I tend to use the words football and soccer interchangeably.
This draws sneers from some American soccer fans, or so I’ve read. They use words like Euro snob to describe people like me. To be fair, there’s never more than a smidgeon of pretense in anything I write or do. I happen to like football as a name for the beautiful game, but I don’t have any special attachment to it.
What we know as football here in the United States is apparently an offshoot of rugby. The word soccer was derived from the phrase association football, which was used to distinguish the kicking game from the rugby-variant–in England. I suppose I could have researched the origins of all three games–rugby, soccer, and American football–had I any real desire to get to the bottom of this. Maybe then I would understand why a game in which the foot touches the ball just a handful of times during a sixty-minute game is still called football. But who cares, really? The point is that there are good reasons why two different names are commonly used to describe the same sport.
Growing up in America, all I knew about soccer was that the ball was black, white, and round. I was dimly aware that it was hugely popular in Europe and Latin America. And I’d heard that there were few things that the World was more passionate about than the World Cup. Much later, I learned that most people on the globe used the word football to refer to the game I knew as soccer. I was neither offended nor irritated by this and I definitely wasn’t filled with righteous indignation. Why would I have been? I knew that the rest of the world didn’t play American football. And since the game that we called soccer relied mostly on moving the ball with the feet, it made perfect sense to call it football.
Then I spent six months in London.
It was impossible to live in England without absorbing something about football. The London newspapers, both the real ones and the fun & trashy tabloids, were both entertaining and educational. One of the things I learned was that some Brits were well and truly bothered by the American practice of calling their favorite sport soccer. I think they viewed it as another maddening example of the Yanks’ insistence on doing things their own bloody way. An American, on the other hand, is merely baffled to hear Latin Americans and Europeans refer to soccer as football. He gets a puzzled look on his face–like George Bush at a press conference–and wonders, “Wait a minute…have I ever seen a team from England in the Super Bowl?”
What would Shakespeare have to say about all this? As a matter of fact, Juliet posed this question to Romeo:
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
I shall happily continue to use both football and soccer exactly as I please.
May 18, 2008 at 9:19 pm |
Ah, the football/soccer issue: guarenteed to send me into an irrational, incoherent mess very quickly. Let’s see if I can hold out for a few minutes…
It sets my teeth on edge somewhat when I hear someone in England dismiss with a sneer the American use of ’soccer’. A British news item on the game in America just isn’t complete without a sarcastically drawled ’sawker’, just in case we didn’t get the point that those Yanks are, you know, a bit thick and provincial.
The thing is, this British insistence on the usage of the One True Word seems to be a fairly recent phenomenon. There doesn’t seem to have been much embarrassment about using ’soccer’ in the past: World Soccer magazine has been published out of London since 1960; Brian Glanville’s book ‘Soccer Nemesis’ (just to take an example off the top of my head). Watch old footage of shows like Match of the Day and you may notice commentators unafraid of uttering the s-word from time to time.
I wonder how much this comes from America’s hosting of the World Cup in 1994. I remember the scare stories in the years leading up to the tournament about how FIFA were going to irrevocabally shred the fabric of the game by splitting games into 25-minute quarters to suit US television, and increasing the size of the goals to ensure higher-scoring games so that Americans, cursed as you are with those wretchedly puny attention spans, would not get too bored.
Anyway, it seems to tie in with a general (though certainly not absolute) chauvinism about America:you don’t speak English properly, your culture is beneath us,your sports culture is shallow and without substance.
There are some good observations on this matter at http://rsssf.com/rssbest/whysoccer.html, such as the fact that ’soccer’ is the one truly unambiguous word we have for the game (if one accepts that it would be a bit much to go around calling the game ‘association football’ all the time). In places where the ‘football’ can mean more than one thing, such as the US or here in Ireland, it’s a very useful word to distinguish the 11-player code from the others. In places where this type of confusion is less likely to arise, why be so neurotically condescending about it?
(Of course, one may ask why I should be so neurotic about the topic either; I’m well aware that I may fall into the category of person described by a line on the above page: “the world is full of people who suffer more for the existance of a two-syllable, six-letter word that they do for the starving masses in Somalia”; told you I’d be irrational…)
In Ireland, we have two games which may be called football: along with soccer, there is Gaelic football. Whether you use football or soccer or Gaelic depends on context, such as location; in my part of the country, we tend to use ‘football’ for soccer (though not always); in Kerry, ‘football’ will almost invariably mean gaelic, ’soccer’ being reserved for the other game.
