2 ms·

This is the most american centric take I’ve seen all week! Bravo! There are many other nations with just as much influence in sports outside of the US. The onl

by snakey 2mo ago

This is the most american centric take I’ve seen all week! Bravo! There are many other nations with just as much influence in sports outside of the US. The only difference being that the US doesn’t care about them. Football is a global game, everyone’s, not another thing for the US to dictate and ruin.

vehemenz 2mo ago
I'm American, so I'm not sure who your comment is for. Anti-Americanism isn't a "gotcha" to me. If anything, it's confirmation of the persistent asymmetry in these discussions. Football (or basketball, if you're Lithuanian) is a massive cultural institution in many parts of the world. The difference is that sports—just sports—are the institution in America. We could look at revenues, but that's far too easy. Look at the whole picture. Look at youth participation, women's sports, college sports. It's not comparable anywhere else. For football specifically, the current situation is that a handful of European countries control the best leagues and consistently have the best international squads. This isn't changing anytime soon. The game is already owned by a group of elite countries—almost exclusively in Europe, benefitting from geography, mutual competition, and visa gatekeeping—and one confederation (UEFA). The fact that the game shouldn't be "ruined" (or latent anti-Americanism) suggests you're okay with this situation. You didn't comment on rule enforcement or cynical play either, but I assume you're okay with those things or take them for granted. Americans see football through the lens of other sports, because we are a sporting culture, and football is one of many. All the "American" sports have their problems too, but we don't pretend they don't for phony reasons. But we also have choices and exercise those choices. Footballing nations, I get the impression, see all sports through the lens of football. I often wonder whether fans in footballing countries genuinely like their sport for what it is or whether it's just a narcissistic cultural inheritance.
- jrflowers 2mo ago
  Please talk more about how not wanting things ruined is anti-Americanism
  - stonedivot 2mo ago
    Please attempt to read the comment in depth before replying.
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
  - vehemenz 2mo ago
    Again, if you don't want things ruined, then that implies that you don't think football, in its current state, is not already ruined. This isn't a position you've earned, you're just assuming it. And it's awkward to defend because, as I've already stated, the status quo is: colonial powers controlling the game at the pro/international level, bad and inconsistent officiating, normalization of cynical/unsportsmanlike play, and massive corruption. As an American, these are easy to see because we have the advantage of a massive sporting culture. We have salary caps to enforce parity and scrutinize our own leagues' rules. There is a competitive marketplace for sports. If things are broken, people stop watching. What about the US's influence in improving soccer would ruin it further? Moreover, do you understand your own sport well enough to make the judgment?
    - jrflowers 2mo ago
      I love the references to a massive sporting culture in America while talking about a sport that has an order of magnitude more fans than there are Americans on the planet. Your point about salary caps is interesting. It is good that we have these because otherwise you’d see something crazy, like the Dodgers simply buying a winning team with heretofore unseen amounts of money
- lentil_soup 2mo ago
  > The difference is that sports—just sports—are the institution in America. What does this mean? I'm really trying to understand what you're saying but I don't get it. Are you saying that other countries don't have a sport culture like the US? What makes you think that?

by snakey 2mo ago

vehemenz 2mo ago

I'm American, so I'm not sure who your comment is for. Anti-Americanism isn't a "gotcha" to me. If anything, it's confirmation of the persistent asymmetry in these discussions. Football (or basketball, if you're Lithuanian) is a massive cultural institution in many parts of the world. The difference is that sports—just sports—are the institution in America. We could look at revenues, but that's far too easy. Look at the whole picture. Look at youth participation, women's sports, college sports. It's not comparable anywhere else. For football specifically, the current situation is that a handful of European countries control the best leagues and consistently have the best international squads. This isn't changing anytime soon. The game is already owned by a group of elite countries—almost exclusively in Europe, benefitting from geography, mutual competition, and visa gatekeeping—and one confederation (UEFA). The fact that the game shouldn't be "ruined" (or latent anti-Americanism) suggests you're okay with this situation. You didn't comment on rule enforcement or cynical play either, but I assume you're okay with those things or take them for granted. Americans see football through the lens of other sports, because we are a sporting culture, and football is one of many. All the "American" sports have their problems too, but we don't pretend they don't for phony reasons. But we also have choices and exercise those choices. Footballing nations, I get the impression, see all sports through the lens of football. I often wonder whether fans in footballing countries genuinely like their sport for what it is or whether it's just a narcissistic cultural inheritance.

jrflowers 2mo ago
Please talk more about how not wanting things ruined is anti-Americanism
- stonedivot 2mo ago
  Please attempt to read the comment in depth before replying.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
- vehemenz 2mo ago
  Again, if you don't want things ruined, then that implies that you don't think football, in its current state, is not already ruined. This isn't a position you've earned, you're just assuming it. And it's awkward to defend because, as I've already stated, the status quo is: colonial powers controlling the game at the pro/international level, bad and inconsistent officiating, normalization of cynical/unsportsmanlike play, and massive corruption. As an American, these are easy to see because we have the advantage of a massive sporting culture. We have salary caps to enforce parity and scrutinize our own leagues' rules. There is a competitive marketplace for sports. If things are broken, people stop watching. What about the US's influence in improving soccer would ruin it further? Moreover, do you understand your own sport well enough to make the judgment?
  - jrflowers 2mo ago
    I love the references to a massive sporting culture in America while talking about a sport that has an order of magnitude more fans than there are Americans on the planet. Your point about salary caps is interesting. It is good that we have these because otherwise you’d see something crazy, like the Dodgers simply buying a winning team with heretofore unseen amounts of money
lentil_soup 2mo ago
> The difference is that sports—just sports—are the institution in America. What does this mean? I'm really trying to understand what you're saying but I don't get it. Are you saying that other countries don't have a sport culture like the US? What makes you think that?