The Other 'American Exceptionalism': Why Is There No Soccer in the United States? (WPS 1, 1986) ...

8/4/2019 The Other 'American Exceptionalism': Why Is There No Soccer in the United States? (WPS 1, 1986) Andrei S. Marko…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-other-american-exceptionalism-why-is-there-no-soccer-in-the 1/68

THE OTHER "AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM":

WHY IS THERE NO SOCCER IN THE UNITED STATES?

by Andrei S. Markovits Associate Professor of Political Science

Boston University &

Research AssociateHarvard Center for European Studies

Commentary by Charles S. Maier, Professor of History, Harvard University,and Senior Associate, Harvard Center for European Studies



1

Introduction

Once again, the world's most important media event which undoubtedly captured

the uninterrupted attention of most of the world's male population for the entire

month of June 1986, barely lef t the realm of esoterica in the United States.(l>

Although the quadrennial World Cup was hosted by America's southern neighbor,

Mexico, this event failed to capture the imagination of the American public.

Interest in the United States was strikingly minute in comparison to that exhibited

in virtually every country in the world, including those poli t ical ly and

economically most similar to the United States, i .e . the l iberal capitalist

democracies of Western Europe, as well as those quite different, i .e . members of the

Communist bloc or that loose conglomerate known as the -Third World".(2) Even

though American television coverage of World Cup '86 was more extensive than ever

before, this major global event remained outside of the mainstream of American

sports l i fe , le t alone public l i fe in general. (3 ) Why does the United States

continue to be so aloof with regard to the world's most popular sport? Why has

soccer played such a marginal role in th e public consciousness of this sports-crazed

society? What are the origins and ongoing mani festations of this other "American

Excepti onali sm"? This paper purports to shed some l ight on these interesting-

perhaps even important - questions.

SqIb.rt 8.yill ' td ADd Am.rie"1 Socc.r IIExctpUon.U1," , So. . cOlp.r.t ly.el . r t fic.tionl

Werner Sombart, l i ke virtually all European observers of the "New World" before

and after him, was both fascinated by and ambivalent .towards this country. The

ambivalence reflected the invariable combination of both negative and positive

generalizations based on the "uniqueness" of the United States as a European

extension with certain puzzling peculiar i t ies . (4) To Sombart, the most puzzling of

these IIAmericanisms" was the absence of a large, well-organized, mass-based working

class movement headed by a political party. Among the realist ic aims of this party

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/IIExctpUon.U1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/IIExctpUon.U1



2

would be the improvement of conditions fo r i ts members and voters, who hailed from

the working class and thus represented the majority of the population in all

industrial societ ies, including the United States. To achieve i ts aim, the party

would f i rs t attain and then exercise state power through the channels of

parliamentary democral:Y. t3iven Sombart's concern, his question "Why is there no

socialism in the United States?" i s rather misleading. Socialism did no t exist in

the Europe of his time either, thus making the United States quite unexceptional to

any country in the old world.(S) A fa r more appropriate though defini te ly less

elegant t i t l e fo r Sombart's book would have been "why is there no large,

organized, working class movement led by a social democratic party in the United

States?" One could think of few more corroborating compliments to the validity and

originali ty of the study's central observation though, than i t s continued relevance

as one of the most intellectually exciting bodies of l i terature in American history

and social science.(6)

The parallels to soccer are str iking. Just as Sombart noted the absence of

what he called "socialism", we too can observe a basic absence of soccer, as the

dominant participant and spectator team sport, in the United States throughout the

twentieth century. This is no t to say that soccer - l ike Sombart's "socialism"

ha s been completely absent from the American experience. Both appeared on these

shores vir tually concomitantly wi th their respective "inventions" in Europe and both

continue to flourish in various guises. Socialist part ies and movements have always

existed in twentieth century America, just l ike the game of soccer has been played

vir tually without any interruption in this vast country sincei ts

introduction in

the nineteenth century. (7 ) "Socialism's" fortunes have ebbed and flowed in the

larger context of American polit ics and intellectual l i fe without ever coming close

to attaining a dominant, le t alone hegemonic, position l ike in Europe.

Comparatively soccer ha s never posed any serious challenge to America's own "big

three" featuring baseball, football and the somewhat distant third of basketball.



3

O n ~ can s a f ~ l y p l " ~ d i c t that n ~ i t h ~ l " of t h ~ s ~ two " u n - A m ~ l " i c a n " p h ~ n o m ~ n a will

d i s a p p ~ a l " in t h ~ f u t u r ~ , thus l ~ n d i n g f U l " t h ~ r t ~ s t i m o n y to A m ~ l " i c a ' s plul"alism in

i n t ~ l l ~ c t u a l thought, polit ics and sports. I t is ~ q u a l l y s a f ~ to p l " ~ d i c t h o w ~ v ~ r ,

that n ~ i t h ~ r will a s s u m ~ a p l a c ~ of national p r o m i n ~ n c ~ in t h ~ U n i t ~ d S t a t ~ s ~ i t h ~ r . T h ~ i r a l r ~ a d y traditional l " o l ~ in A m ~ r i c a of b ~ i n g t o l ~ r a t ~ d , p ~ r h a p s ~ v ~ n

a p p r ~ c i a t ~ d , ~ c c ~ n t r i c i t i ~ s will thus c o n t i n u ~ . ( 8 ) I am not arguing that t h ~ r ~

~ x i s t s a d i r ~ c t l " ~ l a t i o n s h i p b ~ t w ~ ~ n t h ~ a b s ~ n c ~ of S O C C ~ l " and "socialism" in t h ~

U n i t ~ d S t a t ~ s w h ~ n c o m p a r ~ d to o t h ~ r industrial d ~ m o c r a c i ~ s . R a t h ~ r , I will try to

show that s o m ~ of t h ~ s a m ~ A m ~ r i c a n p ~ c u l i a r i t i ~ s which l ~ d to an A m ~ r i c a n

" ~ x c ~ p t i o n a l i s m " r ~ g a r d i n g "socialism" also account for t h ~ s u b o r d i n a t ~ p l a c ~ of

s o c c ~ r among A m ~ r i c a n sports.

That s o c c ~ r is r ~ l a t i v ~ l y insignificant to A m ~ r i c a n s is a p p a r ~ n t in that what

t h ~ r ~ s t of t h ~ world, with virtually rio ~ x c ~ p t i o n s , calls "football", A m ~ r i c a n s know only as " s o c c ~ r " . T h ~ p r ~ - ~ m i n ~ n c ~ of t h ~ t ~ r m "football" is ~ v i d ~ n c ~ d by t h ~

fact that in most non-English s p ~ a k i n g c o u n t r i ~ s w h ~ r ~ t h ~ sport has p r i d ~ of p l a c ~ ,

~ i t h ~ r the term "football" i t s ~ l f is u s ~ d , m o d i f i ~ d to conform to t h ~ s p ~ l l i n g ,

orthography and pronunciation of t h ~ local l a n g u a g ~ , or a l i t ~ r a l translation

t h ~ r ~ o f , such as t h ~ G ~ r m a n "Fussball" or t h ~ Hungarian "labdarugas". It is only in

c o u n t r i ~ s such as t h ~ U n i t ~ d S t a t ~ s , w h e r ~ t h ~ t ~ r m "football" d e s c r i b ~ s a n o t h ~ r

sport or w h ~ r ~ Association Football is of s ~ c o n d a r y i m p o r t a n c ~ , that t h ~ t ~ r m

" s o c c ~ r ' · i s used. Among t h ~ s ~ c o u n t r i ~ s h a v ~ b ~ ~ n A m ~ r i c a ' s cousins, most notably

Australia and Canada, but also N ~ w Z ~ a l a n d and the c o m p l i c a t ~ d c a s ~ of South Africa,

a l l - l ike the U n i t ~ d States - E n g l i s h - s p ~ a k i n g , f o r m ~ r British c o l o n i ~ s d o m i n a t ~ d

by W h i t ~ immigrants. D o ~ s this r ~ f u t ~ t h ~ case for "American ~ x c ~ p t i o n a l i s m " with

r ~ g a r d to s o c c ~ r , thus confining t h ~ validity of t h ~ c o n c ~ p t only to "socialism"?(9)

I think no t for t h ~ following two r ~ a s o n s . First , s o c c ~ r ' s subordinant position in

t h ~ sports topography of t h ~ U n i t ~ d S t a t ~ s , as w ~ l l as of t h ~ s ~ o t h ~ r English

s p ~ a k i n g c o u n t r i ~ s , should no t detract from t h ~ u n i q u ~ n ~ s s of t h ~ A m ~ r i c a n



4

si tuat ion, in which soccer's potential fo r eminence as a mass sport was preempted by

the creation of three indigenous team sports. Baseball, football and basketball

have continued to enjoy unrivaled 'popularity among the American public since their

respective introductions as mass sports. (10) Ic e hockey developed as Canada's

national sport . Having successfully exported i t south of the border, Canada

provided the United States with yet another, though regionally confined, popular

team sport and gave many countries of the globe's northern hemisphere one of their

favorite winter activit ies. The rest of Canada's popular sport "space" i s dominated

by America's "big three" though, with baseball and basketball exact replicas of the

American games, and Canadian football showing only very minor modifications from i ts

American cousin. Interestingly, Canada is among the handful of countries where the

two most parochial and idiosyncratic factors responsible fo r America's "soccer

exceptionalism" - football and baseball have attained a respectable presence

outside of the United States. Cricket occupies a major portion of New Zealand's,

Austral ia 's and South Africa's sport "space", as i t does in India, Sri Lanka,

Pakistan and the Caribbean islands, i . e . the West Indies. The remainder of the

sport "space" in these countries i s f i l led by field hockey <India, Pakistan and Sri

Lanka), rugby (New Zealand and South Africa) and Australian Rules football

(Australia). Common to a ll of these countries then is the presence of cricket as

the national sport , the marginal existence of soccer, and the existence of a second,

rather obscure and somewhat modified British team sport . In contrast to the United

States, none of these countries developed three virtual ly new team sports which

consumed almost all the existing sport "space" of their society, as the "big three"

have in the United States. Curiously, these -big three" - with the notable

exception of basketball(11) have remained almost completely confined to the

borders of their creator despite the la t te r ' s preeminent position as the uncontested

global leader in the polit ics , economic affairs and popular culture of the twentieth

century.



5

This brings me to the second reason why America's soccer "exceptionalism"

di ffers from the ones briefly mentioned in the preceding lines. By virtue of the

Unites States' militaYy, polit ical , economic and cultural hegemony throughout much

of th e twentieth century often referred to with some justification as "the

American century" almost all of America's actions (or inactions) attain meaning

beyond their actual reali ty. The concept o f · "Americanism" has few, i f any,

parallels in the twentieth century, thus denoting the uniquely nodal position of the

United States in the modern world. This country's hegemony extends beyond the

immediate orbit of the liberal democracies of industrial capitalism and is equally

significant to the countries of the Second and Third Worlds.(12) Crudely put, the

United States matters more in the world's affairs than do Canada, Australia or New

Zealand. Important issues within these countries remain unnoticed by the rest of

the world or at best become esoteric items gaining the attention of a few

special ists. Newsworthy issues in the United States though are of both national, as

well as international, importance. Thus, the editors and sport writers of Sovietski

Sport have probably never wondered why New Zealanders or South Africans seem unmoved

by soccer. Along with the rest of the world's soccer fans however, they have most

certainly asked themselves why soccer plays such a marginal role in the United

States. (13) American soccer "exceptionalism" l ike the absence of "socialism" in the

United States has received so much attention in good part because of America's

predominant global position. Whereas the "socialism" debate has generated much

impressive scholarship though, the question of soccer "exceptionalism" has remained

confined to the oral tradition of stadium debates and bar room chatter al lover the

world. Clearly the two "exceptionalisms" and their consequences for the quality of

human existence in the United States can not be construed as equally significant.

