|
|
 |
 |   |
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Video Plus Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities 
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE
|  |
Reactions Deford's soccer piece fills the mailbag
The following is a selection of the feedback from Frank Deford's recent Sports Illustrated article, "Not our cup to tea." Generally, I agree with many of Mr. Deford's comments regarding the reasons for most Americans' aversion to soccer. But if by saying that soccer will never "thrive," Mr. Deford means professional soccer leagues will never include murderers and wife-beaters, astronomically paid superstars on last-place teams, and head-bashing goons with sticks, then this soccer fan (and retired pro) won't be too disappointed. I'd rather the Beautiful Game stays just that.
I'm as 'Merican as Frank Deford except I'm probably around 80 or so years younger, therefore his use of all inclusive terms such as "we" and "our" is incredibly presumptuous. I, along with many American sports fans, gave soccer a chance during the 1994 World Cup. I found the sport to be an acquired taste. I also found it to be incredibly addicting. Nowadays I can't get enough (thank goodness for the Internet). It remains to be seen whether soccer will achieve the numbers necessary to impress Mr. Deford in his lifetime, but we do have a great 1st division pro league going in this Country (MLS), a brand new women's pro league (WUSA), one of the world's top women's national teams, and a very good and rapidly improving men's national team. These are heady days for American soccer fans, and I see signs of the sport continuing to grow. The geometry of soccer first won me over, and the more I learned about the game the more I liked it. But in Mr. Deford's defense, I'm only in my mid-30's. The old saying is probably true: You can't teach an old dog (or old sports writer) new tricks. I don't care if he never gets the sport, but the old assumption that soccer will never work in this country is being proved wrong everyday.
I thought Deford's piece missed the point entirely. The reason soccer is not popular here is the same reason baseball is not popular in England -- pedigree. We've been playing organized baseball since the 1880's and the English have been playing organized soccer since the 1880's. If every kid in America since 1940 grew up playing pickup soccer instead of pickup baseball and little league soccer instead of little league baseball, the U.S. would be a soccer-mad country. Likewise, if every English kid played pick up baseball instead of pick up soccer, etc., the England would be a baseball-mad country. It's simply a matter of history and tradition, not the relative merits of the sport.
Some valid points on the American take on soccer, but ... inefficient? From people who sit around endless hours watching "players" standing around chewing gum & spitting no doubt preparing to occasionally run a few yards or to catch a small ball with a bucket-sized mitt? Sorry, Frank, you have it wrong. Soccer is supremely efficient as a team sport. Take notice; all players move all the time. You talk about efficiency but fail to notice that more than half of the American football players are not even on the field during the game!. Should a butterfly land on the field, I am sure the teams have a "specialist" to chase it away. Americans do no import culture? Where do you live, man? Perhaps in some corner of Nebraska it is different, but the last time I looked I saw Americans on cell phones everywhere. Ten years ago -- when Europe, Japan, Hong Kong and most of the Pacific Rim was awash with cell phones -- it was assumed here that cell phones will never catch on, since every home, business and corner in America has a phone. We simply do not need them. Well, I guess Americans were just a little slow in catching on. Pizzerias, sushi bars, and cafe au lait everywhere. Of course, if you insist on a beer, you may fail to note that the choice of brew in better places is not Bud Light but Amstel, Corona and Heineken. (Not exactly homegrown, but come to think of it, neither is Budweiser!) As for exporting the English language, pardon me but aren't you trading someone else's commodity? (And mutilating it in the process?) I am sorry that the flow, the beauty, the excitement and incredible athleticism of soccer (correctly called football) does not amuse you. Hey, if you prefer overweight guys run at each other in light armor, so be it! Enjoy yourself, but do check your information now and then. By the way, do you know of any plans to engage the Cubans, Japanese, Costa Ricans, etc. in a true baseball world championship? I didn't think so either, it's so much safer to have an American "world champion" champion team this way.
I beg Mr. Deford to watch the Euro 2000 finals last summer between France and Italy. He will see the excitement he is looking for. Regrettably, Mr. Deford rejects the notion that Americans are losing their patriotism, where soccer, or true football, creates a pride like he has never seen. I also regret to say that Mr. Deford is like many typical Americans in a world that is becoming smaller and smaller, he is ignorant. Please Mr. Deford, look beyond the smokescreen of commercialism and fat couch potatoes, you will find the Beautiful Game....
Thanks to Deford I am now aware that Markowitz and Hellerman wrote a brilliant book about the greatest sport human kind will ever experience. Frank, you make sure that you enjoy your sleep between innings!