All which goes to say:”I shall happily continue to use both football and soccer exactly as I please” – Hear hear. There – my newly-acquired RSI summed up in two words.
[/rant]
Even I didn’t realise how strongly I felt about this when I started typing this. I need a life…
Anyway, I came across this blog for the first time today, and I’m very impressed. Looking forward to delving into the archives a bit. Keep it up.
May 18, 2008 at 9:21 pm |
BTW, that smiley in my post – I didn’t mean to do that. Seems a shade lascivious…
May 19, 2008 at 12:47 pm |
Great comment, Fred! I think that it’s only slightly a “rant”–you are very welcome to give your perspective on this issue. Especially since you are from neither England nor the US, and have a longer association (oops, that was accidental), with this issue.
I hadn’t realized that the use of “soccer” was ever as common in England as you have pointed out (thanks for the link to the usenet thread). So, you think that the Brits’ about-face on “soccer” may tie into fears about the US first distorting and then possibly dominating the sport? That’s a very good point. Of course, our MLS did initially commit an atrocity by having extra time added and penalty shootouts to avert draws, but thankfully that’s been abandoned. Maybe some of the fears of the rest of the world were justified because of that. It’s ironic that in our college (American) football game draws were permitted until a few years ago, adding to the annual drama about which team would be ranked #1.
I was shocked to hear the mocking sarcasm about our sports scene and fledgling soccer program (in England). I would have thought it was really beneath them. And their contempt for the word “soccer” was so petty–I always feel that those attitudes are inversely related to the IQ of the person expressing them. But I will say that there truly is nothing so educational as seeing yourself through another’s eyes!
I’m delighted to hear from someone from Ireland, as my father’s parents both came from there (Cavan and Galway). You mention Gaelic football, and I think my grandfather played that. My dad played (American) football in high school, and when his father first saw a game he said that it was a game “for sissies!” Now that I’ve seen soccer and rugby, I’m inclined to share his opinion! I’ve not seen the Gaelic variety, but I doubt the players cover themselves in padding and stop play every few seconds.
Again, thanks very much and please come back…though my writer’s block means that I don’t often think of anything to write about!
May 19, 2008 at 8:03 pm |
You seem to have found an appealing niche here, Susan, at the intersection of culture and football/soccer. Your post points out revealing differences in attitude, all the more intriguing to us because the issue wouldn’t have seemed so divisive on the face of it. I agree with you — it shouldn’t matter. It was interesting to hear Fredorrarci’s thoughts, too. I’m glad he agrees with us given how clear-sighted he seems and how close he is to the rift’s origin.
I think you both touched on something that could be going through the British footballing mind lately. They want to protect their own influence on the game and, relatedly, minimize American influence. It seems like they still fancy themselves the final arbiters on football’s linguistics and societal status. Having invented the game, they have the right to, or so they believe. They haven’t dominated on the pitch for quite a long time now, so the alphas among them compensate by trying to call the shots off the pitch. That’s my theory, at least.
If I have the read of the US fan right, we’re used to being a closer-knit, more inclusive community. Our common bond already puts us in an elite club. When the rest of the football world seems less excited to share that link with us, we’re almost surprised. But in other places, factions are the norm. As you pointed out in a separate post, Susan, great pains are taken to separate home and away supporters. Maybe the warriors over here have other other outlets.
I suspect it runs even deeper than an us-vs.-them attitude, though. It’s more of an us (English)-vs.-them (Americans who already have too much influence in the world, culturally and financially). I’ve heard several ex-pat Brits over here say that they’d hate to see the US start doing well in the World Cup. And these are people open enough to the US to live here. It may be galling to them that a country like ours can have such a small overall interest in the game, aside from our youth leagues, and could still somehow vie with the traditional powers for supremacy. I suppose I can understand that to an extent. At the same time, we’re getting better every year with both the quantity and quality of our support. Cooler, more athletic kids are sticking with the game longer, too, and they’ll end up as fans and coaches in later years to keep the ball rolling. OK, with my own accidental pun, it must be time to shut up.
May 19, 2008 at 8:41 pm |
Steve, as always I am in awe of your analytical powers! (I’m not worthy, I’m not worthy….and….I chose wisely).