Soccer, while like all major sports a multi-billion dollar business, s t i l l remains a

game, whereas "socialism" would, at. a very minimum, most certainly diminish, i f not

alleviate, the misery of the American poor by i t s creation and maintenance of a



6

well-functioning wei fare state. Thus, Sombartian "exceptionalism" has rendered the

United States, fa r and away the richest country in the world, to be the only major

industrial democracy without, among other things, a compulsory, state-involved,

comprehensive national health insurance fo r i t s sick. Nothing of comparable

importance accompanies American soccer "exceptional ism". This second

"exceptionalism" isolates the Uni ted States from a leisure acti vi ty and collective

involvement though, which has captured the rest of the world's undivided attention

since the beginning of this century. I t i s to the common origins of both

"exceptionalisms" that I now turn.

Am.r!c. - !h' rir.t Ntw Nation

The most important common denominator for both "exceptionalisms" and the single

most pervasive underlying variable for an understanding of American poli t ics and

society is the quintessentially bourgeois nature of this country's objective

development and subjective self-legitimation from i t s very inception to the present.

This "natural", hence a ll the more comprehensive,bourgeoisificati-on of American

poli t ics and society created certain structures and an accompanying atmosphere which

definitely distinguished this country from a ll others in the "old world" and from

the la t ter ' s mere colonial extensions overseas (as opposed to "new world" which, as

a concept, remained tellingly reserved almost exclusively for the United

States). (14) Central to this burgeoning "Americanism" was the free individual who

was to attain his fulfillment by being an independent, rational actor in a free

market unfettered by any oppressive collect ivi t ies, be they the state or social

classes, organized religion or the army. In short , bourgeois America created a new

identity which prided i tself on being explicitly different from that found anywhere

in aristocratic Europe. Only by separating church from state could this new society

develop a poli t ical ly unchallenged secularism which in turn could be viewed as being

among the most religious in the advanced industrial world. (15) Moreover, only by

establishing an unprofessional military under str ic t civilian control - in addition



7

to the continued presence of the "frontier l, yet another major ingredient of

"American exceptionalism ll- could the United States develop into one of the most

heavily armed societies among advanced industrial countries.(16) By establishing a

broad concept of equality which, however, was to remain in a permanently subservient

position to the individual 's freedom by merely providing him with equal access to an

abundance of opportunities, this new country created an ingenious system of popular

participation which was at once mediated yet also comprehensive. Above all , i t

created a framework for the development of powerful myths of unbound freedom and

l imitless opportunities, which became one of the most attractive ideologies of the

modern world. Indeed, as Leon Samson has persuasively argued, Americanism carried a

veneer laden with terms rather similar to those used by socialism and other

movements of the lef t , due to the above-mentioned myths. Thus socialism was

"crowded out" from the consciousness and praxis of this bourgeois America

(Americanism =Socialism so to speak.) (17) The primacy of a bourgeois order is

further substantiated by other well-known components of "American exceptionalism":

the existence of the franchise for white males; the persistence of two "non

ideological", "pragmatic" and sel f-defined middle-class parties who, aided by a

highly centr is t electoral system, have successfully "crowded out" any newcomers

and the crucial role of an integrating nationalism exemplified by the "melting pot".

America's soccer "exceptionalism" is also rooted in th is bourgeois order.

Modern sports are inextricably tied to the development of mass democracies.

Sport in i t s organized form of regulated leisure and, subsequently, of commodified

culture, goes hand in hand with such major components of "modernization" as

urbanization, industrialization, education and the constantly expanding

participation of a steadily growing number of cit izens in the public l i fe of

poli t ics, production and consumption. The creation and - perhaps more importantly

dissemination of modern sports are thus part and parcel of a bourgeois mode of

l i fe . While most modern sports were actually "invented" by members of society's



8

"higher stations" either of aristocratic or, more often, quasi-aristocratic bent,

they soon became the purvie.... of the bourgeoisie and the "masses", i f they were to

gain any significance beyond that enjoyed by polo or croquet, for instance. Thus,

i t was the two most bourgeois societies of the la t ter half of the nineteenth

century, Great Britain and the United States, which founded organized, professional,

team sports p l a y ~ d and enjoyed by the masses in their own countries, and - in the

case of Bri ta in ' s "inventions", especially soccer - everywhere in the world. (18)

The dissemination of the respective national sports correlated positively with the

two countries ' global position. Great Britain was s t i l l the leading imperial power

and as such, the main opinion leader and cultural "hegemon" of the time. People a ll

over the world emulated British ways, especially those related to recreation,

relaxation and sports. The United States, on the other hand, ....as s t i l l by and large

an isolated "new world" which fascinated the European public, but whose concrete

presence was very marginal. This isolation was in part self-imposed by America's

self- identif ication as being distinctly non-European, perhaps even anti-European.

Whereas Britain derived much of i t s i n t e r n ~ l legitimacy from being the center of a

huge empire during the la t ter half of the nineteenth century, America attained i t s

legi timacy by being a new, sel f-contained "frontier" society, independent of the

mother country unlike i t s Australian and Canadian cousins. This strong

ambivalence towards Great Britain, manifesting i t sel f in a clear affini ty fostered

by a common language and a disdain for the old colonial master, whose very presence

threatened the "new world's" identity formation, greatly influenced the development

of public discourse in the United States during the lat ter half of the nineteenth

century. This "special relationship", marked by both admiration and rejection,

proved particularly significant in the realm of sports. (19) As we will soon see,

both football and baseball developed into American sports R2L excellence within the

framework of this ambivalent and largely one-sided dialogue which America conducted

with Britain about i t s ways. Both sports developed out of largely pre-industrial ,



9

II e li te" British team acti vi t ies . Through complete bourgeoisi fication, they became

adapted to a new, commercialized industrial order in a "new world l By the time

Britain 's own mass sport, soccer, had been successfully exported a l lover the world,

America's sport "spacelt

was already occupied by former British imports now converted

into genuine American games. Why was soccer "crowded out" in the United States?

First ly, the American bourgeoisie had successfully established i t s own national

game, baseball, which largely paralleled the timing of soccer's dissemination as a

mass sport in 6reat Britain. Secondly, young el i tes at the top American

universit ies were keener on playing - and then altering - what had developed into a

British "elite" sport <i.e. rugby) rather than expressing their anglophilia by

importing soccer which by that time had undergone a "vulgarization" similar to

baseball 's in the United States. In the following section, I will offer brief

descriptions of the developments of soccer, football and baseball respectively,

tracing the "massi fication" of each s p o r t ~

Th' D.v.lopm,nt "of Mod.rn Soccer in Br1ta1nl from t ts . l i t . origins to th . world',lOst popular mass 'port

The ancient and geographically diverse precursors to the game of soccer are

well documented.(20) In disparate parts of the world such as China, ancient Rome

and Greece, India and the Americas, men would gather periodically and kick some

round object to and away from each other. Whether i t was the skull of a defeated

Danish enemy, as some English legend has i t , or the stuffed bladder of a slaughtered

animal, people would somehow devise"a "ball" with which they played. (21) These

periodic festivit ies, centered around a ball- l ike object, continued throughout

Europe's Middle Ages, occurring vir tually everywhere on the Continent as well as the

British Isles. The game of calcio, hailing from Roman times, was the biggest IIteam

sport" in Florence around 1500. (22) It was widely played in Italy in ,subsequent

,enturies, though - rather te l l ingly and in tandem with the re , t of the world-

modern soccer in Italy stems entirely from the introduction of Association Football



10

by the British in the late 1BOOs/early 1900s.(23) The medieval "precursor" to

modern soccer was a wild, disorganized free-for-all which often ended in riots ,

resulting in serious injur ies and occasionally even death for some participants.

That authorities more often than not forbade the playing of football attests to the

roughness of these riotl ike games and also to their potential danger in seriously

disrupting the public order. Nevertheless, these uncontrolled, disorganized

"matches" in which two opposing sides would try to control the "ball" by kicking,

holding, running or throwing i t , became regular occurrences on or around certain

festivals. Best known in England were the football games on Shrove Tuesday where

crowds would gather annually to celebrate their last day of freedom before the

s t r ic t and dour days of Lent. The contests in Ashbourne and Derby became legendary.

In Derby, the "match" between the parishes of St. Peter and All Saints became such

an intense tradition, that the term a "derby" developed, connoting the

institutionalized contest between two long-standing, usually local, rivals.(24)

Through the export of modern Association football, this English term, along with

many others, became commonplace in the contemporary vernacular of some continental

languages, such as German, Hungarian and Rumanian. These mass happenings had, in

fact, l i t t l e to do with what was to become modern Association football or soccer.

As James Walvin has pointed out, this pre-modern form of mass entertainment

virtually disappeared from the l ives of the common people during the early stages of

the Industrial Revolution only to re-emerge circa one hundred years later (i .e.

during the 1880s) with a fervor and enthusiasm which was to conquer the entire world

with the exception of the United States 25 years later . (25) In the intervening

period, the upper stratum of the English bourgeoisie,aided by several far-reaching

structural changes particular to a new industrial age, turned this wild,

disorganized and dangerous medieval festival into the most popular modern team sport

on earth.

from the very beginning of i ts development, modern soccer became inextricably



11

linked to the most fundamental aspects of "modernization": discipline exacted by

regulated industrial l i fe ; the st r ic t separation of leisure and work; the necessity

of organized and regularized recreation for the masses; cheap and efficient public

transportation by railroads (intercity) and by t rolleys (intracity); prompt and

widely available mass communication via the press (introduction of the sport pages

in newspapers), to be followed by telegrams (crucial for the development of nation

wide betting>, radio, and then television; and - perhaps most importantly - the

development and rapid expansion of modern education.

Though Wellington probably never said anything about Waterloo h a ~ i n g been won

on the playing fields of Eton, the fact that generations of middle class Britons

cherished th is belief conveys the centrali ty of the so-called public schools to the

dissemination of bourgeois culture in nineteenth century Britain. (26) These public

schools, "ideal training grounds for merchants as well as ar is tocrats" , formed the

cradle for soccer and rugby, the forerunner to American football. Starting in the

1830s, English intellectuals and educators became concerned with a complete

education befit t ing the new industrial order. The goal was to produce not only the

most eff icient - but also the most well-rounded and thus fulfil led - lawyers,

doctors, civi l servants and scholars. Be they the ideas of "godliness and good

learning" as articulated by Charles Kingsley or similar concepts put forth at

various times by thinkers such as Thomas Carlyle, Herbert Spencer and John Henry

Newman, the idea could best be summarized by that ubiquitous Latin phrase "mens sana

in corpore sano''.(27) Organized sports had suddenly attained a central role in the

proper education of Great Britain 's young, male, bourgeois e l i te . Best described in

the famous book Tom Brown's Schooldays published by Thomas Hughes in 1857, i t was in

th is atmosphere that modern soccer emerged.

The game of football was played at all prestigious public schools, at both the

old guard of Eton, Harrow, Charterhouse, Rugby, Westminster and Shrewsbury, or the

new foundations of Cheltenham (1841), Marlborough (1843) and Wellington (1853).(28)



12

Until t h ~ m i d d l ~ of t h ~ 1840s, ~ a c h school basically p l a y ~ d i ts own v ~ r s i o n of

football, an intramural g a m ~ with almost c o m p l ~ t ~ l y fluid r u l ~ s . T h ~ r ~ s p ~ c t i v ~

school 's particular t ~ r r a i n d i c t a t ~ d t h ~ kind of football p l a y ~ d on t h ~ p r ~ m i s ~ s .

