Why Soccer Is The World's Game & Not Ours

    No, it won't.

  Sorry, soccer enthusiasts, fans, and the like--your game will not become our game this year or anytime soon.  It's not because it's not a great game.  It's not because we're (the good ol' USA) behind the rest of the world, either.  It's certainly not some grand (or even minute) conspiracy.

  No, "fútbol" will do little better than grab our attention during the 2014 World Cup and then will quietly go back to its existence as the sport **just on the cusp** of breaking into the big four of American football, basketball, baseball and hockey.  It will stay the sport many will encourage our kids to play--and we'll cheer voraciously for our children as they play.  Some will take that enthusiasm into their kids' competitive soccer leagues into junior high and high school.  Some will even purchase tickets to some MLS games.  Most will not.

  So, what's the deal?  Where's the disconnect with soccer between World Cups?  Why does American football sack soccer from Uncle Sam's sea to shining sea?

  One theory has it being about our history versus the rest-of-the-world's history--particularly one important **revolution**.

  Michael Mandelbaum put it all in words in his book, "The Meaning Of Sports: Why Americans Watch Baseball, Football, And Basketball And What They See When They Do" (Public Affairs, New York ,2004).  The revolution?  The industrial revolution.  Put simply, football emerged from the mechanization of America, where measured time and synchronization of tasks catapulted the USA into the super power it still is today.  To quote Mandelbaum:

          "Football is the sport of the machine age because football teams are like machines,
          with specialized moving parts that must function simultaneously. Players are like
          workers in a factory. They must perform their tasks in a precise sequence, and the
          failure to so sow leads to the kind of disaster depicted in the film "Modern Times"
          in which Charlie Chaplin, working on an assembly line, gets tangled up in the
          machinery."

  Football was born of boon--and the great rivalries were born during that boon: Auburn-Alabama, Michigan-Ohio State, Oklahoma-Texas are classic examples on the college scene.  "The Black And Blue Division" of the NFL (Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions, Green Bay Packers, Minnesota Vikings) come to mind, as well as Rust Belt rivalries like the Steelers vs. Browns.  It's a game built upon the blue collar, hard labor, bare knuckles striving of the American Industrial Revolution.  We became truly great then, and perhaps football reminds of that greatness--at least subliminally.

  Mandelbaum also notes that American football is also video friendly, and I believe that's the principal reason football trumps futbol for the general masses between the Atlantic & Pacific (as well as Alaska & Hawaii).  You've heard it a kajillion times: soccer's boring.  I'll be more precise:  no, soccer is not boring at all, just like baseball's not boring--it's just not as exciting on TV.  I find soccer strategy fascinating, and the athletes playing the game to be on the same level as football athletes.  I, and millions of others, just don't like waiting so long for the **big** action to take place.

  Mandelbaum doesn't shy away from the violent aspect of American football.  He compares it to warfare--as in the drawing up the game plan (football) is to drawing up a battle offensive, where the head coach acts as the general, the players as soldiers, the support staff subordinate officers and medical staff.   Mandelbaum extends on his comparisons:

          "Because each (football and war) are dangerous, fighting a war and playing
           in a football game both require doing what comes unnaturally. Commanders
           and coaches must find ways to overcome the natural inhibitions to taking
           part in both.  Here again, the array of techniques they use, and the invent-
           ives they offer exhibit marked similarities."

  It's here I'll extend on Mandelbaum's point.  I believe football is a better diversion than soccer.  Sports, and all entertainment really, are really just diversions from real life that make real life more bearable, more lively, more hopeful.  Yes, football is a most violent game, where there are frequently serious injuries and infrequent deaths, but the violence is generally confined to the field and not the stands.  That it's also more fun to watch in person and on TV only makes it better.

  So, regardless of how successful the USMNT is in this or future World Cups, futbol will face an El Capitan-like climb to reach the popularity of football in the US of A, and really, even basketball and baseball.  I believe it can over-take hockey simply because more youth across all economic lines can play soccer than can play hockey--although watching hockey is a zillion times more exciting than watching soccer (popularity IS about the number of eyeballs).

  I fully expect some pushback from soccer fans and elitists. That's OK.  Those that know me know I welcome dissent--even if it's based more in emotion than in fact.  I fully expect some to counter that the world's game should be ours because most everything is global nowadays. I full expect others to use the well-worn counter that, something like this, "You'll never give soccer a chance because you just hate us and our game and you'll never understand it anyhow."  In my 25-plus years of sportscasting, I've heard variations of the above dozens of times in each market where I've worked.  There was even a lady in Oklahoma who refused to believe I had **ever** covered a single one of her son's high school games even after I gave her video proof of the nearly dozen games I'd covered in two years. My response to such nonsense is the same: your mind is already made up, so thank you for your opinion and you're free to go--there are some nice parting gifts waiting for you.

  Football certainly has its challenges, but popularity in the 50-states is not one of them.  Of all facts, this one is undeniable.  It's soccer's challenge to eclipse that popularity before the nation gets excited beyond World Cups.