For all that I am irked by the dismissive attitudes of some Brits, I definitely empathize with them. It will be a sad day for them when we surpass them at soccer/football, which I believe that we will at some point. I always want the England football team to win, except when they’re playing us.
The “warriors” over here do seem to have other outlets, except when you’re talking Yankees vs. Red Sox. I don’t think that the recent story of a Yankees fan plowing her car into a group of Red Sox fans would happen with any other rivalry in the US. It’s a good thing that people who take sports that seriously is relatively rare in America. I would like to keep it that way, even if it does mean that more than half the people at any American sporting event are just there to eat junk food and drink beer.
May 22, 2008 at 12:44 pm |
It’s interesting, Steve, to hear of Brits actually saying they wouldn’t wish success on the US. I’ve always fancied that that was a subtext to a lot of British commentary on the game in America, and I’m not sure I’ve ever heard it as explicitly stated as that. I think there is certainly something in the idea that there is a fear Americans coming into ‘their’ game and leaving their imprint on it has they have done so many other aspects of their culture. It’s interesting to note that American pre-eminence in other sports, such as golf, say, does not raise nearly so many hackles, even though so many sports originated or were first organised in Britain. Football is so much dearer to English hearts than any other sport, cricket and rugby included; they still feel something of a proprietary claim over it, just as they do over the English language (which also ties in somewhat with the football/soccer issue). Perhaps they do feel threatened that those damn Yanks, with their “soccer” and “major league” and whatnot, are seeing their status within the world game grow.
I think it’s partly down to a kind of chauvinism towards American sport and culture generally. I also think that the aforementioned proprietary claim on the spirit of the game is a very strong force, forged in what is, after all, a history that goes back further than anywhere else. If one wanted to go *really* deep, one could say that it’s part of the residue of empire. Britain is a country obsessed with its standing in the world (perhaps Tony Blair’s keenness in maintaining as close a relationship as possible with the US, especially after 9/11, is an example of this), and there is quite a deep national angst over the fact that their most glorious years are long behind them. So it is with football: a game invented by Britons, who then carried it around the world, only to see the rest of the world catch up with and overtake them.
…but you could probably write a thesis on that (doubtless someone has).
Lest this be seen as the rant of an Anglophobe (which I’m very much not, even if this post may seem quite negative), it should be noted that there is a very healthy dose of respect for England’s (and Britain’s) position as the origin of football around the world. It seems to be particularly so in America, of which you are an example, Susan. The fact that the term ‘Fair Play’ is used in English in non-Anglophone countries says a lot. Lord knows we’re as obsessed with English football in Ireland as anywhere else, to the detriment of our own leagues (I plead guilty to this myself). I’d wager we have a higher per-capita amount of Man Utd supporters than anywhere outside Manchester…or maybe I’m just paranoid
This respect is also institutionalised in IFAB, the committee which decides on the laws of the game. There are eight seats on IFAB, four of which are permanently occupied by representatives from the UK – one each from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – in deference to it being the birthplace of football.
Finally, on Susan’s belief that the US will surpass England. A lot of the commentary on the supposed missionary element of Beckham’s move to LA wondered whether he could possibly propel the game into the same level of prominence as more established pro sports in North America. This may have missed the point. I wonder is it necessary, given the large population and wealth of the US, for the country as a whole to become as obsessed by soccer as other countries are in order for it to become a genuine power. America has a significant presence in the elite of golf, swimming, tennis, gymnastics, track & field and a swathe of other sports without any one of them being mainstream like basketball or gridiron or baseball. Of course in soccer there is so much more competition than probably any other sport…it will be truly fascinating to see how this pans out in the years to come.
May 22, 2008 at 8:04 pm |
Well said, Fredorrarci! (As a rule, I’m rather frugal with my exclamation points, so that should tell you something.) Susan and I just spoke off-line about your impressive insight into the English football mindset. If it’s not a bother, I’d like to bounce a few follow-up questions off you to hear your view.
1. Do you think that Brits feel more proprietary about football than they do about the other sports that originated there because it enjoys such widespread popularity? There’s more value, in a sense, to protect. With golf, over here, at least, it’s an elite crowd that has truly embraced the game. I use the word “game” mindfully. One of my English friends made a distinction between game and sport, the former being more of a leisure activity lacking in seriousness and substance. For something as weighty as football, more is at stake.
