Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Soccer is also the only sport in the world that has "hooligans"--proletarian mobs that trash private property whenever their team loses.

I guess that rioting by Lakers fans was make-believe.

Posted by: History Punk | July 5, 2010 9:16 AM

I don't suppose it's possible that this was written tongue-in-cheek, is it?

Posted by: flatlander100 | July 5, 2010 9:23 AM

but can you imagine a Major League Baseball team going on strike in the middle of the World Series

Yes, it already occurred and resulted in the cancelling of the 1994 World Series.

Posted by: History Punk | July 5, 2010 9:28 AM

Actually, it is the American sports that are more "socialist". They have greater levels of sharing of wealth between the teams. The access to new players is dependent on how shit you were in the last season, so that is a redistribution of talent. And there is even a wage cap. Add to that the more powerful players unions that are present in American sports and the case is pretty much ironclad.

Posted by: Donalbain | July 5, 2010 9:36 AM

Funny, I'm a libertarian and I like soccer. I've been watching the World Cup religiously since 1990. I also coached youth soccer at the Y, and despite the great mythology of no score keeping, we did keep score. I remember it very well, because my team was almost always on the losing end, by a lot.

And extending donalbain's point, if Thiessen had done any research, he'd know that European soccer is very capitalistic. So capitalistic in fact that half of European soccer teams are on the verge of financial collapse because they've been overspending on talent. It's a huge capitalistic crisis that may require bailing out by the government...hmm, where have we seen that before?

Posted by: James Hanley | July 5, 2010 10:21 AM

I'm surprised he didn't mention the biggest socialist sin of the sport - all anyone needs to play the game is a ball. Yes, you can get special shoes and shin guards later, but to play all you need is a ball. What the hell?!?! That means even poor children can participate! How fair is that, you friggin' commies?!?!?!
(The problem with that angle is it also applies to basketball (as long as there is a basket somewhere), and America dominates basketball so it can't be socialist).

Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | July 5, 2010 10:25 AM

As a counter to the no score keeping in soccer which I never encountered, we used to do that in T-ball. You know baseball for little guys and girls. Everyone got to bat, regardless of the outs. Everyone played a field position even if there were more than 9. When a rare hit was made, if the player ran the wrong way we still cheered.

It was only when the kids got older and the coaches and parents started to take the game a wee bit too seriously did I give it up. The coach's kid always played shortstop and the parents cursed the umpire and the players who made an error.

Ah, the memories of American sports.

Posted by: MikeMa | July 5, 2010 10:29 AM

Hrafn: Can we demand that the American sport change its name to "handball" or similar (for truth-in-advertising reasons)?

How about "Pauseball"? Or "Ad-breakdancing"? Or "Padding Polo"?

Posted by: Amadan | July 5, 2010 10:37 AM

Speaking of not keeping score; two words: Street Hockey. There are two sports played here: Hockey and dodging when the dreaded car arrives to slow the game down. Besides; don't most games not played seriously care about the score even when they do keep it?

---Hooligans! In other places they riot when their teams lose. In America they riot when their teams win! ---

Unless it's professional wrestling and it involves John Cena. Then it's the former.

Thissen's arguments aren't even in a ballpark; they are in something I cannot put my thumb on at this time. Even Jim Rome had better arguments for hating soccer than this loser.

Personally; I was hoping that the new soccer ball being used would give higher scores and make the game more exciting. No such luck; unless it's North Korea who were basically hapless.

Posted by: Gregory Weagle | July 5, 2010 10:44 AM

If soccer/football is a socialist game then why do so many teams (MSL and European) wear logos of their teams' sponsors?

What an ignorant statement by by Theissen, but then again I've come to expect nothing less from the man.

Posted by: CHV | July 5, 2010 10:51 AM

Thiessen: ""No hands" is a rule only a European statist could love."

Funny - isn't "hands-off" also typically used as a metaphor for laissez-faire/capitalist systems?