In schools such as Eton, C h a r t ~ r h o u s ~ and W ~ s t m i n s t ~ r , which had only narrow

"p i t c h ~ s " at t h ~ i r disposal, s p a c ~ r ~ s t r i c t i o n s f a v o r ~ d the- s o - c a l l ~ d "dribbling

g a m ~ " in which t h ~ u s ~ of hands was c o m p l ~ t ~ l y ~ l i m i n a t ~ d . Harrovian football, not

c o n f i n ~ d by s p a c ~ 1 imi tat ions but h a n d i c a p p ~ d by d r a i n a g ~ di fficul t i ~ s , also p l a c ~ d

a p r ~ m i u m on dribbling t h ~ ball , although catching i t in t h ~ a ir or a f t ~ r only o n ~

bounce on t h ~ ground, was s t i l l p ~ r m i t t ~ d . Conditions at W i n c h ~ s t ~ r ~ n c o u r a g ~ d

" a c c u r a t ~ kicking and dashing play" with t h ~ use of t h ~ hands also s e v ~ r ~ l y

r ~ s t r i c t ~ d . Rugby, f o l l o w ~ d by schools such as C h ~ l t ~ n h a m and Marlborough, was t h ~

main school at which t h ~ s o - c a l l ~ d "running g a m ~ " d ~ v ~ l o p ~ d . (29) T h ~ c ~ n t r a l i ty of

this sport to t h ~ s t u d ~ n t s ' o v ~ r a l l ~ d u c a t i o n a l ~ x p ~ r i ~ n c ~ at Rugby in t h ~ 1830s i s

w ~ l l - d ~ s c r i b ~ d in C h a p t ~ r F i v ~ of Tom Brown's Schooldays. This "running g a m ~ 1 I spl i t

from t h ~ "kicking and dribbling" g a m ~ in 1863 and d ~ v ~ l o p ~ d into Rugby Football, t h ~

f o r ~ r u n n ~ r to both A m ~ r i c a n and Australian R u l ~ s Football. T h ~ "kicking and

dribbling" g a m ~ b ~ c a m ~ Association Football ( s o c c ~ r ) . (30)

With t h ~ gradual ~ x t ~ n s i o n of t h ~ national railway s y s t ~ m by t h ~ m i d - t o - I a t ~

1840s, t h ~ t radit ionally intramural g a m ~ d ~ v ~ l o p ~ d into an i n t ~ r s c h o l a s t i c c o n t ~ s t

in which g a m ~ s among t h ~ various public schools b ~ g a n to occur with s o m ~ r ~ g u l a r i t y .

With t h ~ c o n t i n u ~ d i n v o l v ~ m ~ n t of public school alumni in t h ~ g a m ~ b ~ y o n d t h ~ i r

a d o l ~ s c ~ n c ~ , football a t t a i n ~ d g r ~ a t ~ r r ~ s p ~ c t a b i l i t y and p r ~ s t i g ~ . In addition to

c o n t i n u ~ d play at O x b r i d g ~ and t h ~ p r ~ s t i g i o u s public schools throughout t h ~ 1850s,

t h ~ f irst clubs ~ m ~ r g ~ d at th is t i m ~ , all having b ~ ~ n f o u n d ~ d by ~ x - p u b l i c - s c h o o l

and/or O x b r i d g ~ m ~ n on a p u r ~ l y a m a t ~ u r basis l a r g ~ l y in t h ~ south of England.

St i l l , t h ~ g a m ~ r ~ m a i n ~ d d i s o r g a n i z ~ d , sporadic and u n r ~ g u l a t ~ d throughout t h ~

1850s. A s ~ t of c o m p r ~ h ~ n s i v ~ r u l ~ s had b ~ c o m ~ a n e c ~ s s i t y by t h ~ ~ a r l y 1860s

though, s i n c ~ t h ~ g a m ~ of football had d ~ v ~ l o p ~ d into a s ~ r i o u s sport which r ~ a c h ~ d



13

beyond the confines of England's public schools.

In 1862 J.C. Thring, assistant master of Uppingham and one of two Shrewsbury

graduates to form the f i rs t football team at Cambridge in 1846, issued a set of

rules known as "The Simplest Game". (31) Streamlining all the rules into ten pOints,

Thring's step al though ini t ial ly only considered for use at Uppingham

represented a major development in making football an easily transferable,

ubiquitously applicable game. A l ively reaction and revision process followed

during which the 14 points of the Cambridge University Rules of 1863 originated. On

Monday, October 26, 1863 the Football Association <F.A.) was founded at the

Freemason's Tavern on Great Queen Street in London and proceeded to decree

football 's 13 "laws". (32) These "laws" - in notable contrast to the earl ier "rules"

- govern the world's most popular sport to this day vir tually unchanged. Rule 9

("No player shall run with the ball .") and Rule 10 ("Neither tripping or hacking

shall be allowed, and no player shall use his hands to hold or push his adversary. ")

especially dismayed the s t i 11 numerous supporters of the "running game". The

cleavage between these two increasingly di fferent versions of football became so

pronounced during the 1860s that by 1871 the supporters of the "running game" formed

their own association. Entitled the Rugby Union, i t completely finalized rugby's

secession from Association Football and initiated the establishment of the "running

game" as an independent sport sui generis.

In the same year the F.A., which to this day is the sole organizing body of

English soccer, began organizing i t s f i rs t comprehensive tournament including all

English clubs and culminating in a final match between the last two remaining teams

for the F.A. Cup. Held in London every year since 1872, the Cup final s t i l l

represents a highlight of the English soccer season and draws much attention on the

Continent as well, due to the tremendous respect accorded there to the oldest soccer

tournament in the motherland of this sport. Until 1882, the Cup Final was

invariably played between two st r ic t ly amateur clubs from England's south.



14

More-ove-r, most of the- playe-rs we-re- "ge-ntle-me-n" who had atte-nde-d one- of the- public

schools, Oxbridge-, or both. This was to change- for gO'Jd in 1882 whe-n a se-mi

profe-ssional te-am from England's north, the- Blackburn Rove-rs, playe-d the- Old

Etonians fo r the- Cup. (33) Won by the- southe-rn ge-ntle-me-n fo r the- last time-, the- Cup

move-d northward as of 1883 (won by anothe-r Blackburn te-am, the- Olympic), re-gaine-d

only once- by a London club during the- ne-xt 32 ye-ars. This he-ge-mony of the- North and

the- Midlands in English football signale-d the- de-mise- of the- e-xclusive- "ge-ntle-me-n's

e-ra" in socce-r and the- concomitant arrival of the- game-'s profe-ssionalization and

comme-rcialization - in short , de-mocratization.

"Among the- Blackburn playe-rs we-re- thre-e- we-ave-rs, a spinne-r, a de-ntal assistant ,

a plumbe-r, a cotton ope-rative- and an iron foundry worke-r."(34) Throughout the- 18705

and into the- 18805, socce-r rapidly de-ve-bJPe-d into a working class sport. Churche-s

in part icular , se-e-ing socce-r as an ide-al ve-hicle- to combat urban proble-ms, spawne-d

clubs a ll ove-r thecountry. Followe-d by schools, ne-ighborhood associations and

factorie-s, the- game- soon de-ve-Iope-d into Bre-at Britain 's most ubiquitous sport,

having by that time- also prolife-rate-d into the- non-English parts of the- British

Isle-s. Lastly, some- te-ams de-ve-Iope-d as de- facto "winte-r branche-sOlof alre-ady

e-xisting cricke-t clubs, the-re-by e-xte-nding the- sport se-ason for the-ir me-mbe-rs to a

ye-ar-round involve-me-nt. This rapid prolife-ration of socce-r in l i t t le- more- than a

de-cade- was intimate-Iy re-Iate-d to the- nature- of the- game- itse-If. Priding itse-If as

"the- simple-st game-", socce-r's rule-s we-re- inde-e-d fe-w, cle-ar and e-asily communicable

to playe-rs and spe-ctators alike-. In te-rms of e-quipme-nt, a ll that was ne-ede-d was a

ball and a re-Iative-Iy f la t surface-. Eve-rything e-lse- - goal posts, ne-ts, line-s

de-marcating the- fie-Id and spe-cial are-as on i t , boots and uniforms - was (and in

ce-rtain ways s t i l l is) not absolute-Iy e-sse-ntial fo r a socce-r match. Pe-rhaps the

most important "de-mocratizing" factor was the- e-arly aware-ne-ss that ave-rage- physical

attribute-s suffice-d not only to be- ade-quate- socce-r playe-r but also a s tar . Just

as the- playe-r(s) with the- be-st physical attribute-s could no t control the- flow and



16

football League developed. I ts twelve original members - a ll from England's north

and the Midlands - would compete for the League championship by playing a continuous

round-robin tournament in which each team would play every other team twice, once

"at home" and once "away". By the early 1890s, English football - as the world has

come to know i t - was fully established in Great Britain. I t was poised to conquer

the world, a hitherto unparalleled feat in sports history.

Soccer enjoyed a "national", i .e . class-transcendent, appeal in Britain by the

late nineteenth century in spite of i ts professionalized "vulgarization" during the

1880s and 1890s. This fact together with the ubiquity and prominence of British

presence throughout .. the world during this period help to explain the exportabili ty

of soccer. I t is tel l ing that the sport was introduced to many countries by an

eclectic group of people: visi t ing English sai lors (france, Spain, Brazil>; British

embassy personnel (Sweden); British workers engaged in local projects (Russia,

Rumania, Poland, Uruguay); local schoolboys bringing the game back with them

following the completion of their education in England (Holland, Italy, Spain,

Brazil, Portugal); and members of local English clubs which expanded their sport

act iv i t ies from cricket and horseback riding to soccer (Austro-Hungarian Empire,

Germany, Argentina). Aided by a proliferation of coaches and other officials

imported from England and Scotland, and by frequent "missionary" vi si ts from English

clubs who would tour the respective country playing exhibition matches against i ts

newly founded teams, soccer quickly became the most dominant team sport on the

European continent and in Latin America by the eve of World War 1.(37) Developments

in the United States, conversely, proved a good deal less fortuitous for soccer.

In America, soccer remained closely associated with immigrants, a stigma which

proved fatal to soccer's potential of becoming a popular team sport in the "new

world". The game's various precursors were played in the colonies of the

seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, with documentation of a game as early as 1609

in Virginia. (38) As in England, football was played on the streets and in open



17

squares, often leading to riot-l ike disturbances which, in turn, led the authorities

to forbid the game on a number of occasions. Again similar to England, the game did

not attain any social respectabi 1i ty until the fi rs t ha l f of the nineteenth century,

when the nation's top colleges - led by Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Columbia

started playing various versions of football on an intramural basis. Outlawed

periodically by university administrators because of i t s raucous nature and

accompanying roughness both on and off the field, the game did no t become organized

until the 1860s. Early in this decade, students and alumni from a number of el i te

Boston secondary schools united to form the Oneida Football Club which remained

undefeated - and even unscored upon - between 1862 and 1865, lending the "Boston

Game" exceptional prominence in America's s t i l l small, diverse football world.(39)

Allowing the use of hands and feet, the "Boston Game" soon became the most popular

sport across the Charles River in Cambridge, home of Harvard University.

Retrospectively, this synthesis may have proved an early harbinger for soccer's

failure to become a major popular sport at American colleges, and subsequently in

American society as a whole.

By the end of the decade, the game had achieved sufficient intercollegiate

uniformity to allow for the playing of the f i rs t college football game in American

history, which was held on Saturday, November 6, 1869 in New Brunswick between

Rutgers and Princeton. This event can be classified both as the f i rs t football as

well as the f i rs t soccer game in modern American history since the game was played

according to rules which were somewhere in between those of Association and Rugby

Football. (40) Columbia joined the original two in 1870 and by 1872 the group

included Rutgers, Princeton, Yale and Stevens. These schools played an Association

type kicking game. Even though local differences in rules persisted, all

participants agreed that the ball could not be picked up with the hands, caught,

thrown or carried. Soccer in i ts rudimentary form seemed to have assumed an

important foothold among leading American colleges. I t failed to do so at the



18

country's oldest and most prestigious insti tution of higher learning though:

Harvard persistently opposed the "kicking 'game", clinging tenaciously to i ts "Boston

Game" which i t had perfected in the interim. (41) When the other schools uni formly

adopted Association rules in 1873, they desisted from calling themselves a league

due to Harvard's absence. Indeed, the unique prestige of this very special

insti tution ultimately overturned the "kicking game's" apparent victory among

American college students of the early 1870s and led to the running game's complete

and ultimate triumph by 1877. In search of an opponent, Harvard turned north of the

border to McGill University which played rugby at the time. The two universities

agreed to play two matches in 1874, the f irst according to the rules of Harvard's

"Boston Game", the second following McGill's rugby rules. As expected, Harvard won

the f i rs t encounter easily and was poised to lose the rematch to McGill.