2. Along similar lines, is it fair to say that the ones who feel the most proprietary about football are the ones most caught up in the tribalistic aspects of it? I somehow picture this set of supporter/combatants who feel very protective of their side’s honor and traditions since they’ve wrapped themselves so tightly within it. They’re the ones who would despise American achievement in the sport the most — or so my theory goes.
3. You rightly point out that there is plenty of respect for England for their football history and dissemination. Susan’s blog probably speaks to that more than most. I happen to know there’s no Anglophobia anywhere within Soccer Orb. We’re probably more curious about the English view of us because of it.
4. Is Man U popular in Ireland because of past players who had been there? I know George Best was wildly popular in his day, but could someone from N. Ireland attract a following in the Republic? I suppose Roy Keane would have led a few United’s way.
5. I suspect you’re right that American soccer success does not depend on it breaking into the top echelon of popularity here. All we’re looking for is a critical mass of money and support to push us to the next level, and to keep the better players in the burgeoning youth leagues in the sport for longer. Beckham may contribute some to that, though there’s not nearly the buzz about him this year as there was last when he was unfortunately injured for most of the season.
6. Are all you Irish so good with words?
Sorry. That’s a lot of questions. Susan, please forgive me if I end up chasing such a great commenter away from your site.
May 22, 2008 at 10:02 pm |
Fredorraci and Steve,
Maybe it’s like this: A special gift was crafted, one that took hundreds of years to perfect. It’s a sport that’s simple to learn, though formidably challenging to master. It requires no specialized equipment (just costly real estate I suppose), and no one is excluded from enjoying and excelling at this sport by virtue of his/her size. Everyone delights in this gift, as it’s both fun to play and entertaining to watch. The action never stops and scoring is so difficult that each goal is, with rare exception, truly meaningful.
The gift is a “hit” around the world, and the one who bestowed it is rightfully proud.
Except for one recipient who tosses it aside, unloved, in a corner. This unruly, somewhat arrogant upstart prefers a sport that’s reserved for corn-fed behemoths, barely mobile men who proudly bear nicknames like “The Refrigerator.” Each of the matches in this sport include exactly sixty minutes of competition, though games drag on for four hours. People watch the national championship in this match as much for the advertisements that interrupt the telecast every ten minutes or so, and for the thirty minutes of music and dancing that take place on the playing field at mid-game.
The recipient also prefers a game where only those people seven foot tall and above need apply (forgive the very slight exaggeration). Even fans of basketball admit that there’s little point in playing any but the last two minutes, as scores are so very common (one team’s basket is almost always matched immediately by an opponent’s basket), that the outcome is mostly determined by who has possession of the ball at the buzzer.
How could England, who gave the world football/soccer, not feel contempt and bewilderment at the US, who won’t have any of it?
Fredorraci, thanks very much again for your insight. I do empathize with England on the damage done to its national psyche by the erosion of its empire. I can see where there is a bit of an inferiority complex at work there. The funny thing is that many Americans admire England very much. Anglophilia is alive and well here (not just at Soccer Orb). Americans may have rejected soccer, but plenty of us have embraced James Bond, Jane Austen, and the music of the British Invasion.
Both of you are right on the money when it comes to what I meant about the US overtaking England someday in soccer. As entertainment, I do not think that it will ever be as popular here (in my lifetime, at least) as it is worldwide. But our population and resources will permit us to gradually field stronger and better-prepared teams. It will in a sense be unfair if we do win a World Cup someday, to the indifference of most of the American population. But I believe that it will happen.
Fredorraci, I hope you understand that Steve is teasing with Question #6. I had written that the answer is “Yes,” but of course very few people anywhere write as well as you. I do think that the last thing Steve read by an Irish writer was Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man (or was it Ulysses)? And that kind of fried his brain. (As POTAAAYM did mine).
May 23, 2008 at 3:52 am |
I meant to say “corn-fed, steroid-pumped behemoths.”
May 25, 2008 at 10:10 pm |
DOUGAL: Ted, I want out.
TED: What do you mean?
DOUGAL: I went too far, too soon. I didn’t know what I was getting into.
TED: Dougal, just relax.
DOUGAL: (stands up and picks up his duvet) No, Ted! I didn’t know you had to follow up a good idea with lots more little ideas. I’m sorry. I’ll sleep in the spare room…
(‘Father Ted’ series 3, episode 1, “Are You Right There, Father Ted?”)