What a dolt

Posted by: jaybird | July 5, 2010 10:54 AM

What's that you said, Marc? I'm sorry. It's just that I can't hear your pathetic whine over all th-BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

Posted by: djfav | July 5, 2010 10:56 AM

"Even Jim Rome had better arguments for hating soccer than this loser."

Jim Rome is pathetic, his own kid plays soccer.

Posted by: st.ace | July 5, 2010 11:05 AM

Thiessen might take note of basketball's hostile attitude toward property rights - you're not even allowed to carry the ball with you when you relocate! Outrageous.

Posted by: Scott Hanley | July 5, 2010 11:32 AM

Funny stuff. One of the first thing my students learn is that the opposable thumb is our link to our relatives, not something that we can consider a human characteristic. Talking about our human foot would make much more sense, but I guess that whole running on two legs thing that separates us from the other primates is incorporated into too many sports to justify any political snarkiness.

Posted by: anatomyprof | July 5, 2010 11:38 AM

Did anyone mention that unlike the commonplace salary caps in North American professional sports, European soccer leagues have yet to introduce salary caps?

Posted by: Dr X | July 5, 2010 12:01 PM

Thumbs: Homo sapiens, a mess of other primates, pandas, koalas, and possums -- just off the top of my head -- all have either opposable thumbs or digits that are opposable.

Posted by: Barrayaran | July 5, 2010 12:18 PM

And the win goes to Jaybird @21!

kehrsam is a close second. But since we're boosting capitalism here, Jaybird doesn't have to share any of the several internets he's won with Mr. E.

Posted by: James Hanley | July 5, 2010 12:32 PM

European soccer leagues also have promotion/relegation. That is, teams that do poorly are relegated into a lower league, and teams that do well are promoted into a higher league. Doesn't sound very socialist to me.

This does lead to strange situations, like having the third tier of English soccer called "League One", but whatever.

Also, in English soccer at least, teams that declare bankruptcy are automatically docked ten points.

Posted by: Adrian W. | July 5, 2010 12:56 PM

Cristiano Ronaldo was transferred from Man United to Real Madrid for 80 million £ (that's a good 120 million USD). But of course next season Ronaldo will be transferred to the least successful team for free, this being a socialist sport and all.

Posted by: nuspirit | July 5, 2010 1:20 PM

As someone who isn't much of a sports fan, I may be missing the nuances of the various games. But why a rule preventing the use of hands is more socialist than a rule preventing carrying a ball around without dribbling or one specifying where each player must stand is beyond me.

Kathy, that's because you are not an idiot.

Posted by: History Punk | July 5, 2010 1:49 PM

But wouldn't the Republican approach to business regulation be described as "hands-off"?

(...not to mention "kicking people when they're down, and then walking all over them".)

Posted by: Woozle | July 5, 2010 2:16 PM

"Football combines the two worst things about America: it is violence punctuated by committee meetings." George Will

Mr. Will was of course referring to American football. If the action of an average game were played without stops, then the game would take 20 minutes. Soccer is non-stop for 90 minutes.

All you need to watch of an average basketball game is the last two minutes as long as the game is not a blowout. This is true even during March Madness, March Madness is fun because the telecasts cherry pick the last two minutes of four games simulataneously.

Baseball is pretty dull unless you are at the ballpark. Be honest, do the majority of Americans watch baseball games on the TV before September.

Soccer may not be for everyone, but watching the US beat Algeria to go from elimination to qualifying for the round of 16 was extremely exciting as the game built to Landon Donovan scoring the game winning goal.

Posted by: DobyGS | July 5, 2010 2:43 PM

Dogmeat- High School and College football are older than the NFL but that does not change that for at least the last 60 years the NFL is the top form of football in this country, that you can count the number of players drafted in the first few rounds that have turned down an NFL offer (2 of whom played another professional sport) on one hand after an industrial accident. And the rules that limit the NFL from accessing prep talent are all self imposed rules that the NFL has gone to court to enforce.

I love football but the comment that the game is about 20 minutes of action is not that far off. The game clock might be 60 minutes but most of the time is run off in between plays.