Surprisingly, the Harvard team played McGill to a scoreless t ie .(42) More important

than this unexpected and respectable result for soccer 's future, was the Harvard

team's unanimous enthusiasm for the game of rugby which they henceforth embraced

wholeheartedly as their own. The "Boston ,Game", having been a hybrid between rugby

and soccer and thuss t i l l

including more kicking and foot-involved ball contact than

rugby, was dismissed as sleepy and boring. In i t s stead, the "running game"

developed in i t s then purest form as Harvard's unchallenged team sport . (43) Barely

one year later , in 1875, Yale's well-established rivalry with Harvard proved

stronger than i t s membership in a loose association with Columbia, Princeton and a

few other schools then playing the "kicking game". In that year the f irst "Game"

between Yale and Harvard was played, with Harvard winning easily in a game Yale had

never played until then. That year Yale s t i l l fulf i l led i t s "soccer obligations" to

Columbia and Wesleyan, bu t by 1876 Yale had dropped soccer and replaced i t with

rugby. The other universities followed, with Princeton succumbing last in 1877.

Rugby's triumph over soccer at American colleges was so thorough that soccer did not

reappear on American campuses on an intercollegiate level until 1902. By that time



19

American Football - rugby's successor in the "new world" - had gained an unshakable

prominence in American college l i fe . (44) Stigmatized as slow, boring and devoid of

action due to the relat ive paudty of scoring when compared to any of the "Big

Three" American sports, soccer has, since i ts re-introduction as a varsity sport,

languished in the giant shadows cast on i t by football and later basketball. At

American universities, as in American society, soccer has remained largely the

domain of foreigners and recent immigrants, both as players and spectators. Let us

now look at the developments of football and baseball respectively, so we can better

understand what occupied the American "sport space" upon soccer's arrival on these

shores and how this "preoccupation" le d to the "crowding out" of the world's most

popular sport. Since we just discussed the origins of American football in th e

context of soccer's failure in the United States, i t seems best to continue the

paper by looking at football before turning to baseball.

"Crowding ou' from .boy'"' Tb. c . , . of Am.ric.n footb.ll

What Harvard had started by sticking to the running game, Yale completed by

offering football i t s charismatic "founding father" and most influential modernizer.

Indeed, Parke Davi s, "the Plutarch of early college football", expl ici t ly equated

Walter Camp of Yale to George Washington by stat ing that "what Washington was to his

country, Camp was to American football the friend, the founder, and the

father. "(45) Attaining legendary fame as a player and reformer during the game's

most formative years, Camp "was said to have been the model for the fictional

character 'Frank Merriwell of Yale' ' ' , America's first and greatest sports hero on

whom a whole generation of American boys was weaned af ter 1896.(46)

Camp's major and lasting contribution was to transform football from a quasi-

aristocratic English game to a quintessentially bourgeois American activity of the

twentieth century. Astute observers of American sports and culture such as David

Riesman and Michael Qriard have drawn explicit parallels between Walter Camp and

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/footb.ll

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/footb.ll



20

F r e d ~ r i c k Winslow Taylor. (47) Simultaneously, though presumably i n d ~ p e n d e n t l y of

each other, both were engaged in th e modernization, regularization and

systematization of their r e s p e c t i v ~ f i ~ l d s - football and factory production - which

w ~ r ~ undergoing far-reaching changes of bourgeoisification (and Americanization) at

t h ~ turn of t h ~ century. Walter Camp could be d ~ s c r i b ~ d as the l ~ a d i n g f i g u r ~ in

the "Taylorization" of a sport which, following the successful conclusion of this

process, c l ~ a r l y e m ~ r g e d as American football.

U n d ~ r Camp's leadership, rugby's ad hoc and free-for-all s c r a m b l ~ for t h ~ ball ,

t h ~ unpredictable English "scrum", became the clearly d e l i n ~ a t e d American

"scrimmage", in which the offensive and defensive teams confronted each o t h ~ r .

Confusion and ambiguity s t i l l c o n t i n u ~ d however with both sides vying for the ball

simultaneously at the beginning of each play, often tying up the ball and thereby

impeding the commencement of the game. Therefore further clarification was added by

awarding what was to become the "center snap" to the offensive team. Undisputed

possession of the ball was thus e s t a b l i s h ~ d . Camp and his' reformers "taylorized"

the field by drawing. clear l i n ~ s on i t , making a team's progress, movement and

location perfectly measurable at any time of t he ' game. The gridiron - in and of

i t se l f a Taylorist concept - set t h ~ stage for football 's subsequent and lasting

domination by sta t is t ics (yards p ~ r carry; total passing yardage; total running

yardage; etc .) . In order to r e g u l a t ~ and encourage movement on the gridiron, and to

counter the "block game" in which each team would k ~ e p the ball for "i ts" hal f of

the game, Camp introduced a rule requiring a team to make five yards in three downs,

extended to ten yards in four downs in 1912.(48) Camp reduced the number of players

per team from 15 to 11 and each player was assigned a specific position in which he

was e x p e c t ~ d to excel and specialize. He devised the arrangement which became

standard - seven linemen, a quarterback, two halfbacks, and a fullback. As part of

his "scientization" of football in which game plans, strategy, and tact ics assumed

an increasingly central role, Camp also introduced a rule which permitted tackling



21

as low as the knees. This maneuver to bring a man down was more efficient , though

also more brutal,than the earl ier method of wrestling an opponent to the ground.

The dangerous "wedge" appeared, perfected by Harvard to become the more devastating

"flying wedge", only to be countered by Camp's Yale teams with the "shoving wedge".

Play became violent, routinely resulting in major injuries and frequent deaths.

Finally President Roosevelt, having seen the photo of a mangled Swarthmore player in

the newspaper following a particulariy savage encounter between Swarthmore and

Pennsylvania in 1905, personally demanded that the game be reformed to eliminate

such obvious brutali ty . Only thereafter did Camp and others insti tute changes which

eliminated overt and willful maiming without, however, compromising the roughness of

the game which was deemed essential by vir tually every educator and opinion leader

in the country. President Roosevelt's involvement led to the establishment of the

Intercollegiate Athletic Association in December 1905, headed by Captain Palmer

Pierce of West Point. I t was renamed the National Collegiate Athletic Association

(N.C.A.A.> in 1910.(49) With Walter Camp in charge of the American Football Rules

Committee., the last substantial rule changes were undertaken yielding a game by the

eve of World War I which has basically remained intact on both the collegiate and

the professional levels to this day. One of the most important reforms was the

forward pass which established the "aerial attack" as yet another weapon in a team's

offensive strategy. This reform fostered the honing of finesse and precision at the

expense of sheer physical force, thus further contributing to what had already

become a highly "taylorized" sport.

Baseball had become the sport of the lower classes, "enjoying" the social

prestige of stage acting or gambling in Michael Oriard's words. Football developed

into the most popular sport among America's middle class by the turn of the century

when soccer made i ts triumphant conquest of the European continent and Latin

America. (50) Init ial ly dominant only in the eli te schools of the East Coast,

football rapidly spread westward establishing i t sel f at places such as the



22

University of Chicago (coached by the legendary Amos Alonzo Stagg), Oberlin,

Michigan and Notre Dame in the Midwest, Stanford and the Uniyersity of California at

Berkeley'::)n the West Coast. The 1920s witnessed the proliferation of college

football in the South and the Southwest, with both regions producing major powers by

the 1930s.

That football remained the virtual prerogative of collegiate America,

underscored the middle class nature of football 's f i rs t four decades. Football

games on Saturday afternoons in the fal l , especially around Thanksgiving, became

essential ingredients of A m e ~ i c a n bourgeois culture. College football attained such

a hegemonic position in American middle class culture, that i t succeeded in

"crowding out" the professional game - as well as soccer - until the founding of the

National Football League in 1920, and arguably well into the post-World War II era.

Professionalism did not however remain excluded from the world of American football.

One aspect of the mens-sana-in-corpore-sano ideology of the American bourgeoisie was

the perception of footba ll as a bastion of amateurism, in fact though,

professionalization of the college game had clearly set in by the turn of the

century. Gate receipts provided welcome revenue even to the wealthiest universities

such as Yale, where in 1903 "income from football equaled the combined budgets of

the law, divinity, and medical schools". (51) Yale was the f i rs t university to

professionalize i ts coaching s taff and i ts r ivals , ini t ial ly protesting this vulgar

betrayal of amateur ideals, proceeded to hire their own professional coaches.

Staying competitive was cri t ical fo r winning, which had graduated from being

everything to being the only thing.

The explicit ly professional football game originated in the cultural

peripheries of America's steel and coal regions, such as Pittsburgh and the

surrounding areas of Allegheny County. Spreading later to the industrial regions of

Ohio, professional clubs were established in towns such as Akron and Canton (the

location of the Professional Football Hall of Fame). Most teams were owned by



23

wealthy businessmen who liked the game, wanted to provide some entertainment to the

local population (which often included a d i s p ~ o p o r t i o n a t e l y large number of their

own employees) and make some money in the process. Init ial ly , most players were

local working class members with an occasional college graduate hired as the special

star , as was the case with the legendary William Walter (Pudge) Heffelfinger, Amos

Alonzo Stagg's teammate at Yale. With th e gradual growth of the professional game

and i ts departure from America's hinterlands into the country's cultural centers

though, college graduates began to furnish the majority of the players. A situation

developed where American universities served as ' professional football 's farm system,

a function which they s t i l l perform. American higher education - an essential

institution of American bourgeois l i fe continues i t s deep involvement with

football t rue to i ts legacy as the cradle and inventor of this quintessentially

American sport. (52)

All those involved in football (the players, fans, ~ o a c h e s and team owners)

came to view th e game not only as profoundly American, but also as fundamentally

modern contrasting i t favorably to that other American sport - i .e . baseball. This

led to the erroneous but s t i l l powerful myth which continues to glorify baseball as

a rural game. Baseball having developed into America's "pastime" populated by the

country's masses, seemingly lacked the vigor and drive of modernity associated with

football 's ' tscienti fic" aura. Rather than cultivating the leisurely image of a

"pastime", football prided i t sel f on replicating the tough, strategic, determined

and ultimately victorious side of American l i fe. rootball prominently featured all

the values central to bourgeois capitalism in the United States: British eli te

origins to provide the necessary historical legitimacy coupled with American "robust

manliness" to distinguish i t clearly from i t s "soft", disorganized, Victorian

predecessor(53); individual effor t combined with intricate team work; hierarchical

control in tandem with corporate cooperation; and equality of opportunity and access

accompanied by the survival of the f i t test . (54)



24

Just l ike American capitalism, so too was football made bearable by the "rules

of the game". In notable contrast to both soccer and rugby, American football

l ike baseball - developed a mass of intr icate rules which served as a lingua franca

f.::>r the sport in a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society dominated by bourgeois

values of individualism rather than the noblesse oblige collectivism of the British

aristocratized sports world. Whereas a common culture among players - and between

players and spectators - permitted British sports to develop with a minimal system

of policing, a similar self-regulating approach was impossible in a country with a

constant influx of new immigrants, who had the importance of being number one

impressed upon them on arr ival. In addition to providing a common ground of

understanding, rules also helped systematize and quantify American sports. The

pe r formance of a team, as well as of the individual, could be more "objectively"

measured than in the murky, collectivist British team sports. One could thus t ie

remuneration, advancement or demotion to a player's IInumbers", analogous to the

reward system in a Taylorized form of industrial production. The existence of

written - as opposed to culturally internalized - rules also fostered an atmosphere

in which a premium was attached to devising "trick plays", designed to consciously

mislead the opponent by staying just this side of what the rules permitted or indeed

by violating them outright in the hope that the policing authori t ies would no t

notice. "Trick plays", basically unknown to soccer, rugby and cricket, became woven

into the fabric of American football and baseball. Lastly as in poli t ics

clearly stated, written and universalist ic rule had an equalizing effect on American

football by enhancing i ts attraction to otherwise disparate social groups. Rules

thereby enhanced participation and contributed to the popularization - i f perhaps

less to the democratization - of this sport. I t is now time to turn to America's

earl iest popular sport. which helped "crowd out soccer from below".



