So what is souring the World Cup for me is not the US performance, but the round of commentary on why the US doesn't play "global sports," with the implication that it's because we're arrogant and don't care about the rest of the world. News flash: not being soccer-mad is not the equivalent of pulling out of the UN. Perspective, people, perspective.
It does not help that I regularly read a South African newspaper along with its comment section. I'm going to have to take a break from it, because I find the kneejerk anti-Americanism and misconceptions to be so exasperating that now I'm grossly overreacting. I realized this about myself the other day when someone said that he was glad to see the English and Americans cry when they lost because they thought they owned the soccer field, and the Americans need to start playing global sports and stop saying they are world champions at sports only we play.
Well. And then I lost my shit.
First of all, of the many places we are arrogant, soccer really isn't one of them. Americans always come in as underdogs, at least in our own heads. But here's the thing: soccer is now the most popular youth sport. We're going to be a force in global soccer very soon. And all the people whining about how Americans won't play their sport may soon have reason to regret when we do. As Time magazine said a couple of weeks ago, "Face it: the US is going to play, watch, market, manage and own your sport sooner or later." We have 300+ million people; we can have soccer be our fifth or sixth most popular sport and still be a top-10 team.
However, let's talk about this whole not-loving-soccer thing. We are hardly unique in this. As writer Matt Iglesias noted, "It’s worth pausing for a moment to note that the USA isn’t really that much of an outlier in terms of its relative lack of enthusiasm for soccer. For example in China the most popular team sport is basketball and there’s tremendous passion for table tennis. The most popular sports in India (and Pakistan and Bangladesh) are cricket and field hockey. I’m told that in Indonesia badminton and tennis are the most popular. In Russia and Canada it’s ice hockey. Which isn’t to deny that many people in those countries may enjoy soccer as well—many Americans like soccer. But 'the world' is not the same as 'Europe and Latin America.' Indeed, I believe the countries I’ve just been naming account for about half the world’s people."
So let's put to rest once and for all the canard that we are the lone nation resisting the siren song of soccer on which all future world peace and interdependence relies.
Secondly, why do other people care what sports we play? Do they know what they sound like? It sounds like a little brother whining "Come plaaaay with me, I wanna plaaaaaay with you." Dude, we're not bothering you, let us play what we want. Why do some people take it as an affront? It seems to speak to an inferiority complex: this strange seething resentment that the superpower doesn't think your sport is so super.
And third, if you honestly still think American sports are exclusively that--American--then you're far more provincial than the Americans you're criticizing. American football is the only American sport that is still uniquely American. Basketball is global. Eastern Europe has some of the best teams, European leagues are popular, and the NBA is packed with international players--German, Slovenian, Serbian, Chinese, Italian, you name it. We still win the Olympics but it's no longer by the 50-point margins it once was, it's a fight, because the rest of the world is catching up, and it's hugely popular. Baseball is less so, but even that is global--Japan, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, etc. Cuba has won the Olympics more times than we have. And if basketball is an Olympic sport and cricket isn't, then arguably one is more of a "global sport" than the other.
What gets me is that aside from soccer, the sports people always point to as "global sports"--cricket and rugby--are English sports. This comes back to my theory that most former English colonies don't know how to decolonize themselves and give the middle finger to England, and that part of our success was a very clear and decisive break with the mother country. We don't want your soccer, England; we took your rugby and made American football, and took your cricket and made baseball. (Then we changed how everything is spelled, and just for fun and because we can, we make sure American English is the default setting on computer software that we sell all over the world. Ha.) Other former colonies seem to maintain this weird love-hate adolescent relationship that we just don't have. But those are not global sports, they are English sports, Commonwealth sports. Let's call it what it is.
So clearly I care way more than is normal about what some halfwit said on a message board, and I need a break from South African media to regain my sanity. So, back to the soccer: good luck, Uruguay, represent the Western hemisphere well against Ghana; may the best man win in Brazil v. Netherlands (I think that will be a great match); Paraguay, I'm afraid you're outclasses by Spain but greater upsets have happened; and Argentina, I look forward to the clash with Germany but my money and my heart are with you, Lionel Messi. And I'm going to Austin tomorrow to see aunt and cousins (17-year-old cousin: "Nelson Mandela is like an adorable koala bear." Which a) he kind of is, and b) I was just relieved she knew who Mandela was) and a friend who had a baby a couple of months ago.
