World Cup Is Here

A Cincinnati TV station late this week took a poll of its viewers (I’m aware it’s not scientific.) and asked their level of interest in the World Cup of Socker (I’ll spell it how I damn well please–Vowel cc vowel is funny looking and an odd spelling in Englosh.). The choices were a. great interest b. mild interest c. Who cares?Item (c) “Who cares?” got 81% of the responses. There was an article in today’s New York Times by Tobin Harshaw about among other things the relatively low level of interest in the United States in socker, despite the push of the news media and their assurance socker’s already being “America’s game”. I wouldn’t hold my breath nor bet Jordan-Hare Stadium on it.

I am not sure that the fact that Americans don’t care much for soccer really tells us anything. Next thing you know Teresa will be writing an article telling us why we prefer broccoli to brussel sprouts.

I understand that “Americans” (a.k.a., apparently, TV viewers in Cincinnati) aren’t much interested in soccer. What I don’t understand is jffoster’s PRIDE in their not liking soccer. (I also don’t understand jffoster’s PRIDE in spelling words how he chooses. “Yurp”–that’s really telling them! As the kids say, BFD.)Soccer* may never overtake football or baseball in America in terms of fan interest, but it will probably overtake hockey soon (see The Onion’s story about the most exciting playoffs in years unfortunately taking place in the NHL), and it could approach the popularity of professional basketball. Three factors favor soccer: 1) No particular body quality prevails, as does weight/size in football and height in basketball, making participation and body empathy greater across racial and ethnic lines; 2) the growth of the Hispanic population in the U.S., particularly west of the Mississippi; 3) participation does lead to fan interest. The paucity of scoring and the structural flaw of penalty kicks hold soccer back, but soccer is at least a continuous action sport, with more than ten minutes of actual action in a three-hour television window.* The story I’ve heard is that “soccer” comes from professional players in England in the 19c. playing in a league, or an “association.” “Assoc.” being an abbreviation for association, players were known as “assoccer,” and soon “soccers,” and the term was eventually applied to the game itself. Perhaps Prof. Foster, if he can quit playing orthographical loose cannon for a moment, could tell us if this particular etymology is true.

“And of course, all of this stopping and starting in American sports provides lots of opportunities for beer and tire and snack-food commercials, and lots of opportunities for sports fans (mostly men) to spend four or five hours watching one game, filling up the whole day so they don’t have to go to museums or do housework or watch the kids communicate with their significant others.”Just as unpalatable as jffoster’s apparent pride in the fact that Americans still haven’t wedded themselves to soccer is Ghilarducci’s fatuous anti-American fantasy that soccer, in part because it’s a quickly played game, is more family-friendly and less chauvinistic than, say, American football. Has Ghilarducci ever been in GB or Europe during the WC to witness the level of drinking? (The Times reported last week that during the 2006 WC, domestic violence in the UK rose by 30% on the days that England played–a claim often made, but never proven, about the Super Bowl.) Has she never heard of soccer hooliganism?

An additional concurring note to Nordicexpat’s no 8 — in words like “accord” [his example], there is a morpheme boundary between the *ac-* and the *-cord”. So the word is dimorphemic. {ac – cord}. Cf. dis-cord, ac-complish, &c. Another example is ‘associate, dissociate, with prefixes (as-) and (dis-} “Soccer” is howevedr monomorphemic and the spelling is odd, unpredictable, and is just something additional that has to be momorized. Or regularized. I choose to regularize it, as I do ‘brockley’. (Explanatory note: A _morpheme_ in a given language is a minimal ordered string of sounds that has a meaning associated with it. So ‘house’ has one morpheme; ‘houses’ has two: (house – Plural, but ‘Houston’ has only one. I really ought spell it Hyooston, oughtn’t I?)Now, a linguist I am but not an etymologist, so I had to look it up too. As to the etymology first offered by Goxewu and concurred by Nordicexpat with the OED, the American Heritage Dictionary (conservative on usage but usually has good etymologies) also gives that. I am suspocious for the same reason Nordicexpat is — it leaves another odd thing unexplained. So that may be an example of one kind of what we call a “folk etymology”, a kind of “just so” story. And Nordicexpat, No 6, I have heard it said that the primary reason American children play socker is so that they won’t _have_ to watch it!