Well, Frank, you're partly right and partly wrong. You're probably getting a lot of personally directed flack about the opinion piece right now. This isn't my intent. I saw the humor in your piece and I saw how the game can and is viewed by a number of people. And for some of the reasons you cite, particularly the part about most sports fans not being into nuance at all, but, like most males, all they want to do is score. That's why so many of our local news stations show touchdowns, baskets, goals and home runs. That's about all the average fan cares about. Drives me nuts. I want to see the double plays, the pitcher working a batter, the second baseman diving to his right and stopping a hit. So that does put soccer at a disadvantage. Where I think you are wrong is that there is a growing fan base here and more casual sports fans are paying attention. My wife and I came to the game because of our children and although only one is still playing, we have become fans, watching a number of games a year both in person and on TV. Many parents have undergone the same transformation. And we don't reject our other sports. We've just added another. Wish you'd do the same. It really is an exciting game to watch.
Mr Deford's article about soccer not being American was full of irrelevant arguments that had a McCarthyistic close-minded nature to it. His statement that soccer has been tried and rejected by America is simply wrong. First of all, Major League Soccer is only six years old. So to say it has been rejected is like some curmudgeon writer from 1877 saying baseball has failed. (Professional baseball started in 1871 after a 30-year gestation period.) I live across the street from a park with four soccer fields and three baseball fields. During my three years here I have only seen one of the baseball fields being used once, but on any given weekend all of those soccer fields are in continuous use the entire day. More kids now are playing soccer more than baseball, and despite what Deford's closed mind would like to believe, many of them will enjoy seeing a good soccer match when they get older. In fact, my son, who plays soccer, stopped by the TV when I was watching a baseball game one day and shocked me with what he said. He said "Daddy, why are those men just standing on the field?" I said they are playing baseball and that is how they play the game. His response was, "Well it looks boring" and then we walked out of the room. That, Mr. Deford, is a glimpse of the future, and despite your diatribes, the world will pass you by. There can be nothing more patriotic than seeing a soccer match followed by fireworks on the 4th of July. On this 4th of July 52,000 people were at the soccer match in Colorado and 60,000 were at the game on Los Angles. In all 180,000 people went to a Major League Soccer match this 4th. These numbers are growing every year, just like all the other sports when they first started. So rather than listening to an outdated self-important sports writer, I would encourage you to go to a soccer match yourself and make up your own mind. The beat of the drums, the non-stop action on the field, the back and forth flow of the game, as skillful well conditioned athletes give it their all for 90 minutes, just might grow on you. I guess soccer must have something to it if Frank Deford is willing to write about it. I am pleased with MLS, and the quality of play is getting better every day. Soccer will never become a huge sport in the U.S. for the simple fact it does not contain commercial breaks. That is one of the reasons I like it.
Specious goes a long way toward describing DeFord's arguments for soccer's inherent un-Americanness (thank you Sen. McCarthy, by the way, for adding soccer to the list of activities banned in these parts). Too bad he didn't bother to think a little further when arguing: -- That the United States doesn't import culture. What's Frank driving these days? Unless it's a pickup truck, it's almost certainly something designed and built by a European or Asian company, or something designed in Detroit in a vain attempt to copy what works in those "fern" cars. By the way, our cultural exports consist mostly of the shopping mall, the boy band and various fast-food outlets. Hardly something even ol' Frank should be proud of. I'd also note that English is an import, even for a master of the language like Frank (little place called England jammed it down our throats). -- That soccer is awkward because you can't control a ball with your feet and head. Soccer, when played well, is not awkward. It's only awkward if you've never used your feet for anything but walking and your head for ... well, I'll not speculate on what Frank's used his head for. See Diego Maradona's field-length run and goal for Argentina a couple of World Cups back for proof that Frank is way off on this one. 6-4-3 double play? Gimme a break. -- Frank would also have us believe that soccer is the only sport in the world that celebrates "pretty disappointment." Hogwash. I'm glad Barry Sanders retired only so I no longer have to hear NFL announcers tell me what a privilege I just experienced watching Barry gain three yards by sprinting back and forth between the sidelines for a minute and a half. Frank also conveniently forgets baseball's celebration of great plays with the glove -- usually by a shortstop or third-baseman -- which result in squat when the runner beats out the throw to first. Finally, I'd like to make a little argument of my own. Frank believes that Americans need/crave/can't get by without offense. Big bucket loads of it. I'd say that, 1), that's a pretty good start on proving that we have the attention spans of gnats (basketball comes to mind, given that there is no defense in basketball) and probably ought to take a quick inventory of where we as a nation are headed; and 2), by definition, arena football is the ultimate sport in Frank's America (clearly superior to the NFL and its world-champion Ravens, the proof being right there on the scoreboards). Or maybe Frank ought to check out cricket. Hundreds of points a game and man, is it exciting. Have fun at the cricket ground, Frank.
Soccer is my cup of tea. Deford is not.
To say that soccer is rejected, and that kids quit playing because it is "un-American", is downright ignorant. Soccer is viewed as a threat. It is vastly growing nationwide on the youth level. Therefore, people ignorant to the game, are afraid that their "'Merican" sports will fade off or not be as popular. Also, one should not comment on the gracefulness of a sport when one has never played it, nor truly understood it.