It's the first time in four years I'll be in the US for July 4. You will not believe this, fellow Americans, but July 4 is actually *not a holiday* in other countries. I KNOW. MADNESS. So I'm particularly excited to be home to celebrate all of us.
14 comments:
I've always enjoyed pointing out the eccentricity and whimsy of American sportsmanship. For instance, during the Vancouver Olympiad, my colleagues and I watched and rooted for curling, in part to learn the game and to defray individual expertise in one winter sport over another.
A whole, diverse office rooting for the Norway and Japanese curling teams, for no real reason other than enjoying the sport.
I rarely hear that effect mentioned in other places, even within ex-pat friend groups.
Ha! True. It reminds me of several years ago when MLB was on strike and there was apparently a serious dearth of other sporting activity going on, because I walked in on my dad watching tandem trampoline jumping on ESPN. And rooting for a team which he'd clearly chosen for the color of their uniforms or something.
We do seem to need to someone to pull for, even if chosen at random. We are not good at being neutral viewers.
While much of what you say may (or does) have much truth to it - perspective is also necessary. A bit of backlash is inevitable when one country seems to dominate so much of the globe in so many areas of people's lives.
Then there are the areas where the US does look rather arrogant - naming the baseball playoffs The World Series (everyone seems to bring that one up and expects me to have a reasonable explanation).
That said, some people are simply small people. The number of comments I got in England after GWB was elected of, "How could YOU elect such an idiot," were highly revealing. For starters - who said *I* voted for the guy?
Yeah, I don't get the World Series either. Maybe because there's a Canadian team in the mix?
But that aside, I'm just not accepting the hegemonic argument. If that's people's beef, then say it plain. Critique the military, the economic policies, whatever. When you make it about sport, it's turned petty. Particularly when the complaint is "the US doesn't play global sports" and I think, shouldn't you be glad for once that we stayed out of something?
There are many legitimate critiques of the US, but it becomes very hard to hear them when they get lost in the cacophany of idiocy. One of my pet peeves is the "you're taking over the world with Starbucks" meme. Look, Starbucks is not an imperial arm of the US, it's a for-profit company. Don't like it, don't buy it, and it will go away. But if you're going to drink it, or at least a critical mass of your compatriots are, you don't get to complain that the company did what companies do: entered the marketplace.
Tiah, I used "you" in the very generic sense--obviously I have no idea what your thoughts on Sbux are and it's not in SA anyway!
And yes, one of my funniest memories from my first trip to South Africa was sitting with the assistant dean at St. George's Cathedral who said intently, "Explain George W. Bush to me." What does that even mean? Did he want a psychological profile? Would he be able to explain Zuma to me? There is a sense that we should be able to "explain" our inexplicable countries as if we're their appointed representative--fortunately that wears off the more people get to know you and take you for an individual, not a prototype.
Shannon, I've been biting my tongue because I really admire much of what America stands for but lets face it, any lingering anti-Americanism South Africans had about the screwy American policy of "constructive engagement" served to coddle the apartheid government, was summarily cast aside with election of that imbecile George W Bush. The anti-Americanism deepened and spread like wildfire after America elected him for his second term!!! Sorry Shannon, what you're experiencing in these blogs is just the tip of the iceberg of pervasive anti-Americanism. The election of Obama saved America from the road to perdition but only time will heal the undercurrent of anti-Americanism in SA.
I do agree with cricket and rugby being Commonwealth sports while basketball is becoming a truly global sport. Actually, I'd go further and say that basketball is poised to become THE global sport in the near future, with one caveat - the inherent height advantage of being a taller player. At the risk of sounding blasphemous, maybe this unfair height advantage can be offset if that hoop can be raised even higher. Anyway, basketball's simplicity, scalability and lack of dependence on technology contributes to is growing worldwide popularity - across culture, geography, gender, age... Even though I don't play basketball, I'm convinced that it has the potential to eclipse soccer as a world sport in a few generations.
Now soccer still seems to be treated like a odd stepchild among the major US sports - basketball, baseball and football. Frankly, I'm not sure soccer will be given the status it deserves in the US based on:
1. The earning potential for soccer players is dwarfed compared to the other major sports.
2. Three major sports is enough to consume prime time TV slots even though the seasons are somewhat staggered.
3. Soccer has been stigmatized as a women's sport in the US a tad unmanly for most boys, apart from immigrant kids. Of course this social stigma pisses of the rest of the world where in reality its primarily a guys sport.
