I was going to let this one slide, but after seeing some amazing displays of athleticism this weekend I am now motivated to do otherwise. Last week the Weekly Standard published an
article on its website equating soccer to nihilism. A little taste:
Mostly soccer is just guys in shorts running around aimlessly, a metaphor for the meaninglessness of life. Whole blocks of game time transpire during which absolutely nothing happens. Fortunately, this permits fans to slip out for a bratwurst and a beer without missing anything important. It's little wonder fans at times resort to brawling amongst themselves in the grandstands, as there is so little transpiring on the field of play to occupy their wandering attention. Watching men in shorts scampering around has its limitations. It's like gazing too long at a painting by de Kooning or Jackson Pollock. The more you look, the less there is to see.
The authors attempt at art criticism should speak to the authority of their ability to examine aesthetics. Analogies aside, the authors are guilty of using the tired cliché that soccer players are effeminate, as is perpetually retread by sports talk radio hosts like Jim Rome, as their opening salvo. No one has ever accused basketball players of being "men in shorts scampering around," but according to the Standard's logic that is in essence what the implication is. Just come out and say it, lads: Soccer players are
gay!
But this is no mere article - this is a genuine think piece. The authors decided to take what they believe to be a justified assumption and demonstrate how it is true. Just as I'm sure they believe homosexuality is an affront to human nature, so too is soccer. They even offer an evolutionary argument to back their claim up:
[S]occer will never enthrall Americans [because] the game is contrary to nature. What is it that is unique to the physical makeup of human beings that sets us apart from the animal world? Two things: Our large brains and our grasping hands with opposable thumbs. Our big brain is why we're called homo sapiens, thinking man. And our ability to use our hands to grasp and manipulate objects is why one of our early ancestors was designated homo habilis, handy man. Human beings are thinking toolmakers...
Yet soccer flies in the face of nature. In almost all other sports, the head is protected against injury. Players wear helmets and try to avoid contact with sticks, bats, balls, elbows, fists, roadways, goalposts and other things that might inflict injury on that big brain that gives humans the ability to plan ahead, calculate, strategize, coordinate eye and hand movements, anticipate the consequence of actions--in other words, to play the game.
But soccer players use their heads, deliberately, to contact the ball. This is contrary to all human instinct, which is to keep the head out of the way of danger. Duck, you idiot! Protecting the head against injury is deeply rooted in our nature. It's an evolutionary survival response. Sacrifice a limb if you must, give up an arm or leg, but protect your head at all costs. Yet in soccer the player is encouraged, no, expected to hit the ball with his head. This is as stupid an action as a human being can undertake.
Wouldn't any "leisure" activity that requires someone to put on a helmet then also "fly in the face of nature?" Baseball players put their heads inches away from 95 mile-an-hour fastballs three or four times a game - how is that any less "stupid?" American footballers are taught to take any shot to the head if it means keeping possession of the ball, does that make a whole lot of sense along the lines of the "evolutionary survival response?"
And then there's boxing. Now I'm sure the authors would respond by saying that the whole point of boxing is to not get hit in the head, but let's face it: if you step into the ring, chances are you're going to take a shot in the old melon. If a trainer tells you any differently, it's probably a good time to get a new trainer.
The point is that the risk of physical injury exists in all sports. We accept that risk because we're competitive by nature. Driving with a convoy of 40 cars going 200 miles an hour can, and has, lead to instant death - is that any more preferable?
But Cannon & Lessner aren't done talking Darwin just yet:
Secondly, any game which prohibits the use of the hands is contrary to nature...
Soccer denies its players this most basic human ability. Players cannot catch or throw the ball. But they can hit it with their heads. If one were to set out to invent a game fundamentally at odds with human nature, soccer would be it. Place the head with its big brain in constant danger, and prohibit the use of the hands. Soccer denies to its players the very attributes that make human beings, the thinking toolmaker, human.
What a load of bullshit. The whole enterprise of soccer is the very model of the "thinking toolmaking" man the authors seem to suggest is the "meaning" of humanity. What makes soccer so beautiful is that it's counterintuitive, the manifestation of our desire to do something with a part of our body (our feet) that we normally use simply for transportation. In this way we're using our feet as a tool because we are utilizing them in ways that they are not necessarily made for. Opposable thumbs wouldn't be worth a lick if we didn't have the urge to do something with them and it's that same "natural" instinct that encourages us to create with our feet. Christ, didn't you guys ever see My Left Foot?
As a parting cheap shot, the two authors argue, with an almost admirable candor, that soccer players are lower than pack animals:
Actually, the donkey would have a significant advantage over humans in soccer. It has four legs rather than two. The donkey has no hands or opposable thumbs, nor any need of them in order to play soccer. And smashing its head into a soccer ball probably would not cause any diminution of equine IQ. Soccer, then, would appear to be a game better suited to dim-witted quadrupeds than to human beings.
Get it? Donkey, jack ass...boy, these guys sure are clever. But they're not done yet. Check out the italicized "about the authors" post-script at the end of the article:
Frank Cannon and Richard Lessner, consultants with Capital City Partners, have spent most of the World Cup watching ESPN re-runs of the world's strongest man contest
Seriously, my laughter is uncontainable. That's some great journalism, fellas. Does this mean that the Weekly Standard will let me do research for an article on the emergence of China as a world power by sitting on the couch and watching re-runs of "Hee-Haw"?
I do have to hand it too you though, you did manage to bring the article back to the soccer-players = gay meme by protesting the most popular sporting event in the world by watching Scandinavian body builders tow airplanes. I can't think of a better way to prove that soccer is a "game about nothing, in which scoring is purely incidental, holds scant interest for Americans who still believe the world makes sense, that life has a larger meaning and structure, that being is not an end in itself, being qua being."
My suggestion for Cannon & Lessner: stop being so coy and come out and say it. Your beef isn't with a game. Soccer is simply a convenient metaphor for multi-lateralism. If you really wanted to find a fault with the game of soccer, you should have gone with diving. It's the most frustrating thing about the game. I personally can't stand to see players take dives to exaggerate the hostility of the opposition and you folks at the Standard might know a thing or two about exaggerating threats.
And here's a thesis for your next article: "European players are destroying basketball with their team play, concentration on the fundamentals, and their pre-9/11 mindsets."
It's a far more direct approach.