Posted by: Jim | July 5, 2010 3:14 PM

Ummm, given that the game clock is 60 minutes, that is physically impossible.

But in many situations, the clock continues to run between plays. I wouldn't be surprised if there were only 20 minutes of actual game play in an American Football game.

Posted by: argystokes | July 5, 2010 4:10 PM

"At this year's World Cup, the French national team actually went on strike in the middle of the tournament on the eve of an elimination match. (Yes, capitalist sports have experienced labor disputes, but can you imagine a Major League Baseball team going on strike in the middle of the World Series?)"

Uh oh. No one tell Thiessen about the 1919 Chicago White Sox! He must not have seen Eight Men Out (which is a shame, because it's one of the best sports movies ever). They didn't strike, but they arranged to throw the World Series in exchange for cash which led to eight players being banned for life.

Also, the French didn't "strike". They played awful and were in last place in their group after two matches. This caused one of their best players (Nicolas Anelka) to go on a tirade against the coach who sent Anelka home. The rest of the team was fed up with everything and refused to practice for a day. That's it. They acted like a bunch of spoiled brats and went out in a classic French blaze of glory (which was quite hilarious). They didn't "strike". Players in all sports throw hissy fits. It happens in American sports all the time when players demand trades or don't work hard on the field.

It's also worth pointing out that almost every youth sport these days has leagues here and there that don't keep score and give out trophies to everyone. I remember asking the coaches what the score was in t-ball as a little kid and not getting an answer. It's stupid to not keep track..sports are about winning and losing and kids are capable of handling that...but it's hardly unique to youth soccer.

The thing about "proletarian mobs"...well, obviously Thiessen has never been to a Philadelphia Eagles game. Actually, what does Thiessen think about hockey? Hockey actually condones bare-knuckle fist-fights as a way of settling scores and the only penalty for doing so is 5 minutes in the penalty box (I LOVE hockey by the way and fully support fighting so I'm not dissing it). Go to a Penguins-Flyers game and see the mob in effect, on and off the ice.

And as others have pointed out, football is a sport of haves and have nots. Something like 25% of all the salaries in all of Europe are paid out in the English Premier League and most of that is dominated by 5 or 6 clubs, predominantly based in London and Manchester, the two biggest cities in England. Clubs like Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Tottenham, Bayern Munich, AC Milan, Inter Milan, Real Madrid, Barcelona, and Lyon dominate their domestic leagues because they have much more money to spend than smaller clubs. American sports are dominated by salary caps and revenue sharing. Even baseball, which is notoriously biased towards high-spending teams like the Yankees and Red Sox, has revenue sharing (which is why my Pirates churn out a profit every year despite not having a winning season since 1992).

This moron's wrong on every single count here. Not that we should be surprised.

Posted by: Ryan | July 5, 2010 5:06 PM

According to one of my high school science teachers (and our school's assistant coach), the average time per game actually spent playing by any individual player is three minutes. Having seen football, I can easily believe this.

Captain Mike,

Given that a high school game is shorter, 12 minute quarters, unless the school is small/critically short on players, most players only play offense or defense, and generally coaches rotate players in to allow as many players to play, I'd say somewhere between 5-10 minutes.

High School and College football are older than the NFL but that does not change that for at least the last 60 years the NFL is the top form of football in this country,

That still doesn't confirm the claim that the NFL is subsidized by the state through the high school and college football programs. The fact that kids who are selected in the draft, especially those chosen in the first three rounds, choose to play also doesn't confirm that claim, it confirms that people, when selected for a highly lucrative and socially valued career tend to accept that offer. A 3rd round pick for the NFL in 2008 was guaranteed nearly $700,000. How many 22 year old kids do you know would say, "nah, thanks, I'd rather work at the Gap..."?

Posted by: dogmeat | July 5, 2010 5:15 PM

I don't really understand why Americans don't like soccer. Some people say that it's because the score is not high, but they like to watch hockey, which often has a similar score as soccer. Some say that it isn't fast enough, but watching a game of soccer it's easily faster than baseball or football. Some people say that the field is too big, but I don't think that it's any bigger than American Football (correct me if I'm wrong). Some people say that it's because of the melodramatic falls people take, but we revel in the antic in tennis.