25

Crowding out from b.low, Tb. ,.,. of b., .b. ll

Purportedly, Jacques Barzun once said, "Whoever wants to know the heart and

mind of America had better learn baseball". Until the 1950s, baseball was fa r and

away America's most popular sport. From the very beginning of i ts development,

baseball 's successful proliferation among America's maSSeS depended on i t s identity

as "American". Football never denied i ts British origins and indeed proudly pointed

to William Webb Ell is ' alleged run at Rugby in 1823 as the inception of the game. In

contrast, baseball went to great length to deny having had any relationship to the

British game of rounders, a ll the while stressing the t ruly "Americanness" of the

game's every facet. In this context, the s t i l l widely held myth of Abner Doubleday

having originated the game in Cooperstown, New York in 1839 was created. To the

enthusiastic cries of "No rounders!", a group of 300 prominent baseball enthusiasts,

including Mark Twain and Chauncey M. Depew, gathered at Delmonico's in New York City

in 1889 to hear the fourth president of the National League, Abraham G. Mills,

declare that "patriotism and research" had established beyond any doubt the American

origin of baseball. (55) The creation of the Abner Doubleday myth was to forever

squelch the British claim that baseball was a descendant of rounders. Baseball 's

"devotees found i t increasingly difficult to swallow the idea that their favorite

pastime was of foreign origin. Pride and patriotism required that the game be

native, unsullied by English ancestry. "(56) Intense American natiVism, apparent

already during baseball 's "take-off period" in the 1850s, ensured baseball 's

eventual success as "the American National Game". Ties to rounders were consciously'

denied and baseball was systematically defined as "anti-cricket": faster, more

action-packed, tougher, requiring more ingenuity and individual ini t iat ive. In

short, baseball was better suited to and more accurately reflected l i fe in th e "New

Worl d" .

The following analysis will focus on the evolution of baseball as a game and as

a national inst i tution in a curious temporal parallel to soccer's development in



26

England. Baseball 's tempestuous era - reflecting central conflicts in American

society of the la te nineteenth century - came to a more or less accepted conclusion

by 1903, at the exact time of soccer's conquest of the world. Having developed into

America's mass sport and national pastime between the end of the Civil War and the

turn of the century, baseball had successfully ensconced i t se l f in America's "sport

space". Thus l i t t l e room remained for soccer to develop on the popular level, as i t

did f i rs t in Great Britain, then on the European Continent and in Latin America, and

eventually in the rest of the world.

Baseball 's precursors stretch back to America's colonial period when an array

of games with names such as "town-ball" and "round-ball" were played on village

greens primarily in New England and New York. Completely regional in character - as

attested to by such names as the "Massachusetts Game", "New England Game" and "New

York Game" - vir tually all of baseball 's forerunners hailed from the British game of

rounders in which a batter would "round" the bases - or "goals" after having

"struck" the ball which was thrown to him by a "bowler" belonging to the opposite

team. In an interesting and lasting parallel to soccer, baseball success was in

part based on the fact that vir tually no equipment or special physical attr ibutes

were necessary to enjoy or excel at the game. Like soccer, baseball thus enjoyed

"democratic access" in that the game was accessible to all and no exotic equipment

or locale was required. (57) Any elongated bat-like object, be i t a broomstick,

paddle or r i f le , served adequately for hitt ing the ball . Any vaguely round object-

regardless of exact size and consistency - could serve as a ball . Versions of this

game - involving hi tUng and throwing a ball and running "the bases" - proli ferated

in the northeast of the United States in the 1830s and 1840s.

Like football (as yet undifferentiated into Association and Rugby), the ini t ia l

and all-important codification of baseball occurred in the quasi-aristocratic milieu

of educated gentlemen. In 1845. a group of 40 bourgeois male New Yorkers

(professional men, merchants, white collar workers and several "gentlemen") joined



27

together in forming the New York Knickerbockers, the world's first organized

baseball team. (58) Under the leadership of Alexander Cartwright, the Knickerbockers

created the f i rs t written rules of baseball. Despite constant changes since, these

rules have provided the main contours of the game to this day: the four-base

diamond; gO-foot base paths; three out, all out; batting in rotation; throwing out

runners or touching them; nine-man teams with each player covering a definite

position; and the location of the pitcher 's box in relation to the diamond as a

whole to mention bu t the most important ones. (5g) Cartwright and his reformers also

specified the weight of the ball as well as the circumference of the bat in order to

provide uniformity for competition. The Knickerbockers played their first game at

Elysian Fields in Hoboken, New Jersey against the New York Base Ball Club on June

19, 1846. In that same year, J.C. Thring, one of soccer's major codifiers,

organized the first football team at Cambridge. The baseball game lasted only four

innings, "because by that time the New York Club had scored the 21 ' aces ' (runs)

necessary to win under the rules". Also an elaborate social affair , the ensuing

dinner assumed almost equal importance to the contest on the field. This tradition

continued until the end of the next decade as other teams joined the Knickerbockers

in New York (notably the Gothams, Eagles and Empires) as well as in Brooklyn (The

Excelsiors, Putnams, Eckfords and Atlantics) and competed in a ser ies of regular

games held on an inter- as well as intra-ci ty basis. In 1858 a team of Manhattan

all-stars f i rs t played their Brooklyn counterparts and thereby inaugurated a r ivalry '

which was to last exactly one hundred years.

Throughout the 1850s, baseball caught the fancy of people in a ll walks of l i fe

leading to a proliferation of clubs organized largely along occupational l ines.

Policemen, barkeepers, schoolteachers, doctors, lawyers and even clergymen had their

own teams. This rapid "downward" dissemination led to baseball 's development f i rs t

as "New York's game", then the "Nortneast's game" and ultimately "America's game"

following the conclusion of the Civil War. Since baseball was most popular and i t s



28

rules most codified in New York, what was known as the "New York game" became

nationally accepted by 1860. As with football in England at that time, the

increased faci l i ty and expansion of railroad travel fostered intercity contests.

M.:;)reover, the growing availabi li ty of newspapers, in which the f i rs t regular sports

pages appeared, also helped the game's popularity during a cri t ical formative

period.

A fundamental transformation of the game accompanied th is geographic and social

expansion. Though s t i l l dominated by amateurs, competition became keener. Winning,

which had been accorded only incidental status during baseball 's "gentlemen era",

developed into the game's raison d'etre . Gone was the view which allowed each

batter to have "hi s hi til. The central aspect of modern baseball developed, which

dictated a fundamentally and structurally antagonistic relationship between the

pitcher and the batter . The pitcher was no longer to "serve" the batter a

"hittable" bal l , bu t in fact do just the opposite. By trying to make i t as

difficul t as possible fo r the batter to hi t the ball , pitchers developed fastballs,

curves, sliders and various breaking pitches to confuse, mislead and basically tr ick

the batter whose repeated failure to "strike" the ball would lead to his forfeiting

his role as a batter . To keep pitchers from throwing balls out of the batters '

reach, the system of "balls" was invented whereby the batter was allowed to advance

to f i rs t base in case the pitcher exceeded his permitted allotment of throwing

"faulty" balls . Baseball's anti-English, anti-cricket self- identif ication increased

with the game's gradual distancing from i ts amateur" roots. This nativist s train was

also evident in certain rule changes such as the elimination of making an "outU by

catching a bat ter 's hit on one bounce, which was associated with the more serene,

slower and gentlemanly cricket. "Surely, what an Englishman can do, an American is

as capable of improving upon", boasted a sporting paper (60) and thus this "archaic"·

rule was relegated to baseball 's "muffins", as amateurs became known in the days of

the game's increased professionalization. Gate receipts developed into an important



29

source of revenue for the clubs,leading to baseball ' s "enclosure movement". Fences

provided a clear separation between "ball parks" and the outside world. They also

helped separate spectators from players, providing a more orderly spatial

arrangement fo r a rather unruly crowd. Last, bu t certainly no t least , these

"enclosures" eventually led to the insti tutionalization of the "home run", one of

baseball 's most exciting events.

With victory assuming paramount importance, professionalism rapidly displaced

amateurism during the post-Civil War era. While every team had i t s share of

"rounders" (baseball 's equivalent to football 's "ringers") who "revolved" from one

team to the next following the most lucrative offer with reckless abandon of any

team loyalty or moral constraints, in 1869, the Cincinnati Red Stockings appeared as

the f i rs t official all-professional team in baseball, indeed in any modern sport .

Two years la ter , the f i rs t professional league, the National Association of

Professional Base Ball Players, was established. Lasting only four years and

representing 10 teams, this league was dominated by the Red Stockings who had moved

from Cincinnati to Boston. Best described as the most unregulated capital ist phase

of baseball, the charismatic entrepreneur, best represented by Albert Goodwill

Spalding, the pitching star of the Boston Red Stockings, characterized this early

era. Spalding, typical of entrepreneurs in America's burgeoning bourgeois society,

was a missionary, modernizer and moneymaker all rolled into one. By further

standardizing the game's equipment (balls, bats, uniforms) Spalding continued to

develop the modern game of baseball while simultaneously helping his sporting goods

business become a flourishing enterprise. His missionary zeal to spread baseball

and also the wares of his company - extended beyond the confines of the United

States. Having returned from a triumphant baseball tour of Canada, Spalding

"conceived the idea in 1837 of taking a baseball team over to England to. demonstrate

what the Americans had cooked up out of rounders crossed with cricket. "(St> His

conviction that the superior American game would inevitably catch on with the



30

English during a numbe-r of e-xhibition matche-s playe-d in 1874 prove-d utte-rly

illusory. Base-ball did no t e-xcite- the- British who found i t dull and hardly a worthy

de-parture- from the- childre-n's game- of rounde-rs. Conve-ying the- unbound optimism of

that spe-cial bre-e-d of Ame-rican e-ntre-pre-ne-ur, Spalding re-maine-d unde-te-rre-d by his

faile-d mission clf 1874 and e-mbarke-d on a se-cond, e-ve-n more- ambitious, journe-y in

1888/89 to bring base-ball to there-st of the- world. He- took an al l -s tar te-am calle-d

"All Ame-ricans" to Hawaii, Australia, Egypt, I taly, France- and England. The- re-sults

we-re- e-ve-n more- e-mbarrassing fo r base-ball than during the- firs t tr ip though. Othe-r

than in Australia whe-re- the- game- me-t with a polite- bu t une-nthusiastic re-ce-ption,

base-ball was gre-e-te-d with a mixture- of disinte-re-st, de-rision and e-ve-n host i l i ty on

the- te-am's othe-r stops. I tal ian and Fre-nch spe-ctators found the- game- dull and

uninspiring. The- British s t i l l dismisse-d i t as the- Ame-rican ve-rsion of rounde-rs,

though some- particularly be-ne-vole-nt cr i t ics conce-de-d that base-bal l was faste-r and

more- scie-ntific.(62) Not until the- mid 1920s did base-ball's prophe-ts once- again

e-mbark on a prose-Iytizing mission which - with the- e-xce-ption of attaining positive

re-sults in Japan - faile-d abysmally once- again. Thre-e- e-xplanations se-e-m plausible

fo r base-ball's failure- to capture- the- imagination of sports fans outside- the- Unite-d

State-s and i t s imme-diate- ge-ographic orbit . Fi rs t , i t s "Ame-ricanne-ss" not only

re-nde-re-d i t incompre-he-nsible- outside- 5ts cultural conte-xt, but also le-nt i t a re-al

albe-i t unjusti f i e-d aura of irumaturi ty and vulgari ty , parti cularly in Br i t i sh

e-ye-s. Se-cond, the- 1888/89 tr ip occurre-d at a time- whe-n the-se- countrie-s we-re- s t i l l

insufficie-ntly bourge-oisifie-d to e-mbrace- a sport on a mass le-ve-l. This had alre-ady

happe-ne-d with base-ball in the- Unite-d State-s and socce-r in Gre-at Britain, but the-se

othe-r countrie-s we-re- not ye-t re-ady for i t . Third, the- 1920s e-xpe-dition faile-d

be-cause socce-r was alre-ady we-II e-nsconce-d as the- pre-mie-r mass sport in the- world,

and "crowde-d out" any se-rious compe-titjon. The- one- notable- e-xce-ption, whe-re- the

base-ball mission actually proved rathe-I" ~ u c c e - s s f u l , was Japan.