…nah, just kidding…
If my input has been in any way worthwhile, it’s only because it’s been stimulated by the intelligent post and comments by you two. It’s a pleasure to discuss something you care about with others who feel similarly.
To take Steve’s first two points: this kind of tests the limits of my, after all, second-hand knowledge of England and English football, so this is perhaps more conjecture than anything, but let’s see how we go.
I think it’s true that the most tribalistic fans do feel they have more of a claim over the “soul” of the game. Those who call themselves “genuine” supporters, who have season tickets and go to away games, who have followed the club for as long as they can remember, who have *suffered* in the name of their club (suffering is probably the greatest badge of honour an English football fan can wear – it’s a bit like that Monty Python ‘Four Yorkshiremen’ sketch) often look down their noses at those seemingly less committed than them, especially the “Johnny-come-latelies” who have jumped on the Premier League bandwagon, as they would see it.
However, I doubt this is merely an English phenomenon; it’s probably just a natural anthropolgical thing (technical term, that:)) and I’m sure it’s present in many other countries. And I’m not entirely sure that these fans would necessarily be the most wary of an Americanising influence on the game; I reckon it’s more general than that. It’s tied up with the mild, selective disdain for American culture we mentioned before; but I think there’s also the sense of bemusement when confronted with another tradition, which is not necessarily the same thing as xenophobia, I think. Over here, we’ve been raised with a particular idea of what sport and fandom mean. The distinct way sport has evolved in North America can seem quite baffling in this context: the franchises, the relocations, the play-offs, the absence of promotion and relegation, the gaudiness, the razzmatazz, the cheerleaders, the stop-start-stop-start etc., etc. (and not just baffling to Europeans, it seems; why don’t you tell us what you really think, Susan!). It works the other way too, as you would of course be aware.
The thing is, American soccer doesn’t really impinge on our consciousness too much on this side of the Atlantic, so the possible deep-seated fear of future American success doesn’t often get a chance to manifest itself, except in things like the tacit way expressed in the “soccer” neurosis. It’s not as if anyone wakes up in a cold sweat after a nightmare in which America wins the World Cup. And in fact, despite all that I’ve said on this matter (indeed, I may well be totally contradicting myself), when it comes to the national team at least, the US is fairly well respected, or at least they’re not the novelty act some saw them as in 1990, and after all, they beat Portugal and ran Germany close in 2002. They’ve become part of the global football landscape. I remember when the US beat England in 1993, and it was regarded as downright shameful; if the US were to eliminate England in South Africa in 2010, I reckon that feeling wouldn’t be as strong as before. Sure, there would be some of the “how could we lose to a bunch of Yanks?” stuff, but it would be more because this hypothetical defeat would trigger their ritual biennial orgy of self-flagellation (if one can have an orgy of self-flagellation…), and it needs all the national inadequacies they can think of, real or imagined, to fuel it. The trauma would not come so much from the fact that it was America that beat them, but because they, a supposed superpower, were defeated by a second-tier country. And I suppose that’s progress.
On Steve’s point #1: I think this is probably so. It’s probably quite natural. For decades it was assumed that the game was played best in England, and for much of that time it was almost certainly true. However, they were by all accounts quite unaware of how stagnant the English game had become in comparison to other parts of the world, and were completely blindsided by Hungary in those famous demolition jobs in 1953. Apart from that one moment of glory in 1966, England (in the international arena) have consistently been shown up for their inadequacies relative to other countries and relative to how they would like themselves to be. Despite this, they’ve still never shaken off the belief that they should be at the top of the tree. Whether this is imperial arrogance, naivety or admirable chutzpah is arguable (it’s probably a mixture of all three, really).
I feel like I haven’t hit the nail as squarely on the head as I’d like. It would be great if someone from England, or has spent a substantial period of time there, could offer their thoughts from an insider’s perspective. It would probably help if they came armed with a degree in anthropology and/or psychoanalysis, mind you…
On George Best: the affection for him in the Republic was very strong. The fact that he was a Protestant from the North was never an issue, I think. Now, if he’d had a Union Jack tattooed on his arm or something, it may have been a different story. But he was never political, and anyway, he was *George Best*, too special and other-worldly for politics to come into it. Football fans all over Ireland are very proud that such a great player came from our island.