So, as you rightly point out, even though soccer is becoming more popular in school, it really does not get the respect it deserves. I don't think this will change anytime soon, but I'll defer to your firsthand experience.
btw - don't let the SA media trolls get to you.
Happy 4th of July!
...cont'd
Now soccer still seems to be treated like a odd stepchild among the major US sports - basketball, baseball and football. Frankly, I'm not sure soccer will be given the status it deserves in the US based on:
1. The earning potential for soccer players is dwarfed compared to the other major sports.
2. Three major sports is enough to consume prime time TV slots even though the seasons are somewhat staggered.
3. Soccer has been stigmatized as a women's sport in the US a tad unmanly for most boys, apart from immigrant kids. Of course this social stigma pisses of the rest of the world where in reality its primarily a guys sport.
So, as you rightly point out, even though soccer is becoming more popular in school, it really does not get the respect it deserves. I don't think this will change anytime soon, but I'll defer to your firsthand experience.
btw - don't let the SA media trolls get to you.
Happy 4th of July!
apologies for the duplicate comment-blogger.com is acting weird.
I had some 'far-out' comment written, but just like evey American, you show your naivety very well. So no need for me to point it out.
Shame.
Ps. Please don't come badger my peaceful readers with your arrogance again. It might be ok to do that to the rest of the World, but us South Africans have fought long and hard for our peace and quiet, please let us enjoy it and stop starting fights you don't understand. Just leave us be, and we'll leave you to your throwing a pig-skin back-and-forth...ok?
Thanks so much.
Argh Shannon I need to apologise for my country folk and their narrowmindedness. Escpecially for certain commentors on my blog. I can't believe the responses I have had for my post on xenophobia. I was hoping to hear some ideas for helping, for making the situation better. Insterad I got knee-jerk defensiveness and of course everyone took my post as criticism of the country.
It never ceases to amaze me how suburban South Africans choose to live with their heads in the sand. They really don't know what is going on thier country, they all rushed to deny the rumours. You were the only person who had read some of the articles and knew what was going on. And you are not South African. By the very fact that you are not South African, of course they all assumed that you are also criticising the country and jumped in with their irrelevant and knee-jerk abuse of other countries and espcecially the US. "Oh the gang violence", "oh the treatment of Mexicans"... as if that had any relevance at all to my post. Of course we could sit all day listing the violence in every country. My post was about xenophobic violence in South Africa and would could be done, but most of my commentors don't usually even read what I write anyway, which always pisses me off.
Your opinion was the only one I valued on my post, as you actually knew what was going on. I hope you can ignore the vitriolic abuse, and please believe me when I say we are not all as ignorant and as silly as that :(
@Po: no worries, chica.
@Cam: call it arrogance if you like, but 28 years of playing, coaching and/or refereeing soccer gives one more than a passing acquaintance with the rules.
Dave! Never hold your tongue, buddy, you're among friends here (well, except for a newcomer who is irritated that I disagree with him on the inherent evil of Suarez; apparently nearly 30 years of participation in soccer as a player, coach and/or referee just makes me an arrogant American).
Look, we're essentially in agreement. I'm not saying America should never be criticized; I'm saying stick to the topic at hand. Criticize economic policies, foreign policies, etc to your heart's delight; often I'll agree with you, sometimes I won't, good discussions to be had by all.
The problem is the legitimate engagements get lost in the tangle of idiocy. (Like the above-mentioned gentleman who preferred to make my disagreement with him about American arrogance rather than contend with the fact that, as a Sandton-bred white boy, the odds are that he has far less experience with this sport than I do and I might have a legitimate point to raise.) So the poster who said he was glad to see the American team cry because Americans think they own the soccer field--no, man, we own the basketball court, but no one ever laid claim to owning the soccer field, and now I can't hear anything else you have to say because I think you're a moron.
I'm a bit of a sports purist and I don't like politics being brought into sport. I didn't root against the North Korean team because they have a crap government; they have nothing to do with their government, they're 11 guys chasing a dream. I don't root against Nigeria just because they're corrupt, and I don't root for Netherlands just because I like their healthcare system. I root for underdogs, and teams that play beautiful ball. So I'm annoyed when politics are brought into it; it muddies the waters and diminishes the achievements of athletes who should not be asked to be representatives of their nation's policies. They kick a ball, they're not the Secretary of State; let's try to keep those two things separate.
