this concept across the pond is as oblivious and unworldly as any of the comments provided to us in Mr. Simpson's column. Antiquated perceptions perpetuated by respected professionals with a wide audience only make our task of silencing or dismissing those small-minded critics that they rightly single out more arduous. It is not convenient to the upkeep of this false position to mention that even Jack Kemp eventually developed an appreciation of the sport. If Americans have the ability to acclimate, Mr. Simpson, we would appreciate your support rather than your disparagement. If this is not a reasonable request, then maybe it's best then that the magazine remain entitled 4-4-2, as opposed to the more contemporary 4-2-3-1.
written by Mark Stevens, of thetruefootball.com
UPDATE (7/27/10): The New York Times seems to agree that soccer in America is not a lost cause. Thank goodness we've sorted that all out. Thanks to Offside Sarah for the link.