The reasons United are so well supported here are very much similar to why they’re so well supported in Britain and beyond: mainly, the charisma of the Busby Babes, sympathy arising from Munich and their amazing recovery from it; and more recently, the extraordinary success of the Premiership-era team. From the Busby era onwards (and maybe before, I don’t know) there has always been an Irish presence at United; indeed, an Irishman, Liam Whelan, was amongst the players who perished in Munich. Best was a factor, certainly. Latterly, Keane’s presence almost certainly contributed (especially in Cork – they think he’s Jesus down there…). There’s also the strong Irish connection with the city of Manchester, with lots of emmigration from here to there over the years.
(Actually, the connection may go back further than I thought – just read in a magazine article that when Newton Heath were choosing a new club name, “Manchester United” beat out “Manchester Celtic” by just one vote.)
My theory on the clubs we choose to support in Ireland, and I guess anywhere else the English game is loved, is that it depends on who is successful at the time you become interested in football. If that was the ’60s, United would likely be your team; late ’60s/early ’70s, Leeds (three of my uncles are Leeds fans; again, I’d guess we have more Leeds supporters here than anywhere outside Yorkshire); late ’70s/’80s, Liverpool; ’90s/’00s, United. If you were in a part of the country where you could pick up the BBC (before satellite TV and the Premiership boom in coverage), you would watch Match Of The Day, because it was the only place you could see English football apart from the Cup Final, and the big teams were most often featured. Of course, these allegiances often get passed from parent (OK, *father*) to child. My love of Arsenal comes from my Dad; strangely, I’ve never asked him how he came to support Arsenal, but it’s probably because they had a decent team in the late ’60s/early ’70s, winning a few cups (and losing a few finals) and, of course winning the Double in 1971; that’s the era when he would have gotten into football. When I was at school (late ’80s-2000), most people supported either United or Liverpool – it was pretty even between those two.
As it happens, I’m quite partial to a bit of American football and basketball, though without a satellite subscription I get to see practically none of either (at least the BBC showed the Super Bowl, which meant no ads!). I do find aspects of both frustrating, however. As Susan says, the fact that both require freakish physical attributes, whether God-given or, ahem, ‘assisited’, is a mark against them. A sport where Chris Paul, all six feet of him, is considered a “small guy”, is more than a little odd. I worry that soccer is creeping down that road; there has definitely been more of an emphasis on size, strength and speed in recent years (I wouldn’t want to meet that Chelsea team down a dark alley). I have strong hopes, however, that there will always be a prominent place for those who get by on skill and wits. My favourite player today is probably Lionel Messi. This is because a) I’m somewhat sympathetic toward Barca, b) he’s *Lionel Messi*, and c) even though after growth hormone treatment he still look like the runt of the litter, he can do things no other player on the planet can do – things that don’t require him to have 250lb of muscle to carry out. Can you imagine someone of Messi’s physique succeeding in any of the big four American sports?
By the way, I didn’t mean to imply that there was any Anglophobia in Susan’s original post, or anywhere else on this blog. If this was inferred, I apologise. For what it’s worth, I would describe myself and a qualified Anglophile: I’ve always been interested in English/British culture, their sport, music, politics, TV, radio etc.; however, I still find it hilarious when they lose at football…
By the way, I read Portrait Of The Artist at school, and it fried my brain too. As has typing this post – hope you can make sense of it (I need an editor…)
May 25, 2008 at 10:11 pm |
Again, those two leering smilies were accidental…
May 27, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
That was quite a reply, Fredorrarci. The bit from Father Ted was the perfect rejoinder after I pressured you into sharing further brilliance. I should mention here at the outset that you’ve now established yourself as a very insightful observer of sporting society and can relax if you want to from this point on. In fact, I’ll encourage this with a response of my own that can only be called slapdash.
Your point about the badge-wearing soul-protectors of the sport was well taken. (I have to confess, though, that I’d forgotten the Four Yorkshiremen skit until I Googled the script.) I respect those true fans (season ticket holders, away match supporters, sufferers) and feel like it’s only fair for them to enjoy the lion’s share of high spirits when glory comes their way. I think they occasionally get so caught up in protecting their true fan status against the fair weather variety, though, that they lose sight of the purpose of their investment.
