Football v. Soccer

You'll remember earlier this week that I asked a question about debate methodology. It was a clever trap. Momentary Academic fell into said trap. Her first salvo is on her blog over here. You should read that before you read my response below.


GSR moderates and scores the debate for us. His comments are in italics.

********

The distinguished gentle-woman from The District of Columbia makes a valid and important point about athletics in general. Everyone gets the opportunity at low skill levels to participate and improve their personal health.

I should note that never once in the history of my writing have I ever mentioned my shapely arms gripping the handlebars of my bike. You might be adding in your own fantasizing. I think that's super.

At this point, I should write a quick disclaimer stating that I have the utmost respect for athletes professional and otherwise regardless of what sport they choose. I make no judgements on the validity of soccer, indeed, I find many positive aspects of its game play, first and foremost that it is an activity that adds to the health of an individual.

Your central and eloquent argument pirouettes in a gentle declining orbit about a misguided point. That point, namely that soccer is the most accessible sport, is incorrect. I believe you fail to make the area of amateur and non-professional sport equally available to all sports in your argument. I remember many an afternoon with my brothers playing the game of football with nothing more than a vague imaginary line drawn between two convenient trees or fence posts. With only a ball, we were totally able to play an approximation of the sport. In fact, we could have changed the shape of the ball and just as easily have been playing soccer in the same yard.

If I were to choose one sport where equipment is truly a non-issue, I would choose as my sport wrestling. There are no real requirements save two competing egos.

This debate is, however, soccer vs. football.

My preference for football rests on the simple fact that it balances so well the kinesthetic and intellectual. Football is an incredibly intelligent sport, in fact more intelligent than any sport of which I am aware including soccer. While soccer is an exciting and very strenuous approximation of a tactical environment, the sport never satisfies the overarching definition of real-time strategy. I should mention here that the definitions of tactics and strategy I am using are standard military.

The purpose of contact sport is to simulate warfare or battle. Football simulates warfare on a larger scale than does soccer. In the real world, divorced I realize from the arena of sport, a nation going to war will utilize several totally disparate forces and resources toward the accomplishment of the goal, victory. They will mobilize strategic bombers to fly high and slow, they will utilize sea-borne assets with long range strike capabilities, special forces, etc. These assets will not operate in the same capacity as their teammates, or even their fellow services, none of which are nicknamed after the goddess of fire.

While soccer will have several possible plays and tactics available and certain players who specialize on the field, football has three different types of players who do not share the field. Defense, offense, and special teams function as strategic assets fighting the clock and the efforts of the other team. In this way, football better simulates warfare, and soccer better simulates an individual skirmish. I would prefer to see the strategy in a real sense on the field simultaneous to tactical feats.


As the moderator of this debate allow me to welcome both of the participants. The lovely lady from D.C. is someone I have known now for almost 5 years. The gentleman from Colorado is someone who has insulted me and intellectually jabbed me from the moment that I met him. To help balance this seemingly unfair dynamic The Momentary Academic is arguing for soccer, a sport that I never enjoyed playing or watching. Casey is arguing for football, which is the most tangible proof that there is a benevolent God in heaven that we mere humans can witness. So all in all, I should be able to stay impartial-ish.

In this first round of the debate M.A. does a nice job of playing the sympathy card. Her arguement that soccer can be enjoyed by many, regardless of income level, is quite compelling. It is supported by the overwhelming popularity of the sport in third world countries where the price of a baseball glove or a football helmet for each member of a team could be equal to the cost of a families annual income, but one coveted soccer ball can be enjoyed by the masses.

Casey, on the other hand, has done an excellent job pointing out that one football can also be enjoyed by a veritable neighborhood's worth of children. Having first hand experience playing backyard football with 7-10 friends, I can attest to the fact that the only pieces of "equipment" needed to have a backyard game of football are the ball, a working set of feet/hands, and some trees to serve as the goal marker.

More importantly, for the sake of the debate, Casey has done an excellent job of talking about the strategy involved in playing the game of football. His comparisons to modern warfare are impressive, and my one critique is that for those of us who have never gone to battle he could have at least worked in a Stratego analogy. But I digress...

The winner of this first round is Casey. He is awarded one point based on the merits of his arguements.