Super Bowl Softies

     Gosh we have gotten soft.
     It's bad enough there's been "concern" about the weather at the upcoming Super Bowl in New Jersey, but now there's talk of moving the game up to avoid the chance of playing it in a blizzard.
     Really?   REALLY????!!!!
     Has America forgotten that football is a blue collar game?  That it originated in the harsh elements of the northeast?  That the "black and blue division" of Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay and Minnesota got its name not only because they beat each other black and blue--but did so in at least the last half of the season where the thermometer rarely rose above 40.  And they liked it.  They reveled in it.  They survived it.  And, the still talk about it.
     And so will the players and fans if the game's played in a blizzard on February 2, 2014.
     Honestly, I think we as a society have become comfort junkies.  The thought and likely reality that Super Bowl XLVIII will be cold at best & amid a full scale blizzard at worst is shuddering to many because both scenariors--and any in between-- are uncomfortable.  My response:  so the heck what!!  Football is an uncomfortable game, played in uncomfortable pads and a helmet designed to make sure the player isn't comfortable in a pine box (which could be the result when giving or taking an NFL hit without a helmet, you dig?).   It's a violent game played by violent men.  It's a wonderful diversion--where the violence is on the field and not (generally) in the stands.   It's designed to be uncomfortable and really **needs** to be uncomfortable.  The elements  of wind, rain, mud, cold and snow add to the discomfort, but in a good way--because the elements even things out for the more agile against the bigger and more powerful, for the skinnier guys against the bigger and more powerful, and even the bigger and more powerful against the speedier-guys.  The elements add more elements to the game.  Why not on the game's biggest stage once in awhile?
     Do you remember Week 14 of the season?  The Lions at Eagles game played in a blizzard?  Man, that was fun to watch.  If you missed it, take a gander:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap2000000294491/Week-14-Lions-vs-Eagles-highlights

   Man, that was fun to watch on TV.  And if I was at the game, it'd be the one I certainly remember being at and would be telling stories over beers for years.  There's also a reason why similar games are etched in history.  Does the name, "The Ice Bowl" ring a bell?  Ding-dong.  Of course it does, as it should.  It was guts action football, with guts action players on the field, and guts action fans in the stands.  And they still talk about it to this day.  It was tough.
   I fear we're losing our toughness--in the name of the comfort of the sub-tropics and domed stadiums.  There's also the money factor.  I know there's concerns that the projected cold and the discomfort it will bring might keep some fans away, that the corporate sponsors will not want to be associated with such discomfort, which would likely mean you'll never see another Super Bowl in a cold weather city's outdoor stadium.   The almighty dollar talks, but in this case, it's saying, "America, you're soft."
 

When Capitalists Turn Into Socialists

What? NEVER!

Um, yes. And it's not even so subtle. It being playing on both sides of the economic fence by some regular folks just like you and me. And it came to light in a recent conversation that started out political and then turned to sports.

It started out with a friend complaining about how the current presidential administration, as he put it, is trying to impose socialism on the country. He pointed out something the president said a couple of years ago (paraphrasing) that raising taxes on the rich would redistribute wealth. My friend scoffed at that nation, basically saying that it's "un-American". My friend then said he was distraught not only about what he felt was road to socialism the administration was taking the country on, but also that he likely wouldn't be able to watch NFL football this coming season because of the NFL ownership lockout.

And it was there that my staunchly capitalist friend turned into a socialist.

My friend is a staunch supporter of salary caps. Says he is because a salary cap makes the playing field more fair for the smaller market teams that can't compete with the big money, big market teams that can pay more for the elite talent. And that the players were nothing but greedy millionaires that were paid entirely too much for basically playing a game.

And it was there that I pressed him--like a good journalist does.

I asked him what was the difference between taxing the rich to give to the poor-er and a salary cap? I also asked him which was worse--a greedy millionaire (a player) or a greedy billionaire (an owner)? My friend really had no answers. A lot of deflections and diversions away from the questions, but no real answers. But then he pressed me for some answers, and I gave him some--and I'll give them to you to digest:

1) Yes, salary caps, in any form--whether it be from the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc.. or the president--are socialist. They're designed to put an artificial drag on costs to attain **cost certainty**. That' simple Economics 101, my friends--creative accounting by the politically savvy notwithstanding. A salary cap--it be a professional athlete (NFL, NBA, MLB, etc.. ) or a Fortune 500 C.E.O. (as what was suggested by the president back in 2009), is by nature a means of redistributing wealth. Professional sports owners use salary caps also to not only contain costs, but also as a ribbon to do what they call "revenue sharing"-- big money owners share their wealth with the small-money/market owners to help create an economic balance. Uh, sounds like redistribution of wealth to me-- pretty much what the president suggested early in his term. The arch-conservatives cried out with "It's not the American way!", but when it comes to sports, many of those same arch conservatives--like my friend--become more than OK with glossing over the way of the stars and stripes. Why? Vested interest, pure and simple.

2) Yes, professional athletes are generally rich. But professional sports owners are **wealthy**. Players = millionairs, owners = multi-millionaire/billionaire. Neither needs all their money, but the owners need it less, yet they want more and more--and they put it on the backs of those that have less of it. Why do you think they get the public to finance the majority of their stadiums--and if they don't, ownership plays hardball and threatens to leave town? Why is it that owners won't (notice I didn't say **can't**) share revenue among themselves without the players' help? Put two and two together: ownership is basically saying, "Players--save us from ourselves!". Well, the players are saying, "That's your job. You made your kajillions away from sports on the open market without a salary cap--and we want the same conditions you had/have." Sounds fair to me.

3) "But I just want my football. The fans are the ones who lose." I agreed with him on that one, but in a way he wasn't ready for. I agree, the fans ARE losers--if they go back to supporting the NFL, buying team merchandise--and the like, as if the lockout never happened. Yes, NFL fan, you ARE a loser if you go back. Here's why: the owners know you'll come back because regardless of how much they take you and your loyalty for granted--because as my friend put it, "I just want my football". So they'll provide it. At a premium, and with no regard for you because you're going to come back no matter what. And there are millions in line who will do the same. Many who like to think of themselves as anti-socialist--until it comes to something they love and feel they can't do without. That's why owners (and players) get richer, and the fans perpetuate it. Vicious cycle, I know. But if the fans **really** want things to change, we have to take our share of the responsibility for that cycle.

Yes, my friend didn't like my answers. But he said he better understood how a capitalist could cross the line to socialism. And that's all that really mattered.