It might have sounded like I had an inflated opinion of our own importance in the soccer world when I said other fans hate the thought of our potential success. I suspect you’re right that it’s just not that big a concern. If anything, I would think that US footballers are accorded some respect for their lack of arrogance. We know we’re not tops in this sport, we don’t generate much buzz at home, and the hot-dogging attitudes highlighted in our other sports don’t seem to have carried over into this one. (This is only tangentially related, but some fans were surprised that the American owners in the EPL hadn’t yet instituted cheerleaders in Mardi Gras garb and monster truck exhibitions at half time.)
It was interesting to hear some of the historical context shaping the Isles football culture. I imagine it was quite a blow when Puskas, et al. schooled England in ‘53. Of course, ‘66 was great, but is now seen as an exception, not the rule. Your thoughts on the Irish and the English clubs they support were informative, too. I guess it makes sense that there had been a large Irish influx into Manchester and that this would influence support. I hadn’t heard about the Celtic name as one that had been in the running either. And George Best was a footballing God from all accounts I’ve heard. It’s sad that the letters of his name unscrambled spell “Go get beers.”
The two teams you mentioned as favorites bring two good books to mind. I’m sure Fever Pitch is one you know well. It was one of the first football books I ever read and is one I understand. Hornby does obsession and lad culture well, it seems. The other book is one Susan has recommended by Franklin Foer: How Soccer Explains the World. It’s got an excellent chapter on why Barca is his team. It had a political angle to it that seemed slightly hyperbolic, but in the main he made compelling points. And Messi is an incredible player. We don’t get much La Liga coverage, but the clips we see of him could fill a reel.
Susan and I have a softer spot for Arsenal than we probably should as United supporters. You have to admire Wenger’s eye for young talent, and their success relative to money spent. Most of all, though, I think they have some of the best fans. I’ve known a few and they seem avid and loyal. I’m almost willing to believe that whole Victoria Concordia Crescit business.
As for your taste for American sports, don’t let us dissuade you from any of that. For one thing, Susan is more of a fan than she lets on, though I’m sure her point about pituitary (and artificial) forces being all too prevalent is from the heart. I follow the American sports more closely than she does, but we both consider soccer/football the best of the bunch. Joga bonito, indeed.
Thanks for visiting again, Fredorrarci. It’s been a true pleasure hearing your views. Do you have a blog or any other on-line wisdom to share? We’d be interested to know.
May 29, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
Fredorrarci, I am sorry that I am only just now responding. Your comments and insight are very much appreciated and respected.
I am indeed guilty for overstating the case against American football–I actually once loved this sport very much, as my father (the Irish guy) taught me all about it–he has always loved it. And I still enjoy our college (American) football, as it’s a much more passionate and exuberant game.
But we Yank soccer fans are often forced to defend our sport and for me that means attacking traditional American pastimes (the best defense is a good offense, as we Yanks say). Ugh…I just realized the horrible association of that statement with certain intellectually inferior politicians and the events of March 2003…
I’d better quit before I dig an even deeper hole for myself.
Anyway, please do stop by again!
May 30, 2008 at 12:59 pm |
Don’t worry about not responding sooner, Susan; I intended to reply earlier myself but got a bit waylaid by other matters.
Just thought I’d throw the following into the mix: yesterday I came across an article from USA Today from a couple of years back speculating on why soccer isn’t as big in the US as elsewhere ( http://www.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/worldcup/2006-07-06-soccer-in-the-us_x.htm ) – towards the end of the piece there is the following quote from Paddy Agnew, a fine Irish journalist based in Italy:
“The people I talk to are glad the world’s only superpower isn’t much better than it is. If they won this [the World Cup], too, that’d be the end. What could the rest of the world aspire to?”
It’s a point we perhaps neglected in our talk of post-imperial angst: that soccer is one important aspect of global culture that hasn’t been ‘colonised’ by America; and that the fear of such future takeover is more than a British thing, that it taps into a worry that is pretty common in Europe and, I should think, beyond. I wonder how this will play out should the US should start challenging for world honours in football, and how it might be affected by a possible future decline in America’s status socio-politically and cultural influence on the world in the face of the growing might of China or India. But I guess those are a couple of pretty big ‘ifs’.
(Just as a sidenote, apropos nothing: further up on that USA Today piece there is someone who claims the offside rule is un-American; do these people actually exist?!)