Re-turning to base-ball's unregulate-d capital ist phase- of the e-arly 1870s, this



31

era witnessed open gambling and drinking among the spectators and players before,

during and after the games. Players, as well as umpires, accepted bribes to "fix"

games in full view of the public. The generally anarchic atmosphere was heightened

by the common practice of "raiding" players. A club had been "raided", i f some of

i ts top players, whom i t had barely signed a few weeks before, disappeared from i ts

roster only to show up in a rival team's uniform the next day. By the mid 1870s a ll

involved saw that baseball was in dire need of some sort of streamlining. Begun in

1876, th is process lasted until 1903 when the present organizational form of major

league baseball was established.

Led by Spalding, baseball 's "domestication" commenced with the founding of the

National League in 1876, the world's oldest s t i l l functioning professional sports

league, predating the English Football League by twelve years. The National League

was limited to eight clubs. Each was guaranteed "terri torial rights .. by being the

sole representative of a city which had at least 75,000 inhabitants. In

addition to this important monopolistic market position, clubs agreed to refrain

from "raiding" each other's players by introducing the so-called "reserve clause i' •

This cartel-l ike agreement, which lasted nearly one century, gave each club

complete, quasi-feudal control over i t s players by giving i t a continuing option to

rehire them each year and thus prevent them from sell ing their labor power to the

highest bidder in the free market. (63) Players thus became a team's property, a

serf-l ike arrangement common to other professional sports with mass appeal, such as

soccer.

With baseball having become America's most popular form of entertainment by the

early 1880s, other entrepreneurs saw the sport as an excellent venue to make money.

Therefore the rival American Association developed in 1882, i ts eight teams charging

lower admissions than their counterparts in the National League and playing on

Sundays. (64) Periodic trade wars, Qenefitting fans and players, ensued between the

two r ival leagues. The result was the eventual demise of the American Association



32

in 1891 and the absorption of four of i t s teams by the National League, thereafter

comprised of twelve clubs.

In addition to trade wars, another occasional occurrence in the baseball of th e

late nineteenth century further strengthens our analogy with feudalism. Just as

there were numerous, destructive, peasant revolts which brought about few tangible

gains f.;:)r the peasants in the Middle Ages, so too did baseball players conduct

periodic costly "wars" against the owners leading only to minor attainments for the

players ' cause. Efforts to unionize were invariably defeated and the owner-imposed

"reserve clause" successfully stymied the players' attempts to use their market

power to gain better conditions and, more importantly, to enhance their control over

their own existence in baseball.

After a trade war at the turn of the century, the National League, weakened by

internal s t r i fe and the jettisoning of four of i t s clubs, entered into a peace

agreement with the newly formed American League forming the pinnacle of what became

henceforth the cartel of "Organized Baseball". The peace agreement between the two

leagues le d to the establishment of the World Series(65) and an arrangement in which

the sixteen major league teams (eight in each league) represented ten ci t ies . This

format lasted for fifty years until the Boston Braves of the National League

transferred to Milwaukee, thereby sparking a period of relocation and the

establishment of new franchises which continued until the 1970s. Following another

organizational restructuring in the wake of the 1919 "Black Sox" World Series

scandal, "Organized Baseball" was le d by a single commissioner beginning in 1920.

The game entered i t s golden era which not even World War II could interrupt. With

the gradual proliferation of radio broadcasting during the 1920s, the establishment

of the "Yankee dynasty" and the introduction of night games in 1935, baseball

achieved an unchallenged hegemony in American sports. Not until professional

football 's meteoric r ise in the 1.960s was that hegemony challenged. Baseball 's

overwhelming popularity with the American masses proved sufficient to "crowd out"



33

so.:cer "from below" in the Uni ted States.

Conclusion

This paper argues that the particular nature of America's development as "the

first new nati.)n" contributed considerably to the "crowding out" of soccer as one of

th is country's major spectator sports. Specifically, i t is this essay's contention

that some of the most salient social and historical constellations which led to the

absence of a large working-class party in the United States, making i t the world's

only advanced industrial country to suffer from this considerable deficit in the

conduct of i t s poli t ics, also helped exclude the United States from the world's most

popular mass sport . It was above all America's early and comprehensive

bourgeoisification as myth and real i ty - which created both "exceptionalisms"

whose legacies are with us to this day.

Just as the l i terature on why there is no socialism in America mainly focuses

on the period between the Civil War and World War I, so too did I concentrate much

of this paper 's empirical material on the pre-1914 era. As such, any serious

concern with either one or both of the two "exceptionalisms" demands by

necessity a historical approach since i t was at a certain era of American

development that the overall stage was set . The overall contours of this stage have

by and large remained in tact . Thus, a thorough historical exploration of topics

such as the two American "exceptionalisms" no t only helps us understand their

origins but also their continued presence in our world.

This, of course, i s not to say that an understanding of the pre-World War I

situation remains sufficient as an explanation for the failure of socialism and/or

soccer in contemporary America. Surely one would have to spend some time analyzing

the phenomena of Stalinism and McCarthyism just to mention perhaps the most

obvious cases - for a proper analysis of the continued absence of a large, mass

based, left-leaning party in the United States of the 1980s. Similarly, soccer's



34

marginal ~ x i s t ~ n c ~ as a major s p ~ c t a t o r sport in c o n t ~ m p o r a r y A m ~ r i c a has probably a

lot m o r ~ to do with i ts inability to land a l o n g - t ~ r m t ~ l ~ v i s i o n contract with o n ~

of t h ~ major n ~ t w o r k s , t h ~ n with i t b ~ i n g I I c r o w d ~ d out" by b a s ~ b a l l "from b ~ l o w " and

fo.;)tball "from a b o v ~ " b ~ f o r ~ t h ~ turn of t h ~ c ~ n t u r y . y ~ t , t h ~ v ~ r y fact that n o n ~ of t h ~ n ~ t w o r k s has ~ v ~ r b ~ ~ n willing to ~ x t ~ n d such a contract h a r k ~ n s back to an

~ r a w h ~ n public t a s t ~ s in mass sports w ~ r ~ f o r m ~ d a ll o v ~ r t h ~ world and b ~ s t o w ~ d

with a r ~ m a r k a b l ~ ~ n d u r a n c ~ . In that , ~ v ~ n t h ~ U n i t ~ d S t a t ~ s cannot claim to an

~ x c ~ p t i o n .



35

Endnot.,

*1 would l i k ~ to thank M i c h a ~ l Oriardfor his g ~ n ~ r o s i t y in l ~ t t i n g s ~ ~ his workin progress and sharing his extensive knowledge with me. Special thanks once againto Karen Donfried for h ~ r ~ x c e l l ~ n t and c h ~ e r f u l assistance in r ~ s ~ a r c h i n g thispaper.

1. I would like to draw t h ~ r e a d ~ r ' s a t t ~ n t i o n in this context to Paul Hoch's v ~ r y useful term of "sexual apartheid" denoting th e fact that sports often transcend t h ~ most rigid lines of d ~ m a r c a t i o n (be they class, status, ~ t h n i c i t y or r ~ l i g i o n ) amongm ~ n only to ~ x c l u d ~ women almost c o m p l e t ~ l y . It is i n t ~ r e s t i n g to note that thisp h ~ n o m e n o n of "sexual a p a r t h ~ i d " is virtually ubiquitous all o v ~ r t h ~ world. S e ~ Paul Hoch, Ripp off t h ~ Big G a m ~ : The Exploitation of Sports by the P o w ~ r E l i t ~ (New York: D o u b l ~ d a y , 1972), pp. 147-66.

2. While i t is very difficult to obtain r e l i a b l ~ data on how many p e o p l ~ w a t c h ~ d the World Cups of 1978, 1982 and 1986 r e s p ~ c t i v e l y , t h ~ r e can be l i t t le doubt thatt h ~ s e events have h i t h ~ r t o attracted more t ~ l e v i s i o n viewers than anything e l s ~ inhuman history. M o r ~ than 2 billion p ~ o p l ~ watched the World Cup final in 1978 with

t h ~ figures being 3 billion and 3.5 billion for t h ~ s a m ~ ~ v e n t in 1982 and 1986respectively. Over 5 billion p ~ o p l ~ w a t c h ~ th e ~ n t i r e tournament in 1982 and 8billion followed i t four years later. (All these f i g u r ~ s w ~ r ~ obtained from t h ~ S e c r ~ t a r i a t of t h ~ Federation I n t ~ r n a t i o n a l e Football Association (FIFA) inZurich.) In substantiating h ~ r point that soccer is fa r and away the world's mostpopular spectator sport, Janet L ~ v e r in h ~ r excellent study on soccer in Brazilstates the following about th e final game of the 1978 World Cup: "In o t h ~ r words,n ~ a r l y half t h ~ world's people shared a single event. (Emphasis in t h ~ original) ••• To put this figure in p ~ r s p ~ c t i v ~ , t h ~ c o m b i n ~ d a u d i ~ n c ~ for two w ~ ~ k s of Olympic ~ v ~ n t s was o n ~ bi 11 ion p ~ o p l ~ in 1976. II S ~ ~ J a n ~ t L ~ v e r , S o c c e r M a d n ~ s s (Chicago: T h ~ University of Chicago ~ r ~ s s , 1983), p. 20.

3. H ~ r ~ are s o m ~ f i g u r ~ s to · p l a c ~ t h ~ marginality of th is ~ v ~ n t on A m ~ r i c a n t ~ l ~ v i s i o n in s o m ~ p ~ r s p e c t i v ~ . The N i ~ l s ~ n ratings for t h ~ t h r ~ ~ World Cup finalsthus far t ~ l ~ v i s ~ d by o n ~ of t h ~ major A m ~ r i c a n n ~ t w o r k s a r ~ :

Y ~ a r of final N ~ t w o r k Rating S h a r ~ 1966 NBC 4.5X 21X1982 ABC 6.6X 22X1986 NBC 4.1X 13X

If o n ~ looks at the NBC data for t h ~ six g a m ~ s of t h ~ 1986 t o u r n a m ~ n t which t h ~ network t ~ l ~ v i s ~ d in addition to t h ~ final, the f i g u r ~ s b ~ c o m e ~ v ~ n m o r ~ r ~ v ~ a l i n g . T h ~ o p ~ n i n g g a m ~ with all the usual e y ~ c a t c h i n g and colorful c ~ r ~ m o n i ~ s a t t a i n ~ d a2.5X rating and a 9X s h a r ~ . T h ~ r ~ s t b r o k ~ down as follows:

D a t ~ RatingJ u n ~ 1 (Sunday a f t ~ r n o o n ) 1.6X 5XJ u n ~ 8 (Sunday a f t ~ r n o o n ) 1.4X 4XJ u n ~ 15 (Sunday a f t ~ r n o o n ) 1.8X 6X

J u n ~ 21 (Saturday a f t ~ r n o o n ) 3.4X llX

J u n ~ 22 (Sunday a f t ~ r n o o n ) 2.3X 8X

It should added that ~ a c h o n ~ of t h ~ s ~ g a m ~ s i n c l u d ~ d at l ~ a s t o n ~ of

i n t ~ r n a t i o n a l soccer's major powerhouses such as Italy Brazil, Argentina, franc.,

Spain, G ~ r m a n y or England. I also l o o k ~ d at t h ~ t w ~ l v ~ g a m ~ s t ~ l ~ v i s ~ d by t h ~ sports c h a n n ~ l ESPN. As e x p ~ c t ~ d , t h ~ n u m b ~ r s w ~ r ~ far i n f ~ r i o r to NBC's. Thus,



36

only once - on June 3 - did the rating percentage exceed 1 with the share never

attaining 27..To put all of th is into perspective, I obtained the television figures for the

most recent major events in American sports: Superbowl 1386; World Series 1985,NCAA basketball final 1986 and NBA championship ser ies 1986. They are as follows:

Event Network Ratinq

Superbowl 1986 NBC 48.37. 707.World Series 1985 ABC 25.37. 397. (averaged over 7 games)NCAA basketball final 1986 CBS 20.77. 317.NBA championship series '86 CBS 14.17. 31.17. (averaged over 6 games)

The Nielsen system's two figures stand fo r the percentage of a ll T.V. households inthe United States in the case of the "rating", and for the households that have

their television sets switched on at the time of the measurement in the case of the"share". It is estimated that 99X of a ll households in the United States have

televisions, which t ranslates into 86 million households.In order to corroborate my hypothesis that soccer - at least as a spectacle

continues to remain confined to immigrant subcultures in the United States, Iobtained data from the Spanish International Network (SIN) regarding i t s viewership

of the World Cup. While the data are not comparable to those l isted above sinceSIN's programs are no t measured by the Nielsen company, i t nevertheless seems clearthat among the 4.3 million households receiving SIN World Cup '86 was a popular

event. The opening game attained a 557. rating with the final reaching 65.67.. SINconstructed a six game aggregate composite to measure i t s viewership of the WorldCup which yielded some interesting results : the highest rating composite - 77.97.was reached by male viewers between the ages of 18 and 34 with the lowest figure foradults over 18 being the 47.2X attained by women between 25 and 54. The overallcomposite for a ll male viewers over 18 was 677. with the corresponding figure forwomen being 45.7X. "Sexual apartheid" s t i l l seems to exist among America's SINviewers, though the excluded group seems to have participated in surprisingly largenumbers, at least as far as this event from Mexico was concerned.

