Readers’ Responses to Our Question (34)

sale@mp3.com

sale@mp3.com

The World Cup is not only one of the most grueling displays of both all around athleticism and endurance, but it also shows some hope for the world. People of all creeds, colors, and nationalities forget their differences for a while and cheer with or against each others teams, which is a sliver of light in a world full of prejudice and hate. My lesson from the Worl Cup: replace political parties with pro sports teams and everything will be smooth running.

The World Cup is not only one of the most grueling displays of both all around athleticism and endurance, but it also shows some hope for the world. People of all creeds, colors, and nationalities forget their differences for a while and cheer with or against each others teams, which is a sliver of light in a world full of prejudice and hate. My lesson from the Worl Cup: replace political parties with pro sports teams and everything will be smooth running.

@ Jacob Marley -

You are by far the most ignorant "americanist" I have ever encountered. If your ignorance wasn't enough to recognize that no one in Brazil, Italy, UK...etc gives a hoot about what americans think of soccer, you still continue to belittle soccer as an inferior sport with strawman arguements and american superiority bull####.

Americans do not find soccer threatening, culturally or otherwise. There is nothing inherently threatning about soccer. We do find it boring and inactive. We do not care that we are not good at. We would not care if we were the best at it. The key words here are "We do not care." In the end, the very game itself is what drives us away from soccer - we simply can't stand it. The rest of the world calls it "The Beautiful Game." As an American I can't understand why. Endless passing and kicking from one player to another, with the occasional goal being scored, or not - watching more than a few minutes of that would put anyone, including myself, to sleep. It's the same for everyone else I know. In the U.S., kids of all ages play soccer. And that's the only age group that does, because when these kids grow up, they always move onto football, baseball, basketball, hockey. In fact, I see kids here move on to just about every sport imaginable EXCEPT soccer. It was like that 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago, it is like that now, and all signs point to it being like that in the future. To say that soccer's future can be seen in all of the kids who play it ignores the fact that kids have been playing it and dropping it like a bad habit as soon as they grow up. To sum things up, Americans have not, do not, and never will care about soccer. It's not our cup of tea, and it never will be. What I don't understand is why the rest of the world cares so much about whether we like it or not. Isn't it enough that we don't, and let's just leave it at that? I don't see Americans ripping their hair out over the rest of the world not liking our football, basketball, or baseball.

In the World Cup there is one winner and many losers. In the UN everyone must win and no one may lose. In the World Cup, nothing more is at stake than a few games of soccer, so everyone, even the losers, can enjoy the game and talk about how their side will do the next time. In the UN, a bad decision can mean war and death for millions of people, and the losers get to die. The World Cup deals with one activity: soccer. The UN deals with thousands of different subjects with teams of experts from many nations on every issue. In the World Cup, nations get to prepare for years for a few weeks of being at their best. At the UN, nations have to be at their best every weekday.

Soccer is easy. Solving the world's problems is hard. Simplistic questions trivialize the issues. A world where winner takes all would not be a better place.

Sure, get rid of the UN - but what does that have to do with FIFA?

The World Cup is a prime example of private enterprise, individuals, globalisation and competition bringing the world together. The UN is a prime example of government bureaucracy screwing things up for hundreds of millions. Leave the bureaucracy off the pitch, please.

As for why Americans don't get hyped up, it's fairly simple. And it has nothing to do with "Americanists" (huh?) feeling soccer is a threat to our culture. Contrary to world opinion, we're really not THAT ignorant. In my office, the people 30-ish and under (and not a few 40-ish and under folks) love the coverage and want more. The folks who are a bit older aren't that interested, but they don't hate it. The simple explanation is that, the younger you are, the more likely you are to have been exposed to, played, and grown to enjoy soccer in the US. As time goes by, expect a) better US teams, and b) greater coverage in the States. We may never dominate, but we'll certainly be watching - especially considering how many Americans label themselves [other nationality]-Americans, like German Americans, Italian Americans, etc. We'll always have someone to root for, even if/when we're out.

Don't forget that Israel never gets any respect from the Arab countries in football. They have to play with the Europeans because the Arab countries won't play them.