I don't care if you like soccer or not. But I think you should look at the facts and gain an understanding of the game before you make statements about it. A 1999 issue of "Kick" magazine reported that an study done by a university with cooperation from Neilsen media research reported that in 1998, more people watched professional soccer than the NHL and college basketball combined. You should realize that in America, the problem isn't the game itself but the way it is being presented. There is not one unified effort to promote the game. On an average weekend, with my basic cable package and transportation to one of my local pro teams, I have the option of watching at least 10 games but sometimes up to 15, from about 8 or 9 different leagues. And everybody has a different connection to one of those teams, so not one really stands out, except the World Cup every four years. That's the only time American's have a focus. As for your other statements regarding the game on the field, as you said, it's taste. But they sound the same to someone who understands soccer as the statement "Football is inefficient because a team can score fewer touchdowns and still win" or "It really gets to me how the announcer says 'That's a great run by Eddie George' when he only gained 6 yards and didn't get a first down." Why would you attempt to make statements that make you sound as stupid as that? It's a good thing for you soccer fans are from a generation you don't understand and has already alienated you (based on your description of an American). Go to an MLS game and you will see mostly people between 20 and 30 years old. Please, why waste your time and space writing about something you hate? You sound like a grumpy old man!
How could you not say soccer is graceful? Nothing is better than seeing a player pull the ball through three people and then finish in the side-netting. The reason baseball is declining is because there is only 10 minutes of action in a three-hour game while soccer is action packed for 90 minutes. Your opinions are clouded. You need to play soccer not just assume it is a bunch of sissies wearing shorts. Some day soccer will succeed in the U.S., and you will jump on the bandwagon saying how you were with them the whole time.
Normally, I am not compelled to respond to the type of banter that Mr. Deford has offered in this column. I have heard it my entire life and am tired of trying to deal with such close-mindedness. while Mr. Deford is certainly entitled to his opinion, I do resent his use of his position in the center of the "mainstream" to protect that turf upon which he has staked his livelihood. I could make some analogies to other "issues" in our society, but would rather not. Mr. Deford does make some good points - soccer is hindered by its position in the "sports space" and Americans do inherently resist things not "made in the USA." I don't ask Mr. Deford to jump on the bandwagon. rather, let the chips fall where they may and, occasionally, provide your place in the "sports space" to somebody who will use it positively for soccer. I don't need somebody else to tell me that a nil-nil draw is boring, that heading a ball looks painful/awkward, or that Brandi ripped off her shirt, any more than you need to me point out Shaq's inability to shoot a free throw, the oddity of letting an opponent throw a small, hard ball 90+ mph potentially very close to your head, or the ridiculous look of 350 lb. defensive lineman struggle to get off the field before the ball is snapped by the opponent. While these examples may seem "below the belt" to you, yours do to me. If you can't say something nice, let somebody else! P.S. All of those who have had "soccer jammed down their throats," please e-mail me the name of the reigning World Player of the Year, the words that MLS stands for and the soccer definition of "offside."
Mr. Deford, I left little league football to play soccer when I was 10 and never looked back. I am exactly what you "mainstream" sports people fear, the athletic white kid who sees the big picture. Your article seems to be just another attempt to keep the "American Mainstream Sports Mafia" spirits up. You see many athletes leave your sports to play soccer and it really burns you up, doesn't it? All you can do is whine and complain that it's un-American. Well, sir, I can tell you one thing, there is nothing more American than kicking a foreigner in the shins, delivering an elbow to the jaw, knocking him on his backside and beating him at his own game. You just don't get that sort of opportunity in most American sports.
Dear Editor, I was truly amazed to read an article like Frank Deford's "Not Our Cup of Tea," in the year 2001. Jingoism lives, I guess, and I lose the bet with my friend that said the idea of Great American Paternalism ended with Teddy Roosevelt and the Spanish-American War. Deford's argument breaks down on a number of levels, specifically in his tunnel-visioned view of the sports world and his obvious bias against the sport of soccer. I am not going to sit here and throw sand back in Deford's face and get into some kind of taunting game. I don't particularly care whether he likes soccer or not. This is America and it is a free country. However, it seems to me that as a sport writer, he should be aware of and able to understand sports across a wide spectrum. Instead, his tunnel vision for U.S. sports is quite astounding. Some of the quotes are downright insulting. "No, what we Americans do is pass on our stuff to other, impressionable peoples" or "It is for us to feel sorry for the rest of the world that it is not lucky enough to have games as good as the ones we have." Maybe Frank is unaware that the rest of the world has the games we have. Madrid plays Barcelona in basketball. Argentina has a basketball league. The NFL has exported American Football to Europe. Japan has baseball. The world has our games. The big difference between us and them is they don't have sports writers bagging on them. Deford's personal bias against soccer is clear and only serves to undermine the point he is trying to make. When he says "...any run-of-the-mill 6-4-3 double play is more graceful than the most precious soccer maneuver" he must know this is an indefensible statement and purely his opinion. Again, I don't have an issue with his opinion, but to state it as a plain fact is irresponsible. One hundred million baseball fans believe that. No problem. Two billion soccer fans disagree. But it is clearly an opinion. Deford's last few paragraphs really betray him as he brings out the same tired old cliches that are used each time we "learn" why America doesn't like soccer. Kids don't become fans; soccer is inefficient; soccer is defensive, soccer celebrates frustration. First, kids are becoming fans, but the pace is slow. Baseball was not built in a day. Soccer is inefficient? The baseball player swinging and striking out might be considered inefficient. Walked up to bat and didn't even touch the ball! Soccer is defensive? Sure, but defense is valuable too. The '86 Bears had a great defense. That didn't seem to bother Deford. Soccer celebrates frustration? You failed to get a base hit two out of three times up to bat. You're great! All these statements simply show that Deford is biased. To be at a point in life when you have shut out all possible interest in a sport must be sad. I'm not saying that everyone is going to wake up and love soccer tomorrow, I'm really not. You learn to love soccer like you learn to love baseball. I grew up on both. But for Deford to swoop down and "explain" why soccer is un-American to the masses looks pathetic and desperate. I guess the reason this article bothers me so much is that I thought the U.S. was past the old "simply un-American" cliche. I must not be much of an American. I went to a soccer game on July 4.