Just a guess, but I don’t think British rioting and soccer hooliganism can be blamed on the nature of the game itself–that it involves 11 players per side kicking a ball around a spacious pitch. Rather, it’s the fact that there is a “yob” class in Britain with a lot of anger, that the British have a tradition and reputation for militant binge drinking (just ask any restaurant owner in a Greek or Spanish vacation spot), and that soccer is THE national game and, especially, its working-class one.Soccer is also THE national game in a good deal of the world (thus, the World Cup), especially in the developing world, where riots are more common than in the U.S. In short, if soccer weren’t the national game in all those places and something else was, then the riots would be over matches in that other sport.Whether Prof. Ghilharducci’s idea that soccer is more “family friendly” than American football is “fatuous[ly] anti-American” or not, it’s not a fantasy. There are more “soccer moms” out there than “football moms,” especially with younger kids. (AYSO has 600,000 registered players compared to 400,000 for Pop Warner football.) Soccer requires less expensive gear. The game can be played coed for longer than American football. The injuries are less severe. The physical conditioning in games is better; kids run around a lot in soccer, as opposed to standing around in huddles. Steroids don’t help much in soccer, but they do in football, where the danger of a kid’s getting on them starting in high school is much greater. Soccer is a continuous-action sport, so the players have to think on their feet, while playing; in football, the action stops after every play so the coaches can tell them what to do next. Beyond that, American kids who are good enough to go pro in soccer play on teams in other countries or on American teams with lots of foreign players and learn stuff about other countries; American kids who go pro in football learn about Pittsburgh and Tampa Bay. Soccer is gaining ground as a spectator sport in the U.S., from the NCAA to the pros, while football is going nowhere outside the U.S. and Canada (where, I gather, the CFL is in a bit of a decline). Compare MLS with the now-defunct NFL Europe. And so on and so on. The perference for America’s football and baseball comes with the implication (unsaid on this thread but explicit elsewhere) that they’re “home-grown.” As far as I know, while basketball was “invented” by Dr. Naismith in the late 19c., football and baseball evolved from other, foreign (or, as Prof. Foster might have it, “furrin”) sports.But if the World Cup final has a halftime show like the Super Bowl’s, I’ll take all this back.

This quickly devolved into a typical pro- and anti-soccer battle of insults. Why can’t someone in the US not like soccer and just not care, rather than insulting soccer fans? Why can’t someone in the US like soccer and not make judgements about the world view of those who don’t?It seems to me that most people need to have played a sport in order to enjoy watching it. As the youth soccer kids are growing into adulthood, we see more interest in the sport by television viewers. A report linked on Drudge this morning says the television ratings for the first round so far are up 108% over 2006. I am enjoying the heck out of the games. If others aren’t, that’s fine.

macheath – my point had nothing to do with how we won the Revolutionary War, it had to do with why we fought it. And the second amendment has never had anything to do with a national guard. You and I both know that in Miller, the Supreme Court finally put the kibosh to the nitwit reading of the second amendment to which you subscribe, so you’re just going to have to live with it. Pick up a book and read – you’ll find that in 1787, the militia consisted of every able bodied man capable of picking up a weapon and defending the nation. That’s hardly the definition of the National Guard. And btw, Miller notwithstanding, it is still illegal for felons and other criminals to purchase weapons. But let me guess. . . you would like yet another law making it double dog dare illegal, eh? No. . . I realize that you won’t be happy until all law abiding citizens are disarmed. But what are you going to do later this month when the Court decides MacDonald in favor of the rights of the people to keep and bear arms? Hey! Maybe you and Mayor Daley can go cry in your beer together. . .while watching a soccer game! Make sure the beer is warm and you can consider yourself darn near continental!

nordicexpatFor a historical discussion of what the founders thought of the second amendment, read their writings on the topic!!Many cite Federalist Papers 28, 29 and 46 but history is replete with other examples of what their intent was.For instance, in his “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” in The Federal Gazette of June 18, 1789, Madison said of the Bill of Rights that:”As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” Look up any person with their signature on the Constitiution, and read what they thought of the right to bear arms. Upon such an examination, it should be very clear what they intended with regard to the second amendment.