Your paragraph on diehard supporters, Steve, is pretty much dead on the money. And so much more concise than mine, too…
The George Best anagram – I did not know that. How have I gone through my whole life without knowing that?!
I have indeed read Fever Pitch – I probably wouldn’t be much of an Arsenal fan if I hadn’t
It seems incredible that it took so long for someone to bring that particular perspective to the page. I love it all the more because it goes beyond football and into corners of a certain kind of male psyche that don’t often get written about, at least in my semi-literate experience.
I haven’t yet read Foer’s book; it’s on a fairly lengthy list of football books I’d like to read. It’s been a great time for football books these last ten or fifteen years – it seems there was a dearth of quality literature before that, barring the odd honourable exception; it’s an exciting time to be a football fan right now, to be able to witness good writers really begin to tap into the sport. Speaking of which, let me recommend a book to you two: Football Against The Enemy by Simon Kuper (I think it’s been published as Soccer Against The Enemy over there). It came out in the mid-’90s, and tries to do something similar to Foer, though in a less academic (if that’s the right word) way; Kuper travelled the world to try to discover how football reflects and shapes the societies in which it’s played, socially, politically. My paperback copy is barely held together by sellotape, I’ve read it so much.
I have actually been mulling over whether to begin a football blog of my own. I have a few ideas for articles swimming around, but I’d like a critical mass of them before I take the plunge.I’ll let you know if I get it up and running. Perhaps Podaspheria can bestow her blessings on me…
Anyway, it’s been fun as always. Keep up the good work and all that.
May 30, 2008 at 9:48 pm |
This thread has sustained us well. We have you to thank, Fredorrarci.
That USA Today article was interesting. Some of it seems a little dated, though, even just 2 years later. Not that US Soccer has made major inroads, but since the time it was written we have had a lot more talk here about soccer. Beckham made a huge splash, of course. He just about sold out every stadium he played in including a 70,000-seater in NY. (Susan, do I recall a post of yours where you talked about the glittery sort of fan he attracted?)
The article made me laugh at another fan characterization. The author was talking about the tradition-bound detractors of the game, saying that waiting for soccer’s rise here was like Waiting for Godot. That whole thing Frank DeFord said about forward-thinking Americans being hard-wired against the offside rule just made me mad. What hooey. Does he think it would be better if they did away with the line of scrimmage in ovoid football? Why don’t we just deploy receivers in the end zone so that quarterbacks can advance more effectively past enemy lines?
I’ll look forward to reading Simon Kuper’s book. It’s one I’ve heard of, but didn’t know much about. With your recommendation, though, I’ll move forward in my distinctly American way to pick up a copy.
You should definitely consider your own blog. I’m sure Susan wouldn’t mind if you made an appeal to Podaspheria. Oh, and did you notice that your self-description as semi-literate met with total disbelief? I’m not buying it either.
Cheers!
May 31, 2008 at 10:53 pm |
If my defence, I wasn’t fishing for compliments or anything when I called myself semi-literate; I was talking more about my reading habits: I always feel I should read more ‘proper’ literature – fiction, poetry, that kind of thing – but when I go to the library or book shop I instinctively head for the sport section. Even the last novel that I read, The Damned United, was about football.
Obviously I’m not *actually* semi-literate; I write like an angel, I know…
June 1, 2008 at 1:31 am |
Have you read Soccer in Sun & Shadow? (Eduardo Galeano). It’s poetic and literary and all about soccer. Great stuff.
We get a pretty steady diet of opinions like those you saw in the USA Today article. Actually, it’s at its worst right before a World Cup when the American media are forced to pay attention to soccer. That sort of thing is why I tend to overreact and (unfairly) start tearing down other sports. I have a brother who works for a sports PR firm who is always dissing soccer in this way.
But Frank DeFord was once a really fine sportswriter for Sports Illustrated. He is quite old, though, and I think that the older sports establishment is pretty much beyond conversion to our side.
I do wish that everyone in the world could get beyond the concerns about who is the most powerful and significant country on earth. I look at the rest of the world and wonder why on earth they would want to be “#1″–whatever that is. To the extent that we have ever been dominant, it’s brought us (the US), nothing but trouble, as far as I’m concerned. And we won’t be dominant forever, or for very long either. I think you guys (Ireland) are just one spot behind us in per capita GDP–and probably catching up fast!
I will put Kuper’s book on my ever-growing “to-read” list.