Perhaps it's because of the sum of all the things that people don't like in other sports: the lack of speed in most of a baseball game, the low scores of a hockey game, the melodramatic fits of tennis, and the outlandishly large fields of American football.

I always thought it was because American TV sponsors can't make lots of money from soccer, but that's just me being a "socialist" who rails against the ability of the free market from running my life via brainwashing commercials.

Posted by: mercurianferret | July 5, 2010 7:08 PM

The "20 minutes within 60" comment for NFL football is correct as far as I am concerned. I have NFL Sunday Ticket, and I can confirm that if you pick the right 3 games each starting at the same time, it is possible to watch nearly every play in all 3 of the games if you channel switch, because "dead time" in 2 games is "live time" in the third game.

Posted by: Graham Shevlin | July 5, 2010 7:26 PM

No one has yet mentioned that in most football leagues around the world they have a system of relegation and promotion. The bottom three teams in the league get relegated to the next lower league, and the top teams (usually 1 & 2 with 3-6 having a playoff for the third spot) from the lower leagues get promoted.

Also it is a table system so the team with the best record wins. No playoffs, which give lesser teams a socialist leg up. It's a meritocracy, not a farm system. Can you imagine the Orioles, Pirates and D-backs being relegated to a lower league and the Durham Bulls, the Iron Pigs and the Bailjumpers all getting promoted to the bigs? Ha! What a hoot!

Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | July 5, 2010 9:16 PM

The reason Americans find soccer boring is simple. They don't understand it. It's not just about kicking the ball around. There are rules and strategies and it is in fact a complex sport. But then a lot of people find football boring for the same reason. Imagine watching the Giants play the Packers and not understand the rules. It would bore you to tears.

Posted by: Tom | July 5, 2010 9:34 PM

This strongly reminded me of something which John Kenneth Galbraith wrote a number of years ago:

And because the real world is so funny, there is almost nothing you can do, short of labeling a joke a joke, to keep people from taking it seriously. A few years ago in Harper's I invented the theory that socialism in our time was the result of our dangerous addiction to team sports. The ethic of the team is all wrong for free enterprise. The code words are cooperation; team spirit; accept leadership; the coach is always right. Authoritarianism is sanctified; the individualist is a poor team player, a menace. All this our vulnerable adolescents learn. I announced the formation of an Organization to combat this deadly trend and to promote boxing and track instead. I called it the C.I.A. — Congress for Individualist Athletics. Hundreds wrote in to Harper's asking to join. Or demanding that baseball be exempted. A batter is on his own. I presented the letters to the Kennedy Library.

Posted by: Steve Morrison | July 5, 2010 10:54 PM

This is a joke right? Or at least intended as humour? (this is serious, non rhetorical question)

Oh and Toby: the authoritarian elites (or 'FIFA', Feudal Individual Finance Accumulators)heavily regulate the brave individualist goalies. They make them wear gloves, in order to shackle the liberating power of the individual's opposable thumbs.

Posted by: Coryat | July 6, 2010 7:13 AM

I don't suppose it's possible that this was written tongue-in-cheek, is it?

Is this a sort of Dave Barrys'-style satire?
If it was written seriously, it is seriously dumb

It's possible that Thiessen and the guy he linked to at American Thinker were trying to write like Dave Barry, but I've read Dave Berry, and . . . (do I really need to finish?)

Wright, at AT, claims that the offside rule in soccer stifles initiative. No more so than the offside rules in gridiron football, lacrosse and hockey, volleyball's rotation, the three-second rule in basketball, baseball's balk and infield-fly rules, football's illegal motion. It's hard to think of any sport that doesn't have restrictions on play to ensure some semblance of fairness.

Could it be that these self-styled right-wing intellectuals just don't like fairness?

Posted by: Pieter B | July 6, 2010 3:29 PM