Growing up in the Midwest, I was the typical sports fan. I worshipped the Green Bay Packers and the Chicago Cubs. Then came World Cup 1994 and everything changed. With no prior knowledge of soccer, I quickly became hooked on the Beautiful Game. In only seven years, I completely stopped watching baseball (despite living two blocks from Wrigley Field), lost interest in the Packers, and found a new team - the Chicago Fire. Here's why: 1) Action. Have you watched a baseball or football game lately? Commercials followed by more commercials. Soccer and rugby are the exceptions with their free-flowing action. 2) Overcoaching: Individual creativity flourishes in soccer. How long do the last five minutes of a game take in basketball or football? An hour with all of the timeouts. 3) International aspects of the game. In other sports (hockey, baseball, basketball), we just buy the best players in the world and declare it an international game. This doesn't come close to the excitement of World Cup qualifying and the World Cup itself. You can talk soccer with anyone in the world. President Bush is in trouble when he goes to Europe and tries idle small talk about his troubled Texas Rangers. The soccer community doesn't need Frank Deford and others like him (Skip Bayless - Chicago Tribune, Dan Roan - WGN TV). The sport will continue to grow in the U.S. while they are off snoozing through another afternoon of golf or baseball. Go Fire!
Mr. Deford's piece "Not our cup of tea" solidifies my resolve not to read your magazine. Any magazine that would devote precious space to such ignorant drivel is beyond redemption. With all the fascinating soccer stories in any given week that could be covered by your magazine, I am amazed that you continue to print such pieces. I am a soccer dad with two kids who love the sport. I never played or watched the game as a kid. Football and baseball were my passion growing up mainly because that's what my father watched and that's what the kids played. Now that I have gained an understanding of the game of soccer, I have little interest in watching other sports. Consequently, my kids have no interest in watching other sports. I find this to be the most overlooked point in Mr. Deford's article. Kids will watch what their parents watch. If they see their dad getting exited about a soccer game they will too. What do you think will happen when this generation of millions of soccer players has their children? Your magazine will no longer be able to ignore the sport.
What you've said may be persuasive, but it cannot be called true. After all, anyone who watched last year's Super Bowl would be hard to pressed to say that it was graceful and anything but defensive. Professional American football too has turned into an extremely defensive and somewhat boring game. Fact is, the U.S. won't truly gain worldwide respect as a nation until it has established itself in the world's game.
Deford is basically saying "Soccer is un-American" It's no more foreign the golf or tennis.
Here is another "distinguished" American sports writer spewing his views on the evil "socialist" game of soccer. Bring it on, Frank. I welcome the attention you are providing the sport in America. Granted the professional league, MLS, is not yet achieving 20K average attendance, but we supporters have faith. The USA is now producing great players who are participating at the highest level abroad, Claudio Reyna and Kasey Keller, as well as top athletes who are choosing to showcase their talents here: Clint Mathis, Landon Donovan and Brian McBride. Our progress is calculated and steady. Our national teams, men's and women's, now receive coverage across all corners of the USA, and the MLS and WUSA are quenching the thirst of the millions of fans throughout our country. Let me extend an invitation to you to join me and 16 other "30-somethings" who will be converging on our nation's capital on Sept. 1, for a doubleheader pitting the men's national team vs. Honduras in a World Cup qualifying match and then a D.C. United MLS game. Since we are traveling from Minnesota, Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, Maryland and Virginia to attend, I hope you -- as a professional sports writer -- will find time to soak in the atmosphere at RFK Stadium. I am confident you will find it an eye-opening experience and then welcome further commentary.