Anyway, as I said, when the criticism gets stupid and kneejerk, it obscures any legitimate critique because at some point you learn to tune it all out as white noise. And I don't think that's desirable but it's pretty much where I'm at except when engaging in conversation with people I know and trust. Everyone else I ignore at this point.
While we're on soccer: yes, MLS pay is far below what American athletes in other sports earn and certainly far below what an American playing in the Euro leagues can earn. (There's some crazy rumor right now that AC Milan is looking at Clint Dempsey but I won't believe it until there's a contract.) However, as soccer grows in popularity the salaries will grow commensurately. The NBA didn't start out with the insane salaries they have today.
Television rights are definitely an issue, particularly because the flow of play doesn't allow for commercial breaks, but I feel like that must be surmountable if stations in other countries find it profitable to broadcast games.
And I'm not sure I buy the feminized argument. I've heard it before, I'm just not sure it holds water. Objections to soccer from the people who still don't like it (as opposed to those who simply don't care, the same way I don't care about cricket) are a bit schizophrenic; they range from "it's boring" (so is any sport you don't know well; I find American football boring because I never learned the rules despite having been raised in Texas, so I don't know what I'm watching; but I regard that as my flaw, not the game's); to "too many divas with all the diving and faking" (same criticism is often made of the NBA) to "not enough tackling" (if you love tackling so much why aren't you a rugby fan?) So for a hardcore band I suppose they still just don't see it as adequately American, whatever that means, but I think that's changing as a couple of generations are coming up who have grown up playing and loving the sport. But I agree it won't outstrip the Big 3 any time soon; those sports simply have too much history, they are woven into the fabric of the country, memories of going to games with your dad and what it felt like when Houston won the NBA Finals when I was in high school and the mantle of pride I felt when my granddad said approvingly, after throwing the football in the yard, that I didn't throw like a girl and neither did my mom and he was proud to have raised us both.
I don't think people see the sport as feminized, because it's so widely played by both boys and girls. We do support our women's team, but I think it's just because we like winners. We all like to support winning teams, and the US women win, so for a long time they had a higher profile than the men. For several years there more people, men and women, knew Mia Hamm's name than Landon Donovan's.
Very interesting thoughts on basketball. I don't know if it will take over soccer for the same reason I don't think soccer is poised to take over basketball here; so much of one's attachment to a sport has to do with family history--the old "we root for Arsenal because my dad rooted for Arsenal and his dad rooted for Arsenal." But I do think it's exploding in popularity. You have players in the NBA now from Sudan, Nigeria, China, Slovenia, the list is endless. You are right to note its strengths: simplicity, lack of sophisticated equipment, scalability, etc. Height is an advantage in most sports, including soccer--gets you to headers first, and goalies are usually tall--but that's certainly amplified in basketball where you don't really have the equivalent of a 5'6" Messi who can still be a superstar without height.
It's gonna be interesting to see how the face of global sports changes over the next few years, particularly if China and India ever decide to get in on the action. Simply by virtue of their numbers, they'll be serious competitors if they decide it's worth their while.
That age old debate of mixing sports and politics. Well, I'm not sure I quite agree because the apartheid government abused sport to give apartheid respectability on the world stage by asking the world not to mix politics and sport. Most western countries refused point blank to entertain any kind of sporting events with apartheid SA. The UK, Australia, New Zealand and a few other Commonwealth countries on the other hand, normalized their relationship with apartheid SA and played cricket and rugby on a regular basis. Of course, almost ALL black SAns (Africans, Coloreds and Indians) supported the foreign team regardless of who they were.
I think on the whole you're right though in that, we should put aside our differences as much as possible to foster international goodwill in the name of sports even if its just for a fleeting moment. However, I still maintain that there are extenuating circumstances where crimes against humanity cannot be ignored in the name of sports.
Back on global sports, the China and India effect on sports is somehow not so straightforward. I think much of this is due to our lack of understanding of their age old cultures where competition is not really emphasized or encouraged. I think it stems from the deeper underlying eastern philosophies that they share in common. Most westernized countries e.g. Japan, Korea, Taiwan seem to place more emphasis on competitive sport. Anyway, I think whenever we try to explain China and India we constantly run into the "blind men and an elephant" scenario - we all have our own perspective...part of the truth.
I'm still curious though to know what you think of the idea of raising that basketball hoop even higher to reduce the inherent height advantage of unusually tall players.
Post a Comment