Soccer in America has some characteristics culturally that distinguish it from other countries in and outside our region. First, our history of professional development has been myopic. Many of the original NASL players worked a second job (as did national team players)… The money and structure for employment were not there even during the infancy of the NASL in the 70′s. So we need to view our soccer legacy in a developmental sense versus the rest of the world (we are more of failing adolescent merging into young adulthood where other countries are much more mature in their institutional, cultural and financial support structures.Second, in the US, Soccer is mostly a middle to uppermiddle class sport undertaken by all those families in suburbia who want their children to excel in sports, socially, and school. In many ways, this more comfy existence is still competitive but much different than in other countries where it is seen as life and death among impoverished global populations… kids play soccer in the streets with their bare feet in Cameroon (Et’o) or Buenos Aires or San Paolo. Their talent base and permanent passion arises from the lower socio-economic families and communities who are tightly knit… This is a huge reason why US has not done well historically as we have developed some very good players: mostly goalkeepers who benefit from multiple sports in the US, but there are some defenders and midfielders who have been world class. However, the toughest thing to do is to develop world class scorers in game where scoring a goal is the hardest task… Soccer culture suggests that it takes generations to develop world class finishers: Pele, Revellino, Romario, Ronaldo – BrazilCryuff, Van Basten, Bergcamp – HollandKempes, Maradona, Bastituta, Messi – ArgentinaMuller, Rummeniege, Klinsman, Klose – GermanyRossi, Baggio, Del Piero, Inzhagi – ItalyEusebio, Figo, Christiano Rinaldo – PortugalLinnekar, Shearer, Owen, Rooney – EnglandPapin, Platini, Zidane, Henry – FranceIt has been 60 years since a team from this list won the world cup1950 Uruguay (held in Brazil)… Otherwise (minus Holland) all these teams and players have been the best the world has… In other words, it takes time to cultivate a brilliant striker. Goals change games… Goals change trends…. Goals change histories (just look at Brazil before Pele or Argentina after Maradona)… What we lack is in our development, but this is slowly changing as many of our top players are playing in europe (better leagues and competition)… Also, US Soccer is starting to effectively go into lower socio-economic neighborhoods that historically have been monopolized by baseball, football and basketball and sell soccer… Imagine Barry Sanders playing soccer or Michael Jordan (Our best athletes have not ascended in our sport for a variety of reasons) but this is changing as our professional and minor leagues become more embedded in our younger adult culture: MLS, USL and PDL leagues while still young provide players to stay involved in the sport beyond college…Lastly, our style of play resembles that of our sporting heritage (quick, fast paced or Soccer with ADHD, This has advantages because of directness, but also some disadvantages with keeping possession and instinctual visioning of the game (moving too quickly and leaving the imagination behind; something that our professional league suffers from time to time with)…. However, slowly we are learning multiple systems (tactics) and styles so as to fit the players we have at any one point… You see this in our selection of American Coaches for the National Team recently: Arena and Bradley…. As they prove themselves internationally, they open the door for future coaches to imprint the game uniquely with an American brand of soccer that is recognizable to our culture (making it more marketable to hockey/football fan who is attracted to the violence, speed or nature of the sport)… Kind of like being a Vikings fan because of Favre or Cardinal’s baseball fan in 1980′s because of speed and defense… etc..Teresa, you make great points about the money spent (translating it to actual people versus the abstract potential of showcasing the country for one month in the global marketplace)… This tournament has become another form of the Olympics and we have seen what happened to the Greek economy after going into heavy debt…. Do not let my love of the beautiful game detract from your bright and observant commentary of the financialization of the game….