Mr. Deford, I recently came across your column in the 2 July-9 July edition of Sports Illustrated entitled "Not Our Cup of Tea." As a soccer fan, I wanted to take a moment to thank you for giving the sport some attention. It is my theory that when such senior and renowned authors and sports columnists like yourself take it upon themselves to write about the game, to me it is a sign of progress. After all, as you so succinctly suggest in your column, since no one in the United States is interested in the sport, when someone like yourself chimes in with some commentary, it must mean it is at least doing something to catch your attention. But with all due respect I must take some umbrage with your column. Funny that you should mention the book by Andrei Markovits and Stephen L. Hellerman, Offside: Soccer and American Exceptionalism. I would have thought that you, someone who suggests that "soccer simply may be antithetical to the U.S. temperament and sensibility" would have well understood that reading a quasi-academic study about a case of American Exceptionalism is in of itself "antithetical to the U.S. temperament and sensibility," or at least to a good percentage of your readers. But so be it. What I do find disconcerting, especially with someone who has been ordained as a sports "expert" (After all, you do grace the radiowaves on National Public Radio) and published as you are, is that you are capable, in one column, to come across as the arrogant and ugly American that "impressionable peoples" from around the world so despise in Americans. Allow me to congratulate you for doing what writers of the past like U.B. Phillips or practitioners of phrenology can be held responsible for: using intellectual reasoning to justify preconceived biases. And the fact that everyone but Americans are impressionable? Talk about depth. But since you hide behind a thin veil of intellect that is so common among sports columnists, then two can play that game. Granted I accept my "limitations" as you would probably call them, that I am for one a soccer fan and a first-generation American. I guess that makes me only partially impressionable. But anyhow. I said it was funny that you read the book Offside and took the time to comment on it, in part because I heard an NPR interview with the authors, and second that SI would even bother. You don't see much in the SI magazine in the way of book reviews. Unless of course it is a subtle attempt to let the world know that you are the gatekeepers to the American sports reader. And that SI will go the distance in translating the book for them since SI doesn't want to interrupt their readers' fourth consecutive viewing of a SportsCenter rerun. But you do have to justify your role in this world, and you have justified yours. I am glad to see you have had some success with writing novels, because as a sociologist and an historian for that matter, you lack depth. It's a shame you missed an opportunity to discuss some of the differences that may impact the development of the sport in this country. For example, you could have made the intelligent observation that there is a fundamental difference between the immigration that encouraged the "Big Three and a Half" at the beginning of the 20th century and the current wave. Namely that from 1870 to 1930 immigrants came to this country willing to shed their heritage to be American. That is not the case anymore. In fact it is so obvious to some that even Time magazine chimed in with a cover with the big word, "Amexica." But let's take a look at some of your "cutting edge" perceptions. First I would suggest that you read your history if you actually believe your statement: "a succession of professional leagues that have received inordinate amounts of Pollyanna publicity." Actually only the NASL was the first large-scale attempt at a professional league that would be on par with the Big Three. The rest weren't large enough to "jam soccer down our throats." And to say that, you obviously don't know what it's like to be a soccer fan. We don't stick to the Internet for nothing. "We don't import culture"? Do you really want me to go into that? Actually the current zeitgeist suggests we don't "create" culture. That the United States is a hodgepodge of cultures, so much so that the only "real" culture we do manage is our sense of cultural superiority. And that since our identity is an eclectic mix of cultures, we haven't actually created one of our own. I know, I know, I probably just offended half of the readers of Sports Illustrated who grew up on Budweiser and Wild Turkey. I won't even bother to address the bubble-gum logic you use in the paragraph that begins with "Desperately, soccer smug-nuts always fall back on accusing American yahoos of failing to appreciate the grace and nuance of their superior game." But I will concede the point. Yes there are plenty of "soccer smug-nuts." I liked your comments about the 0-0 tie in the 1999 Women's World Cup. I must confess, it was a terrible game. I will concede this point as well. After all there is no such thing as a boring baseball game. I did like how you said that the aforementioned authors didn't offer any insight into how the other sports "overcame integral problems of tedium." Actually it was probably a natural evolution of the sports. Ah yes, but that suggests a degree of change which you and SI clearly dislike. The sad thing is that I could rebut your thinking that hasn't advanced since the days of President Reagan, but that would get us no where. You have obviously taken your ordainment as a sports authority so seriously, that you are capable of commenting on issues that you demonstrate to have a fundamental lack of understanding about. But that's fine. Your job dictates as much and I am sure your editors at Sports Illustrated dictate as much as well. But what is truly disappointing, is that your expertise has failed to notice some of the latest successes soccer has had at the professional level, and in fact many of those successes are fueled by young American kids. Yes, you guessed, players with last names like Mathis, Wolff, Keller, and Moore. That's where you could have demonstrated some depth of thought. Instead, as all good pseudo-intellectuals, you pandered to the six-grade level readership that resorts to base logic, superficial analysis, and ultimately, pandering to those who would be in agreement with you. Sadly, I expected more of someone like yourself. But that's the nature of being a soccer fan in the United States. Always hoping that someone who considers themselves an expert in sport would actually write about the sport instead of rehashing the tired old arguments, throwing in some clichés to once again prove to us "soccer smug-nuts" that the sport is hopeless. Oh well, life is about disappointments and I have long given up on Sports Illustrated. What is interesting is that most fans these days don't expect much out of writers like you, your magazine or a host of others. What we would appreciate is that you show some degree of respect for the men and women who by chance, through genetic manipulation or a bang on the head, actually enjoy the sport with a passion. So much so as to commit their lives to playing it at the highest level they can. Instead as you and your magazine have demonstrated time and again, it really isn't about sports, or respect. A real shame considering that if Sports Illustrated actually took the time to treat U.S. Soccer and MLS with an ounce of respect and consideration, you would find that we soccer fans would demonstrate our loyalty and appreciation in a way that you would like: We would buy your magazine, even just for that scant coverage.