So, at least in this respect, FIFA isn't any better than the UN.

This idea is not bad. Perhaps, the main political players should engage in considering this option. Why? I think we all know that de UN is only a "forum" for Third World countries political leaders to deliver speaches requesting more money from the industrialized countries, so that they can have more cash to open new bank accounts in the Cayman Ilands, Switzerland, or Panama, rather than using the money to improve the education and health care for their people.

This idea is not bad. Perhaps, the main political players should engage in considering this option. Why? I think we all know that de UN is only a "forum" for Third World countries political leaders to deliver speaches requesting more money from the industrialized countries, so that they can have more cash to open new bank accounts in the Cayman Ilands, Switzerland, or Panama, rather than using the money to improve the education and health care for their people.

I believe another reason Americans do not appreciate football/soccer as much as "American sports" is due to our frigtheningly short attention spans. Two halves of 45 mins without any commerical breaks or time-outs is not easy to watch if you are used to sports in bit-sized pieces. Ominously for soccer in the US, attention spans are getting shorer, not longer — one need only look at the format of American news shows today to believe that.

Another reason soccer is still not appreciated in the US is because...well....Americans are not the best at it. When commentators encourge the US team to perform well at the World Cup, it is always with the hope that this will increase the sports popularity back home. Angolans, Ghaneans, Iranians, Costa Ricans and other football loving countries need no such encouragement, however. Win or lose (and it's usually lose), they love the game. Hopefully this is something we can learn to appreciate in the US as well.

Many American sporting events end in ties, but the vast majority do not. In determining champions, however, soccer, like every other sport, does not have games end in ties.

I have noticed, however, there is a political aversion to soccer by many in the US. Not an objection to it as a sport, per se, but as a cultural and social phenomenon. Many people I know who object to soccer view it as some kind of threat to Americanism.

No, it's not. It's just a sport, like many others. It, however, has managed to become intensely popular throughout the world because it has many features that make it universal: simple rules, an ability to incite strong feelings in the viewer, a clear view of demonstrating athleticism, lack of dependence on "scientific" or "statisical" validation in determining excellence or quality. It is a very approachable sport.

What many Americanists object to is its inherent vagueness and imprecision. Often, the "better" team does not win the game. Occasionally, the "weaker" team will win in American sports, but this is a relatively common occurence in soccer on a game-to-game basis. The fact that there is no transparent time clock is also maddening to Americanists. Americanists go crazy because they can't know exactly when the game will end. It starts, it goes and then, and a time deemed appropriate by a single individual, it ends. And often that single individual seems to have judged things very capriciously during the game without recourse from the aggrieved parties.

This immunity to statistical analysis and validation, its imprecision and its capriciousness makes soccer, for Americanists, an Un-American sport.

The fact that this sport — for Americanists — is so popular around the world poses a cultural threat to them. It means in one aspect of global life, we don't dominate. We are, in fact, just slightly above average. That's why the Wall Street Journal, for instance, finds this deeply galling and editorializes against the sport.

Fortunately, millions of Americans have come to grasp its inherent values and have embraced it as fervently as their compatriots around the world.

Whether we'll ever be as good as nations as diverse as Germany, Brazil, Argentina, Holland, Italy, France, etc. is an open question. Maybe one day we will. Maybe we won't. I'll have fun following the quest, however.

ivangri:

The World Cup is not immune to being used as a political football (ahem); Mussolini naturally used the 1934 World Cup in Italy for propaganda purposes, while the military dictatorship in Argentina used their hosting of the World Cup in 1978 to bolster and legitimise their terrorist regime in both the eyes of their citizens and the 'international community'. Their winning of that World Cup may possibly have been helped by General Videla and Henry Kissinger's visit to the Peruvian dressing room prior to their final group game against Argentina, which the Argentinians needed to win by a large margin to knock out Brazil on goal difference; 6-0 was the final score.

http://www.playthegame.org/Knowledge%20bank/Articles/The%20Many%20Faces%20of%20Argentina.aspx

See also the reference in that article to South Korea's 'amazing' progression to the semi-finals in the last competition, helped immeasurably by some amazingly generous refereeing, after which the national football association president launched a new political party and a bid for the national presidency in the elections of late 2002 (though he eventually withdrew from the race to place his weight behind the eventual winner).