Mr. MacHeath (20) Since I objected to some of your comments before, I am behoven to thank you for the above. Very interesting it is, along with Trend…(19)’s, and a couple of Goxewus’ (11 int. al.). Several have noted that the socker now in the US is primarily a suburban relatively-well off social class activity (where one often gets a trophy for just showing up). Is this the case with the professional or semi-professional adult American socker players as well? I ask not out of political argument but rather out of curiosity as a social scientist. It will be interesting to see how the game is affected if it does get extended in the United States to the working class. This happened in baseball in the late 1800s and early 1900s and it led directly to the introduction of the strangest rule in baseball — the Infield Fly Rule (actually a rule and a couple of definitions, to be a little more precise.) It is also the only rule of any American sport that I am aware of that has actually been the subject of an article in a Law Review. I usually rememmber authors better than titles but in this case the title is what I remember: “The Common Law Origin of the Infield Fly Rule”. I THINK it may have been in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review but can’t give any better reference details. It was some time ago, not recent.

jffoster,”Several have noted that the socker now in the US is primarily a suburban relatively-well off social class activity (where one often gets a trophy for just showing up). Is this the case with the professional or semi-professional adult American socker players as well? I ask not out of political argument but rather out of curiosity as a social scientist.”There have been two important professional leagues in the US over the last 50 years (NASL (late 60′s to early 80′s) & MLS (mid 1990′s to present)… The first generation US professionals were a combination of American kids from big cities (St. Louis, Chicago, New York & Philly) from working class ethnic backgrounds (Italian, German, Dutch, Western European and Central America); they were joined by aging superstar exports from world soccer: Rodney Marsh (TB Rowdies) Pele & Beckenbaur (NY Cosmos) Granitza Chic Sting) etc… Now, I do not want to piss off pioneers of field who were instrumental in the sport all over the country (so many so little space to recount) but there are the Walt Chysowicz’s, Walter Bahr’s and many in 40′s-50′s who were amazing players, but the American professional in the NASL was either an American kid from a big city without a lot of family income or they had made a name for themselves overseas (there are always those too who drift on the periphery, but they are more the exception than the rule)The second league (Major League Soccer) has been a response to the idea that America needs to be a world class team (2012 project) always competing for the cup every four years… The only way to produce these players is to create structures that allow for growth at every level. This generation tends to be much more suburban and affluent, but also much more resilient because of all the supports in place (AYSO, Travel Soccer, Colleges, Professional Development Leagues for amateur apprentices and minor leagues (USL) feeder systems for the MLS… Also important, are the relationships between MLS and European teams as means to sell their top talent overseas to Germany, England, France, Scotland and Holland… This gets US players competing against the worlds’ best every week from which there is no substitute… So the backgrouds are not so black and white or rich or poor; they are a complex array of privileged with greater resources as well as cognizant of the need to penetrate those impoverished communities in and out of urban centers to increase their range of athletes, body styles and abilities…

Point(s) taken, mercy_otis_warren. Thanks.Something else, though, to fan the flames:We Americans tend to like–a little vulgarly, I think–a lot of scoring in our spectator sports. Basketball is an orgy of scoring, and the college (clock stops after 1st downs) and the NFL (you practically have to mug the DT to get holding called) continuously tinker the rules to get more scoring. Most soccer games are like pitchers’ battles in baseball, a kind of baseball game only aficionados like. (The masses want homers, homers, homers.)The beauty and competitiveness of a soccer game sometimes flows somewhat independently of the scoring. An artful one-”nil” or a “nil-nil” match is wonderful to watch to me, but most of my sports-fan friends think they’re pointless, especially the scoreless tie.Addendum: Corporate logos on uniforms. They’re on football stadiums and basketball arenas and WNBA uniforms now, and are kind of sneaking into football with patches. ‘Enery ‘Iggins, just you wait.

The real reason for American indifference about soccer? Well, let’s see, name a single American sport in which games frequently end in a 0-0 tie, of which there have been several in this World Cup. Yawn. Soccer is, let’s face it, extremely boring with the exception of a few exciting moments. In football, any given play can result in a flashy run down field, an interception, or a hit that the whole stadium can hear and that sends its victim halfway into the next world. In baseball, any at-bat can result in a home run or at least a base hit that scores runs. In basketball, scoring happens virtually every 30 seconds, well, not quite, but close enough. In hockey even, a relatively low-scoring game, the combination of extremely fast play, hard hitting, and the occasional fight keeps things interesting. Soccer is simply too primitive and low-scoring to capture our interest, and so it shall and should remain.

Warning – tongue in cheek.If Americans really do love sports that are long and have overly complex rules, then they’re going to LOVE cricket. The _short_ version of the game lasts eight hours; a proper Test match lasts five days. And if you haven’t grown up with the game, I’m afraid you’ll find the rules really, really complex.