First of all, Mr. Deford, speak for yourself when you say soccer is not our cup of tea. It may not the cup of tea of someone who prefers a tedious, drawn-out game like baseball where both teams aren't even on the field at the same time and although it takes three hours to play the game (maybe more if neither side can mount the offense you spoke of) the ball is actually in play something like two or three minutes. If soccer is so horrible, why is the torch-bearing team of Major League Baseball so quick to sign a partnership with Manchester United? That partnership -- because of the Yankees' joint venture with the Nets -- brings basketball into the conversation, too. Basketball is another fine contest. When the clock reads 3:10 to play, sit back, you know it will take another 45 minutes before the game is over. If you think soccer is a game, you don't understand. Soccer is about passion. The only passion you get from MLB or the NBA is the fact that both products are so boring and time consuming, it gives you a chance to make out with your girlfriend up in the cheap seats.
Mr. Deford, I have always felt that your opinions have been the worst that our country has to offer. You say that soccer is un-American; are you implying that those who embrace it are unpatriotic? If you do think that way, then you deserve a lifetime locked in a cell with only XFL to watch. I feel most American when I play and especially when I watch football (soccer). When our national team plays, my patriotic feelings go into overdrive. Plenty of Americans have a strong passion for football (what you call soccer); do not ever underestimate that. You can keep your NFL and your other brain-dead sports. Football belongs to me and I cherish it.
I am glad that people like you hate my football, because if you did not, you would infect it with your ideas of "Americanism." I bleed red, white and blue. I serve my country with honor as a soldier, so do not even imply in any way that I am un-American!
Unbelievable, I thought I had heard the end of soccer bashing stories like this some five years ago. To the sporting press I beg you, please, just report on the games or no. But please spare us your armchair philosophy.
Why do people who hate soccer have to cram their dislike for soccer down our throats? I mean, I hate golf, but you don't hear me ranting about how much I hate it. Soccer has hardly been pushed down any American's throats. Baseball has been pushed down our throats, on the other hand. In fact anyone who would dare take on baseball and call it what it is -- boring as counting tiles on the bathroom wall -- is considered unpatriotic and un-American. Yet baseball -- a game that takes four hours, where batters have to take a breather in between each pitch that they watch go by -- is praised by the entire American sports media. And then there is hockey, a sport that despite the fact the NHL has more than double the teams than MLS, has ratings that are hardly better than MLS'. In fact, hockey is such a lame sport the NHL has resorted to selling it to markets where winter is virtually absent, and on the fact that senseless pugilism is acceptable. Then there is American Football, which is NOT football; the ball is advanced by your hands, after all. Basketball is a sport only for malformed 7-foot freaks. Ringling Brothers could not put on a better freak show than the NBA. These are the sports that are being crammed down our throats. Soccer, the real football, on the other hand, is never mentioned in the sports media. You never see a highlight, and when they are shown it is usually presented by some idiot who wouldn't know a corner kick from a goal kick from a shot on goal. The author of this article bemoans a 0-0 draw in the Women's World Cup in '99. It seems low scoring is the No. 1 complaint against soccer in this country. So, there you have it. Soccer is a sport where one must work hard to earn their goal -- a lesson we surely wouldn't want American children learning. And here's the thing most soccer haters love to bemoan the most: The fact that soccer matches can end in a draw. To think of the ghastly possibility that two equally matched sides can step out on the pitch, fight equally hard and demonstrate an equal amount of talent, depth perseverance and -- good God -- end up with an equal score. God forbid! But then maybe that's why American's really hate soccer--- the God awful possibility that, just maybe, you don't always have to prove you're better than the other guy, that in soccer winning isn't everything. How you play the game also counts in soccer. Another lesson we clearly would not want American children to learn. There are about 6 billion people on this planet; about 290 million or 5 percent of the population of the planet have no regard for the sport whatsoever. But the author of this opinionated piece would have everyone believe that it is this 5 percent that is right while the other 95 percent is dead wrong. And if you don't think soccer is graceful (as well as brutal at times) I don't need to go abroad to prove you wrong. Last year in MLS several players on a fairly frequent basis put away gorgeous bicycle and scissors kicks, most notably Marcelo Balboa's 19-yard super-bicycle kick at Columbus Crew Stadium. This year we have seen marvelous runs capped off with powerful and graceful blasts alike for mind-bending highlight reel plays... Most notably Clint Mathis' single-handed demolition of Dallas' defense, in which he dribbled the ball past three or four defenders for 60 yards capped off with a 16-yard blast that stunned Matt Jordan (goalkeeper for Dallas) and the 20-plus thousand at Giants Stadium. So remarkable was the play that some in the European media were comparing Mathis to Diego Maradona. Frankly, I would rather watch the most boring soccer match over the most exciting baseball game. No, soccer hasn't arrived in America yet, but it is on way.