The lesson of the World Cup must be gleaned from its expansion. The 1982 World Cup had 16 teams; it went up to 24 in 1986, I think it was, and in 1998 reached its current size of 32 teams. And since then, Europeans have complained that too many tiny teams have been allowed in, and that they should have more slots. How is it, they ask, that Trinidad and Angola make it in while Turkey and Denmark sit on the sidelines? Yet, we can see what broadening the field - globablizing it, if you will - has brought. Trinidad was fantastic, and all five African teams have been marvelously entertaining (even if they can't quite, you know, win). Meanwhile, Western Europe provided us with the coma-inducing France-Switzerland match. (If only Turkey had beaten Switzerland in the playoffs!)

In short: globablization, meaning allowing the whole world a seat at the table, makes the party more fun, and the established powers should quit their whining, quit trying to use the system to protect their positions (be it World Cup berths or faborable trade rules) and enjoy the show.

I wasn't trying to be flip, (at least not completely). Sports that developed in the United States—baseball, basketball, football—all have contingency plans in case the game is tied at the end. I was once at a baseball game that went into 16 innings. Americans do not consider a game to be over until somebody wins. And that may be a significant characteristic of our way of thinking. Trust me, if soccer had been invented over here, the teams would be out there kicking that ball until one team wins.

The younger people in the US are growing up playing soccer and that is helping the popularity of the game over here. Whether the increased popularity of the game will change some of the American mindset remains to be seen.

I will say that the two shall never be crossed, but not because soccer is merely a game.

Using FIFA as a replacement for the UN would taint the sanctity of the game. Teams would become parties, Coaches would become heads of state, players would become politicians. The sport would no longer belong to children of all ages, but to bureaucrats, economists, pollsters and pundits.

In short, do you really want Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz and Ann Coulter as your game announcers?

Should the FIFA replace the United Nations? No! They should cooperate better then ever. Especially against racism.

btw:
Please, add
http://www.fussballwmblog.de/
to your blogroll.
Thank you.

Yours
Norbert
info@fussballwmblog.de

The Olympic Games have always been a political tool: Berlin 1934, Munich 1972, Mexico 1968, Moscow 1980, Los Angeles 1984, Atlanta 1996, Athens 2004, have witnessed politically-carged events, from raising fists to boycots to bombings.

The charm and success of the World Cup highly depends on its non-political character. Although there have been a few politically-charged games, sportsmanship have always prevailed. That's what people love: great entertainment, great athletes to emulate, and a global encounter of diverse peoples around common values.

If some Americans don't like -understand- football (soccer), that is their problem.

Look at the World Bank discussing the World Cup here:

http://rru.worldbank.org/features/worldcup2006.aspx

As long as we keep in mind that sooccer is, in the final analysis, just soccer, it's useful to point out that there is no Ronaldinho in the world of foreign policy, nor is there a Ronaldo, or a Cafu, or a Robinho, or a Dida... But there should be, and he or she should be an American. Brazil is the U.S.A. of world football — huge, powerful, dominating. Yet Brazil's unmatched stars are widely beloved, even in countries whose national squads they regularly thrash. Compare that with the image of the United States around the world. Brazil manages to win all the time with style and intelligence — and without displaying the kind of overbearing arrogance that would generate resentment. We could model our foreign service on the Brazilian national soccer team. Oh, and we could also give them some reasonable policies to take with them onto the field.

First of, I'm Brazilian, so I come from a place were soccer is a religion, not a sport.
It is quite strange being from Brazil and seeing most people not care about the World Cup here in the US. Specially in a country that takes its patriotic obligations very seriously. World Cup IS THE proper venue to be patriotic, ufanistic... you name it... as long as the only shots you're dropping on people are loaded with curly soccerballs, you can be as patriotic as you want.
I've seen them all(since 78), I have the memories, good and bad, but just the mood that surrounds this event, ignoring a little the corporate feast it really represents, the anxiety, the honor of just being there. Going to watch the games in person is a lifelong dream to many people across the globe, and yes, even late, the US should join this party for real at last. It's funny when see some older guy on TV getting really defensive about soccer becoming popular here. These guys(yes you Mike Lupica)get offended just about the idea of anybody here liking soccer.
I guess he never had a soccerball as a kid. Today's kids do. That's a change...