4. On how the United States has from i t s beginning as an independent countryexerted a special, though very ambivalent, attraction on European - in this caseparticularly German - intellectuals, see Andrei S. Markovits, "On Anti-Americanism

in West Germany" in New German Critique, Number 34 (Winter 1985), pp. 3-27.

America's fascination on European intel lectuals such as Tocqueville, Martineau,Bryce, Weber, Heine among many others is very well known and superbly documented.

5. The original t i t l e of Sombart's work as published by the renown house of J.C.B.Mohr (Paul Siebeck) from Tuebingen in 1906 was Warum gibt es in den VereinigtenStaate'., keinen Sozialismus? The Englisn translation is : Why i s there no Socialismin the United States?, f i rs t published by The Macmillan Press, London and by theInternational Arts and Sciences Press of White Plains, New York in 1976. Alas Iwould argue that the t i t l e continues to remain just as flawed in Europe as i t waswhen Sombart published his work. By dismissing the Soviet Union's and EasternEurope's poli t ical economy as having l i t t le in common with socialism and by seeingthe welfare states of capital ist Western Europe also falling considerably short ofwhat socialism is supposed to be, I cannot help but conclude that Sombart's t i t l e

continues to convey a flawed image not only of the United States but of all themajor industrial countries in the world.

6. The l i terature dealing with "American exceptionalism", or at least certain

aspects of i t , is vast . H.r. 1 will list only those works which I have foundparticularly important in my teaching and research over the years. Louis Hartz,

Liberal Tradition in America: An Interpretation of American Polit ical Thought Since



37

the Revolution (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1955); rrederick Jackson Turner, Therront ier in American History (New York: Holt and Co., 1947); John M. Laslett andSeymour Martin Lipset (eds.), railure of a Dream? Essays in the History of AmericanSocialism (Garden City: Doubleday, Anchor Books, 1974); Seymour Martin Lipset,Polit ical Man (Garden City: Doubleday, Anchor Books, 1960); idem, The r i rs t NewNation (Garden City: Doubleday, Anchor Books, 1967); idem, Agrarian Socialism

(Garden City: Doubleday, Anchor Books, 1968); idem, Revolution and Counterrevolution(Garden City: Doubleday, Anchor Books, 1970); the exchange between Sean Wilentz andMichael Hanagan in International Labor and Working Class History, Number 26;

Gwendolyn Mink, Old Labor and New Immiarants in American Polit ical Development:Union, Party. and State 1875-1920 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986); andJerome Karabel, "The railure of American Socialism Reconsidered" in The Social istRegister (1979), pp. 204-227.

7. ror the most thorough account of soccer in the United States see ZanderHollander (ed.), ~ T h ~ e ~ A ~ m ~ e ~ r ~ i c ~ a n u - - = E n ~ c ~ Y L c ~ l o ~ p ~ e d ~ i a = - _ o ~ f __ S : o ~ c ~ c ~ e ~ r (New York: Everest HousePublishers, 1980).

8. As to soccer's existence in the United States, the two following quotations seem

rather revealing: "Although various attempts have been made, soccer has obstinatelyrefused to take root in the United States. I t has for many years been extensivelyplayed at a minor level, particularly in Philadelphia, where there has long been aproliferation of leagues, and in St. Louis, where i t is very popular in schools,"[John Arlott (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Sports and Games (London: OxfordUniversity Press, 1975), p. 381J; and "Soccer is a sport you play, but you don'twatch or follow," [An 11-year old gir l on Boston television in the summer of 1986. JEspecially the la t ter item i s highly revealing about soccer's recent fate in theUnited States. There i s ample evidence that soccer has in fact increased as aparticipatory amateur sport since the ignominious demise of the North AmericanSoccer League's major push to make the game an integral part of major Americanprofessional sports and a lucrative spectacle comparable to soccer's presence in therest of the world and that of the "Big Three" (plus hockey, perhaps) in the United

States. Research has corroborated my hypothesis that soccer in the United States i san important participatory physical activity, especially for the very young, whileat the same time continuing i t s marginal existence as a general cultural phenomenonand as a preoccupation in the male population's involvement with spectator sports.According to data obtained from the United States Soccer rederation, 1.2 million

American youngsters under the age of 19 played soccer on a regular basis in 1985.20X of th is group was female. The youth component of th is sport becomes ratherevident when one compares these figures to the 120,0()Q soccer players above 19, amarked drop from the previously mentioned 1.2 million. In other words, soccer inthe United States i s predominantly a game for middle class, suburban boys and gir ls

who then stop playing i t as they grow older, never having seen the game as more than

a pleasant and "egali tarian" form of recreation.) I t is str iking, however - and innotable contrast to soccer played vir tually everywhere else in the world - that the

percentage of female players over the age of 19 s t i l l remains at 18 in the UnitedStates, once again underlining the sport 's "nonsexist" presence in this country.The game, most popular in California and Texas, continues to grow nationally at anannual rate of 10X fo r the under 19 group and at 5X fo r those over 19, with parts ofthe discrepancy due to the unavailabil i ty of proper faci l i t ies for the more advanced

players. Much of the continued growth in both groups occurs on account of theincreasing level of female participation in soccer.

Some interesting resul ts about soccer 's pa rt icularly "American" existence as aparticipatory and relatively gender-neutral activity also emerged an my research onthe game's presence on America's college campuses. According to the National

Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), out of i t s more than 900 members in 1985,



38

549 c o l l ~ g e s f i ~ l d e d m ~ n ' s soccer teams with 200 colleges fielding women's. Forbasketball, the figures were 757 for men and 764 for women respectively. 507American ins t i tut ions of higher learning belonging to the NCAA fielded football

teams, an all male sport at the varsity level. It is also interesting to look ats o c c ~ r ' s growth as a c o l l e g ~ sport during the la te 1970s and early 1980s: Among thecirca 750 NCAA members in 1975/76, 469 schools had football teams and 423 f i ~ l d e d men's s o c c ~ r teams; by 1980/81 the numbers had s h i f t ~ d in favor of soccer, with 487colleges playing varsity football while 510 had m ~ n ' s soccer teams by then.Under lining s o c c ~ r ' s status as a participat.)ry rather than a s p ~ c t a t o r sport , ~ v ~ n on the college, le t alone professional, level (where, of course, i t does no t existin the United States) , are the following figures: 36,312,022 people a t t e n d e ~ college football games at a ll 4-year colleges (not just NCAA members) in the U n i t ~ d States during 1985; for men's basketball, the equivalent figure was 30 million fo rthe 1985/86 season; in contrast , while no f i g u r ~ s for soccer a r ~ available (in andof i t se l f a t ~ l l i n g fact), educated g u e s s ~ s do no t e s t i m a t ~ viewers' a t t e n d a n c ~ atcollege soccer games to be above the 700,000 level during the 1985 season. AEuropean friend of mine once aptly described soccer 's predicament in t h ~ United

States: "As long as young American children continue to collect baseball instead ofsoccer cards, the game, which the rest of the world calls football, will never

emerge beyond i t s histor ically marginal status in the United States."

9. These countries - with the notable exception of South Africa all have

Sombartian "socialism" in the form of a large, organized labor party which, in t h ~ case of Canada, has always been a relatively weak third party on the national l e v ~ l , though often dominant in some of that country's Western provinces. As to Australiaand New Zealand, both c o u n t r i ~ s are governed by t h ~ i r r e s p e c t i v ~ labor p a r t i ~ s atthe time of this writing, i .e . the summer of 1986.

10. It is very interesting that f ~ w , i f any, countries have l ike the United Statess u c c e e d ~ d in developing three major team sports, all of which attained nationalsignificance in their professional version. Even in the United States, however, i t

is somewhat erroneous to speak of the "Big Three"· in terms of popularity as

spectator sports. As some of the following figures i l lus t ra te , i t is quite c l ~ a r that basketball is a distant third to football and baseball in terms of enjoying theattention of the American public. Tellingly, soccer completely fai ls to appear inone of. the surveys and is in a distant fourteenth - and last - place in the other.

To t h ~ question "What is your favorite sport to watch?" posed to Americans bythe Gallup Sports Audit in July 1985, the answers were as follows:

Football 26XBaseball 21XBasketball lOXTennis 4XGolf 3XWrestling 3X

Hockey 3XBoxing 2XGymnastics 2XAuto racing 2XIce skating 2XTouch football 2XOther . lOXNone 101.

By comparison, in the 1981 Audit, football led baseball by better than a 2-to-l

margin, 38X to 16%, with basketball cited by 9%. Thus, baseball seems to be once



39

again gaining on football with perhaps having a decent shot at reconquering i t s

position as Americans' most favorite spectator sport which i t lost to football

during the 1960s.Here are some selected national trends of the "Big Three" between 1937

Gallup's first Sport Audit - and 1981:

Football Baseball Basketball

1981 3 8 ~ 1 6 ~ 1972 3 6 ~ 2 1 ~ 1960 2 1 ~ 3 4 ~ 1948 1 7 ~ 3 9 ~ 10%1937 26% 36% 11%

As to the 1985 Audit, football has a disproportionate appeal to men, 3 4 ~ of whomname i t as their favorite, compared to 20% of women, among whom i t is tied in appealwith baseball. It also enjoys somewhat greater popularity among younger adults,persons who attended college, the more affluent, and southerners as well aswesterners. In the Midwest, football and baseball are sta t i s t ical ly tied for the

lead, while in the East baseball holds a modest edge. Among blacks, football,baseball, and basketball have about the same number of partisans, with the lat terfar more popular among blacks (20% named i t their favorite sport) than with whites( 9 ~ ) •N.B.: Gallup Sports Audit does not differentiate between amateur (e.g. college) andprofessional sports. It also does not distinguish between television viewing andwatching sports in person.Source: George Gallup, The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 1985 (Wilmington: ScholarlyResources Inc., 1986), pp. 223-225.

Here are the replies to the statement: "Let's talk sports. Please te l l mewhich of these sports you follow" (multiple answers allowed) posed by the HarrisSurvey in November 1984:

1984 1992

Pro football 59% 591Baseball 55% 6 2 ~ College football 46% 511College basketball 33% 32%Pro basketball 31% 35%Boxing 31% 35%Tennis 2 8 ~ 36%Auto racing 25% 2 6 ~ Track and field 231- 27%Hor se rad ng 21% 23%Bowling 20% 22%Golf 19% 24%Hockey 15% 18%

Soccer 11% 15%

Here are the very interesting results to the subsequent question: "If you hadto choose, which of these sports would you say is your favorite?"

1982Pro football 24% 20%Baseball 211- 231College football 9% llXCollege basketball 77.Auto racing 67.



40

Boxing 6X 5X

Pro b a s k ~ t b a l l 5X 6X

Bowling 5X 3XGolf 4X 47.H o r s ~ racing 4X 37.T ~ n n i s 47. 77.

H o c k ~ y 37. 27.S o c c ~ r 27. 2XTrack and f i ~ l d 17. 37.