Mr. Deford, you are the worst form of "Ugly American." I see you rhapsodizing about tennis at Wimbledon; how American is that? In terms of attendance and popularity and ratings, tennis ain't that big either, but every time HBO does a special on the All-England Club, you with your wannabe-British mustachio, start waxing poetic. I'd hazard the reason you do this without a flinch is because Americans dominate tennis. The best tennis players in the world come from America. If ol' US of A started dominating soccer, you'd be getting on the bandwagon like it was the last chopper out of Saigon. You'd be haranguing the masses how Champions deserves regards, etc, etc. What I find surprising is the number of times you have felt compelled to write about how soccer isn't American. Why does it bug you so? I mean ESPN would rather show World's Strongest Man than soccer, so how exactly is it being stuffed your -- no doubt croaky -- throat? I strongly recommend you re-read "The Ugly American", then remove the rosy-colored shades and take a good look in the mirror.
Yours sincerely, yet another immigrant!
Some good points in your argument, but some that show lack of knowledge that make it hard to lend credibility. I will give you the point that soccer never will be as popular as the Big Three. However, the same tired thesis of no scoring, it's a foreign game, and people play it but don't watch it are weak arguments based on poor assumptions. 1) No scoring. The average MLS game probably gives you a rounded off average of three goals/game. Since a soccer game lasts about 115 minutes (90 of play, 15 for halftime, etc.), you average one score every 38 minutes. Playoff hockey, a well-pitched baseball game, or a football game hardly do better. Sorry, but your no scoring argument demonstrates you do not understand sports. Football lasts 210 minutes and you may see six touchdowns -- a similar goal/minute average. Playoff hockey is worse. Baseball is probably better unless there are decent pitchers. Remember when an ERA of above 3.50 wasn't that great? Today's bad pitching means longer games. I will argue that baseball would now be dead if it weren't for the socialist-like subsidy they receive from the government. What team with a bad stadium is thriving? Once local governments built great stadiums, people came to see the Mariners, Indians and Giants again. I could keep going. 2) Americans do not accept foreign sports is another myth. We love winning. When U.S. soccer starts kicking the hell out of world powers, they will command attention. The sports media got humiliated during the Women's World Cup. The mainstream media totally scooped you "experts." If SportsCenter ran continuous MLS coverage every night, soccer would be much cooler. If sports radio guys talked about their local teams, it would keep people interested. Soccer doesn't need 80,000 fans/game. In fact, there are only about 10 teams in the world who can do that. Soccer needs 15,000-20,000, a subsidized, hip stadium and objective media coverage to thrive. 3) Americans don't get soccer is another argument. Too many play it to not get it. That doesn't mean it will ever command NFL-like ratings. However, it will command hockey-like ratings, which means ridiculously high TV money will irrationally follow. In fact, on cable the ratings are very close. And, soccer does it without the hype, the media coverage, the advertising from ESPN. This should scare you. 4) Soccer should strive to fall in behind the NHL in the hierarchy of US sport. A good franchise like N.Y. or Chicago will draw an average of 20,000 people to 15 home games. The payroll comes no where close to that of a hockey, and operating costs are less. The TV money is not there yet compared to hockey. However, if the NHL gets $300M and splits it 30 ways, each team only gets $10M. That pays for one good shift on the ice. Now they have to rely on gate receipts. 15,000 fans times 41 home games only leaves 615,000 fans at $50/ticket or $30M for a team to pay the rest of its players and very high operating costs. NHL teams travel constantly. A soccer team once every two weeks. NHL must buy considerable ice time for practice. Pro soccer needs grass. The N.Y. team would gross about $6M, but has a much lower payroll and operating costs. Guess what? They are going to be as financially successful now as your hockey team.
Soccer is already wildly successful here. Its pro league has lasted six years without a franchise move. Several soccer stadiums are about to be built for MLS teams. The league bleeds red ink, but it has now reached a point where operating revenues have a hope of covering costs. Once that happens, you are in trouble, because the league is here to stay. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago all will have soccer-specific stadiums soon. Unfortunately, they may become socialist and rely on handouts from the government the way baseball does. If that is the case, you are in more trouble, because then soccer will definitely endure. The sport is a niche sport in the U.S. Now I ask that the U.S. media treat it objectively, report on it for goodness sake, and give it what it deserves -- the air time and ink hockey, women's tennis or women's basketball receive. And, the objectivity.