The World Cup is a wonderful thing. More than even the Olympics, it is the one global event that truly brings people and nations together. As an American, my passion for the World Cup is something of an oddity, but Iíve loved it since I was a kid playing youth soccer in California and saw the í74 final (Iím from German ancestry on my motherís side, so their win thrilled me and I was hooked on this ìforeignî event that no one else around me seemed to care about). The impact of the World Cup on people really hit home for me during the í82 tournament, it was the summer before I left for college and the manager of the store I worked at was Italian. Seeing the man in tears when Italy won has stuck with me all these years. I remember listening to the í86 final on Spanish radio at the beach in Santa Monica because it wasnít being carried on any English language media in the US at the time. A group of Mexican Americans gradually gathering around my little radio, and we sat together following ever to-and-fro of the game with them translating key events for me (besides the GOOOOOOAAAAAALLLLLS, which need no translation). When the US finally took a turn at hosting in í94, I finally got a taste of what itís all about in person. I was lucky enough to live in Los Angeles at the time, so I was able to see several matches in person. Americanís that donít expose themselves to the World Cup are missing out on a wonderful thing. I liken it to a global block-party, where everyone in the neighborhood stops what their doing, closes regular life down, and brings a sample of their own cultural background and a love for common thing and sits down together to celebrate. In this time of rising international tensions, a binding event like the World Cup is a much needed reminder of how close we all can and should be as people sharing this planet.

Boffo,

While allowing that Marla's comment was, in fact, flip, I can see where she's likely coming from. As an American who has been nurturing a growing appreciation for futbol (and belatedly mourning the loss of the WUSA), I am daily made aware by my family and friends of two American objections to the sport:

—While I am coming to find futbol's take on competition rather sunny and sportsmanlike, I think Americans are trained early on to take the "Highlander" approach — there can only be one (winner). That a tie may occur is not necessarily the problem; it's that it's very likely and may be considered somewhat satisfactory. My (and perhaps Marla's) experience with basketball and American football is that the games are structured to avoid this end if at all possible.

—The offsides rule. Yes, it exists in hockey, too, I'm told. Americans, on the whole, aren't so big on hockey, either. Only in this World Cup have I reached what I think is a proper understanding of the offsides rule and its purpose, but I think I share the same confusion of my compatriots as to its value.

I think greater U.S. participation in futbol would do my country a world of good, but I recognize what it's up against.

Sorry for the off-topic post.

Rodaldinho's equivalent? That would be Bono. Frankly that's as a stupid question as one can. The world cup is just an outlet to make money out of a bunch of beer-fed apes. That doesn't apply to the UN, does it?

The world cup is only part of a bigger issue and, unfortunately, your responders seem to have focused on it because of the manner in which you asked the question. Not only does the world cup bring people of many nations and ideas together, so do other large sporting events, like the Olympics. Several weeks ago, the Black Eyed Peas performed at a free concert in South Africa designed to bring the various factions together. It was a huge success.

It seems ironic that large art and sporting events can bring people together while governments and religions tear them apart! In short, average people are simply trying to get through life and have proven they can get along despite their differences. It's only when governments and religious fundamentalists become involved that we experience wars, intolerence, and violence towards each other. Perhaps it's time for people to begin thinking for themselves by establishing better governments and not blindly following religious leaders who are nothing more than mortal humans, as the rest of us are.

The World Cup proves the simple fact what we all know but somehow refuse to acknowledge — given a common set of goals (no pun intended) and interests, human beings can and will cooperate harmoniously, regardless of national identity or affiliation. One need only look at the memorable match from France 1998 that pitted the USA vs. Iran, which exhibited barely a whisper of the politically charged rhetoric otherwise regularly exchanged between the two countries. If only our politicians could learn this useful lesson — at the core of it, the world's people do not hate each other — they just need more reasons to remember their common passions in life. Build more soccer fields — don't bomb them.

