Tuesday, March 28, 2006

The beautiful game

Franklin Foer’s How Soccer Explains the World, despite its grandiose title, fascinatingly blends politics, culture, religion, race, crime, and history. It definitely works as a travelogue too.

In the last chapter of the book he mentions this tidbit.
Not just pundits buried in the C Section of the paper, but people with actual power believe that soccer represents a genuine threat to the American way of life. The former Buffalo Bills quarterback Jack Kemp, one of the most influential conservatives of the 1980’s, a man once mentioned in the same breath as the presidency, holds this view. In 1986, he took to the floor of the United States Congress to orate against a resolution in support of the American bid to host the World Cup. Kemp intoned, “I think it is important for all these young out there, who someday hope to play real football, where you throw it and kick it and run with it and put it in your hands, a distinction should be made that football is democratic, capitalism, whereas soccer is a European socialism [sport].”

Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. Silvio Berlusconi, who owns AC Milan, or Rupert Murdoch, whose SkySports broadcasts it to the world, refute the socialism assertion.

I watched my first professional game on television in 1966. England beat Germany in extra time in the World Cup final at Wembley Stadium. One of my best friends turned me on to it. I was mightily glad he did.

Eight years after Kemp made his statement, the United States hosted the World Cup. I saw two games at Chicago’s Soldier Field. I learned why people call soccer the beautiful game. Too bad the world in which it lives cannot reflect more of its beauty.

6 Comments:

At 12:09 AM, Blogger beatroot said...

You remember 1966 world cup final? My eyes have gone all watery.

Was the third goal (Geoff Hurst's second) a goal or not? Did it cross the line? Germans still say it didn't.

The first game I remember was the Mexico world cup 1970! ...England - West Germany again...we lost. But I remember seeing the Brazilans - Pele et al - and I just couldn't believe football could be played like that. They bent the ball around walls...!

I love this idea that soccer was part of the cold war struggle! I am definatly going to get Foer's book.

Cheers!

Aresenal were awesome!!!!

 
At 12:34 AM, Blogger Frank Partisan said...

Soccer really is neither capitalist or socialist, just soccer.

It costs less money to put together a high school soccer team, than football. No need for pads or spiked shoes.

 
At 4:42 AM, Blogger beatroot said...

But there is a link between the take off of soccer in a country and industrialization. It is an urban game, mostly supported by what they used to call the proletariat. So maybe that is where this nonsense is coming from.

And the manager of Manchester United is a socialist and was a member of the Labour Party (but he's definatly not New Labour!).

 
At 6:57 AM, Blogger Lynn said...

I still say the ball crossed the goal in that extra time. The fog of time has obscured my memory of most of 1966, but not that.

After yesterday, Arsenal looks as if they have a good chance to go all the way in the Champions League. They have to be happy about being up 2-0 going into Turin.

The U. S. has a schezophrenic relationship to soccer. Some people, like Kemp, appear to honestly believe it subverts American culture. (whatever that is?) People think I have gone around the bend when I tell them I follow the sport and watch a lot of games.

The Foer book illustrates nicely how the sport transcends class and other distinctions. It's a great read if you set aside a few unargued opinions he has about globalization.

 
At 2:56 PM, Blogger beatroot said...

Is he a pro- or an anti globalist?

Soccer, I suppose, has been part of globalisation for decades...but it isn't American!

Bang goes a few anti-American theories...

But listen while I whisper it: the ball didn't cross the line...we got lucky! Shhhhh!

 
At 3:02 PM, Blogger Lynn said...

beatroot,

I found it hard to tell his position on globalization. He comes off as both at times. I would say he is pro, but with eyes open to the excesses and the contradictions.

Good thing they scored that extra goal.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home