I speak as the outsider looking in. I am an Englishman and I was weaned on soccer. It has, quite naturally, become my obsession -- as baseball, basketball or football has to you. In some aspects I agree with the take of your columnist, most significantly that of the cultural incompatibility of soccer in the U.S. This is primarily because of the American desire for instant gratifying action in the sports that they watch. Each sport provides its own derivative of this principle, be it the breakdown of a football game into plays, each individual score in basketball or baseball's short, sharp innings. Soccer, in contrast, is a patient game, where teams will tend to feel each other out before deciding on a course of action. In soccer, there is no instant, notable progression to victory except the scoring of a goal. Anything else is naught in comparison. This is probably the major reason why American sporting values do not fit easily on to soccer's frame. The 'Oh, what an amazing run' comment is typical of this, where a commentator has attempted to impose gratification on an audience, only for it to trivialize the moment and make the punter switch over. This is not how the game works, therefore turns the viewer back to what he or she knows. However, I would like to contrast the suggestion put forward that the essence of controlling a ball with the feet or head is a clumsy one; it is this form of control that gives the game most of its appeal. The main method of control in football and basketball is the hands. Someone throws. You catch. In soccer, for someone to kick and you to trap is far more complex, hard to perfect and a treat to see done correctly. Do not assume that real control by foot and head does not exist. Footage of Johan Cruyff, Pele, George Best should make you reconsider. An article by Bill Bryson, an American writing in the London Times during the Sydney Olympics, sums up the general view. he was watching the table tennis and became enthralled by the level of skill on display. Later on he decided to go and watch the fencing. After about half an hour he became bored and contemplated returning to the table tennis, only to realize that a similar level of skill was on show here, but he was just unaware of it. I'll end by saying that I'm sorry that America has never taken to the game I love, but I believe in a way that the lack of interest may have helped, eliminating any possibility of U.S.-dominated predictability in the world game.
Mr. Deford needs to realize that this isn't the America of the 50's. Last time I heard, salsa now outsells ketchup. The American public's tastes change. Just think about the dismal NBA season or the dropping popularity of baseball. Basking in his pseudo-intellectualism, Mr. Deford has forgotten one of the most fascinating aspects of America: its ability to assimilate other cultures. We soccer fans don't want our sport to be like the Big 3 1/2. We just want a little respect.
Frank, you're right, futbal is for aficionados (fanatics) and as long as American sports fans consider a spectator sport as "how much food can I eat while in a sedentary position", the sport will never usurp preciously boring American-centric games where the winners are dubbed "world champions." Enjoy your seventh-inning stretch!
As a sports fan, I also enjoy the world's game -- soccer. If soccer is not on the American sports radar, then Mr. Deford would not be writing about it at all. But the best evidence for the inroads soccer has made can be attributed by its appearance in an SI article. Perhaps as a sports writer Mr. Deford needs to attend a soccer game before he passes judgment.
Well, five years ago I would have agreed to most of what the article states, especially the immigrant part. As an immigrant I abandoned soccer once I arrived here some 20 years ago. Only recently I tried soccer again. To my surprise, I began enjoying another dimension of my life that I had left long ago. Upon reflecting on this and integrating my American business experience I come to two conclusions, which contradict the article premises. First, when I moved here I practically shed my way of life to embrace someone else's. Only after many ups and downs (luckily many more ups then downs) I realized that my way of life is as unique as anyone else. Second, the distribution channels to deliver soccer to a broader audience have been blocked by the competition. This, of course, is purely American and clearly should not be an excuse. In conclusion, I now do not have to abandon my way of life and I feel blessed that I can take my daughter to see the Earthquakes just down the street.
I appreciate [Frank] Deford's article. He has great insight into the sports he covers and knows. However, though his conclusions that soccer will never catch on here in the U.S. may have some merit, they are only an opinion. I think that his lack of appreciation for soccer is due to his never having played the sport on a regular basis, and his feeling of "having soccer stuffed down his throat" makes soccer even more distasteful. Shame on us soccer lovers for thinking that everyone should love the sport. Chances of me loving baseball are the same as Peter loving futbol. That is why there are so many sports -- for all the different personal passions. The one thing that I appreciate about the article is that he took time to write about soccer! Go Frank Deford. I hope you find it in your heart to write another article about soccer here in America, even if it's a personal critique.
Apparently Frank didn't read the book or didn't understand it. If soccer is not making it, why write two pages denying it's existence?
America won't be "converted" to appreciating any sport. Soccer is growing because of a) more youth participation (more than baseball) b) a more diverse population (see Census 2000).
Please change the name of your magazine to American Sports Illustrated. It is an embarrassment that you can print an article with this subject matter. So Frank doesn't like soccer. Why give this two pages of article space? I am sure you have other writers who don't like football, baseball etc. Would you ever publish a similar article by them? Your magazine has become a joke; I wish the highly successful The National was still around.
Did Mr. Deford watch Clint Mathis 60-yard dribble for a score or Cobi Jones dribble through three defenders? Do those plays celebrate the frustration of soccer?
| |||||||||||||||