The UN should acquire FIFA (rather than FIFA become a UN). The world body needs to include the spirit and soul of sports in its repertoire of diplomacy and development. As a minority stakeholder in the UN, FIFA, and the players (via Employee Stock Option Plans) should be given a seat at the meetings of the stakeholders in the UN. The aging superstars of soccer can be designated as Mentors Emeritus and work on several child-related initiatves of the UN to promote health and sports amongst children.

FIFA can be acquired via the currency of the UN stock (God forbid if UN stocks dip - it will prove to be an expensive acquisition otherwise). Post-acquisition, each UN delegate should be paired with a "Soccer Buddy". The Delegate and the Soccer Buddy will learn a lot about blocking, tackling, dodging, etc. from each other.

Any crucial session of the UN should be preceded by a soccer game between the Delegates - the sweat and physical exertion may help to clear the fog of woolly ideas before they sit down to consider matters of global import.

Foreign affairs equivalent of Ronaldinho? Is like looking for a soccer equivalent of Condi Rice. Need to set up a search committee at the UN.

Marla:

Your claim is empirically false (ties can and do happen in the NFL, and historically were quite common in college football and pro hockey until recently). It is also flip and devoid of analytical value. Please try again. Your French friend awaits a real answer.

During the last World Cup, a French friend of mine was wondering why people in the United States are so blase about the World Cup. While I allowed that soccer is becoming more popular, one fact remains: American sports do not end in a tie.

I have no idea who Ronaldinho is, and I wouldn't bet $50 that I know exactly what FIFA stands for. But I would guess that the success of the World Cup is predicated on a two things: shared values and simplicity.

I think we can derive some optimism from the notion that there are, indeed, a set of shared universal human values (even if democracy isn't one of them). Daoud Kuttab touched on this in his response, but it seems clear that justice or fairness - embodied in the notion of a level playing field with consistently enforced rules - is a value universally appreciated by people.

Beyond this, unlike international relations, sports are simple. The objective of every team is the same and there are no alliances. It's a zero-sum game, and there' always next year.

But the success of the World Cup also rests upon two less re-assuring pillars: nationalism and competition. It's just a game, so I won't carry the analogy too far. But we should keep in mind that people - be they athletes or presidents - play to win, especially when they are playing for national glory.

UN was made on the same principals as FIFA they are the basics of ethics of human kind. where we do not divide humans on the basis of colour, nationality, religion or personnel beliefs irresepective of rich or poor. politics and power unfortunately have another rules of the game . this is humant history. So if the powerful is able to strech the rules of game then what ronaldinho can do if he becomes top boss of UN

World Cup phenomena should be studied better. Who could have imagined that some Mexicans might had shown any empathy for archrival (in FIFA-CONCACAF) Team USA when they played Italy.
UN has in FIFA, the World Cup, and soccer (football) its own Ronaldinho, its best ally. In a globalized world, highly inter-connected through non-governmental channels, the nation-state idea is loosing importance due to that very connectivity, and other centripetal forces. (The case of Serbia and Montenegro has been mentioned, and that of Catalonia should be.) Then, in an era where Nationalism is seldom built with non-negative purposes, World Cup happens to be the best undetected instrument for Nationalism building. Its media based popular common experience acts, in each country, as a national cohesive agent as well as a cohesive non-governmental league of nations.
UN, a congress of nations after all, more than be taken over by FIFA, should build on that cohesitivity.

Federico M. Garza
Monterrey, Mexico

These are all silly if harmless questions that could be asked just as well about the Olympic movement. This, unlike the World Cup, actually engages the billions of people for whom soccer is not that big a deal.

Sports are what they are. This is, principally, a source of amusement and diversion. In affluent societies, sports can also be the foundation of thriving businesses. But there is an old saying in American football that the successful coach is a man who is smart enough to know what he is doing but not smart enough to wonder why he is doing it. That applies to fans as well. All the chatter about the lessons of the World Cup and what soccer can teach us is coming from people trying too hard to come up with reasons why they like to watch groups of men kick a round ball around for hours at a time.

There are no lessons from the World Cup. It doesn't explain anything. It is only a game.