I t is i n t ~ r ~ s t i n g that without t h ~ h ~ l p of c o l l ~ g ~ football, football 's o t h ~ r w i 5 ~ commanding l ~ a d o v ~ r b a s ~ b a l l has b ~ ~ n all but ~ l i m i n a t ~ d placing t h ~ s ~ two sportsat t h ~ p r o f ~ s 5 i o n a l l ~ v ~ l virtually n ~ c k - a n d - n ~ c k at t h ~ top, way a h ~ a d of any o t h ~ r c a t ~ g o r y . f u r t h ~ r m o r ~ , i t is n o t ~ w o r t h y that within t h ~ s m a l l ~ s t of t h ~ "BigT h r ~ ~ " , i . ~ . b a s k ~ t b a l l , t h ~ c o l l ~ g ~ g a m ~ ~ x c ~ ~ d s t h ~ pro g a m ~ in popularity by asmall, though signif icant, margin.

S o u r c ~ : T h ~ Harris S u r v ~ y , I n d ~ x to I n t ~ r n a t i o n a l Public Opinion 1984-1985 ( N ~ w York: G r ~ ~ n w o o d P r ~ s s , 1986), p. 517.

11. It r ~ m a i n s s o m ~ w h a t of a m y s t ~ r y to why b a s k ~ t b a l l b ~ c a m ~ t h ~ onlys u c c ~ s s f u l A m ~ r i c a n ~ x p o r t hailing from t h ~ "Big T h r ~ ~ " . I n d ~ ~ d , i t s s u c c ~ s s can

m ~ a s u r ~ d by t h ~ fact that , following s o c c ~ r , i t c o n s t i t u t ~ s t h ~ world's s ~ c o n d mostpopular t ~ a m sport. T h ~ f ~ d ~ r a t i o n I n t ~ r n a t i o n a l ~ B a s k ~ t b a l l A m a t ~ u r , f o u n d ~ d in1932, had 133 m ~ m b ~ r s in 1982, with t h ~ f ~ d ~ r a t i o n I n t ~ r n a t i o n a l ~ footballAssociation (flfA), ~ s t a b l i s h ~ d in 1904, n u m b ~ r i n g 147 m ~ m b ~ r nations (13 nationsm o r ~ , i n c i d ~ n t a l l y , than w ~ r ~ h ~ l d t o g ~ t h ~ r by t h ~ multisport I n t ~ r n a t i o n a l OlympicC o m m i t t ~ ~ - IOC). S ~ ~ J a n ~ t L ~ v ~ r , S o c c ~ r M a d n ~ s s , pp. 27, 33-34. T h r ~ ~ of

b a s k ~ t b a l l ' s ~ s s ~ n t i a l c h a r a c t ~ r i s t i c s could p ~ r h a p s account - at l ~ a s t in partfor this sport 's s u c c ~ s s f u l i n t ~ r n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n in contrast . to t h ~ A m ~ r i c a n parochialism of football and b a s ~ b a l l . f i r s t , just l i k ~ s o c c ~ r , b a s k ~ t b a l l is

b l ~ s s ~ d with having v ~ r y s i m p l ~ r u l ~ s . This m ~ a n s that t h ~ g a m ~ was ~ a s i l y t r a n s f ~ r a b l ~ t o · t h ~ most d i v ~ r s ~ c u l t u r ~ s , s i n c ~ i t was ~ a s i l y u n d ~ r s t o o d and

a p p r ~ c i a t ~ d . S ~ c o n d , b a s k ~ t b a l l only r ~ q u i r ~ s f i v ~ p l a y ~ r s which has m a d ~ i tc h ~ a p ~ r than b a s ~ b a l l , n ~ c ~ s s i t a t i n g l i t t l ~ ~ q u i p m ~ n t , and a good d ~ a l l ~ s s ~ x p ~ n s i v ~ than football which r ~ q u i r ~ s much ~ q u i p m ~ n t . Lastly, u n l i k ~ b a s ~ b a l l , football and s o c c ~ r , b a s k ~ t b a l l was ~ x p l i c i t l y d ~ s i g n ~ d as a w i n t ~ r , i . ~ . indoor,sport. As such, i t has n ~ v ~ r had any s ~ r i o u s rivals, which could p o s ~ a majorc h a l l ~ n g ~ to i t s p r o l i f ~ r a t i o n following t h ~ m a s s i v ~ bUild-up of indoor a r ~ n a s during t h ~ post-World War II p ~ r i o d in vir tually ~ v ~ r y country of t h ~ f i r s t andS ~ c o n d Worlds.

12. T h ~ r ~ can no doubt that I m m a n u ~ l W a l l ~ r s t ~ i n and o t h ~ r scholars of t h ~ $ 0

c a l l ~ d "capitalist world s y s t ~ m " school h a v ~ c o n t r i b u t ~ d substantially to ouru n d ~ r s t a n d i n g of t h ~ U n i t ~ d S t a t ~ s as a " c o r ~ within t h ~ c o r ~ " . S ~ ~ I m m a n u ~ l W a l l ~ r s t ~ i n , T h ~ M o d ~ r n World S y s t ~ m : Capitalist A g r i c u l t u r ~ and t h ~ Origins of t h ~ E u r o p ~ a n World-Economy in t h ~ S i x t ~ ~ t h C ~ n t u r y ( N ~ w York: A c a d ~ m i c P r ~ s s , 1974);and W a l t ~ r L. Goldfrank ( ~ d . ) , T h ~ W o r l d - S y s t ~ m of Capitalism: Past and P r ~ s ~ n t ( B ~ v ~ r l y Hills: S a g ~ Publications, 1979).

13. S ~ ~ : "A n ~ w s p a p ~ r at t h ~ top of i t s g a m ~ s : S o v i ~ t s k i Sport works hard to k ~ ~ p i t s r ~ a d ~ r s i n f o r m ~ d on t h ~ NBA, NHL. . . . . , in T h ~ Boston G l o b ~ , July 20, 1986.

14. Thus, for ~ x a m p l ~ , Antonin Dvorak's famous symphony in E minor, opus 95 known tomusic l o v ~ r s as "from t h ~ World", w a n t ~ d to c a p t u r ~ and c o n v ~ y something

"typically Am&rican", not Canadian or Australian, to i t s Europ&an audi&nces. Thec o m p o s ~ r was fascinated by the United States as a m u l t i ~ t h n i c and multicultural



41

society whose music he experienced as having original elements which could onlyenrich that of the "old world". See Friedrich C. Heller, "Antonin Dvorak: 9.Symphonie 'Aus der neuen Welt' in Playbill of the Salzburger Festspiele 1985 (July29,1985) , n.p.

15. For the best comparative analysis on this issue, demonstrating a more ubiquitous

and serious religious involvement on the part of American population when contrastedwith inhabitants of other advanced capital is t societies, see Walter Dean Burnham'ssuperb essay: "The 1980 Earthquake: Realignment, Reaction, or What?" in ThomasFerguson and Joel Rogers (eds.) , The Hidden Election: Politics and Economics in the1980 Presidential Campaign (New York: Pantheon Books, 1981), pp. 98-140. It is

especially in Appendix A of the article, entit led "Social Stress and PoliticalResponse: Religion and the 1980 Election" (PP. 132-140) that Burnham demonstrateshow in the United States religion is "very important" to a larger percentage of thepopulation than in countries such as Canada, Italy (s t i l l relatively high), theBenelux countries, Australia, France, th e United Kingdom already a good deal lower,

followed by West Germany, the Scandinavian countries and Japan at the bottom.

Moreover, in no other advanced industrial country would i t be natural for allpoliticians - even those to the lef t of the country's political center - to close

campaign speeches with "God bless you" as is s t i l l - or perhaps again - commonplacein the United States among Republicans and Democrats alike.

16. The data about the United States being an "armed society" is nothing short ofseriously frightening. According to information obtained from Handgun Control Inc.in Washington, D.C., there were 102 million firearms in the United States in 1968,with the quantity increasing to 165 million by 1978 and 240 million by 1985. Oneou t of every four U.S. households has some sor t of firearm, half of which areloaded. Contrast the 60 million licensed handguns in the United States to the250,000 licensed pistols and r i f les in the United Kingd.om with a population of over

50 millionaccidental

(1981 figures).firearm deaths l

It is

ooks asnot

follows:

surprlslng than that the sta t is t ics for

Country YearUSA 1982

Accidental Firearms Death1,756

Israel 19821983

1225

Japan 19831984

1012

West Germany 19831984

28

29

Poland 1983

1984

43

34

Yugoslavia 1982 43

Australia 19821983

4840

Norway 1983 6

Swi tz erl and 19821983

510

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/Kingd.om

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/Kingd.om



42

1984 6

Source: World Health Organization, World Health Stat is t ics Annual - 1985 (Geneva:World Health Organization, 1985).

17. Leon Samson, Towards a United Front (New York: Farrar and Rinehart, 1933).

18. It i s interesting to note that Great Britain and the United States dominated thefive Olympic Games held before World War I (1896, 1900, 1904, 1908 and 1912). Amongthe total of 211 gold medals awarded in this period (with one event having beenvoided out of a possible 212), the United States won 82 and Great Britain 36

bringing their total to 118 which amounted to 55.77. of a ll the gold medals obtainedby winners in these five Olympics. If one adds the 4 gold medals won byAustralians, 3 by South Africans and 5 by Canadian athletes, the "Anglo-Saxon" totalof 130 gold medals yields 61.37. of all the gold medals awarded in these events. TheAnglo-American dominance becomes even more pronounced when i t is contrasted to the81 gold medal winners hailing from other countries among whom none achieved aposition of clear superiority. The countries belonging to this group of "others"were Greece, Sweden, France, Cuba, I taly, Belgium, Finland, Hungary, Germany,

Switzerland, Netherlands and Austria. [See Encyclopedia Americana, Number 20·(1982); pp. 723b-723r.J This i s yet another clear manifestation of the fact thatthe invention, development and practice of organized sports were very much thedomain of the most pronouncedly bourgeois societies at the turn of the century, i .e .

the United States and Great Britain.

19. Michael Oriard has superbly captured the essence of this "special relationship"between Great Britain and the United States, highlighting the American side of the

dilemma: "As former colonials, Americans looked to the mother country forleadership in athletic matters as surely as they imitated British ar t , l i terature,and other cultural expressions in the nineteenth century. But i t i s equallyimportant to note our dist inctive adaptations of English sporting customs. Thehistor ical moment of America's colonizing, the rejection of monarchy and aristocracy

for an egalitarian ideal, and the consequent differences in American social,poli t ical , and educational institutions had profound implications for the nativesports culture." Michael Oriard, "In the Land of Merriwell: Fair Play and AmericanSports Culture, II Chapter Two of the manuscript of a forthcoming book, p. 87 .

20. The word "soccer" i s an abbreviation of Association Football. More precisely,i t derives from "association" forming a linguistic parallel to "rugger" which in

turn became the vernacular fo r Rugby Football. Brian Glanville, certainly among theforemost soccer experts in the world and one of the game's best chroniclers, te l l s

this interesting anecdote in connection with the origins of the word "soccer": "Whysoccer, though? (Emphasis in original . ) The only plausible theory I have ever comeacross is that the credit , or blame, belonged to Charles Wreford-Brown, a famouscenter half for Old Carthusians and the Corinthians. Sitting in his rooms in Oxford

University, so i t i s said, he was visited by a friend who asked him whether he weregoing to play 'Rugger' or Rugby football. To this, in a burst of inspiration,Wreford-Brown replied, 'No: I'm playing soccer, ' the world being a corruption of, Association' in the sport 's correct name, Association Football." See Brian

Glanville, A Book of SOccer (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979>, pp. 4, 5.

21. Hollander, The American Encyclopedia of Soccer, p. 14.

22. Ibid.

23. Calcio's only major contemporary legacy is , of course, the fact that the game



43

of soccer referred to in most languages by a variant of the English term"football" - is s t i l l called "calcio" in Italy.

24. Glanville, A Book of Soccer, p. 4; and James Walvin, The People's Game: ASocial History of British Football (London: Allen Lane, 1975), p. 14.

25. See chapter one in Walvin's The People's Game enti t led "Pre-IndustrialFootball", chapter three "The Rise of the Working-Class Football", and chapter five"England's Most Durable Export".

26. Michael Oriard, "In th.e Land of Merriwell," p. 95.

27. Ibid. , p. 90.

28. See Percy M. Young, The History of British Football (London: Stanley Paul,

1968), p. 62.

29. I t is in this context that the name of William Webb Ellis means a lo t toAmerican football fans. According to a number of f irst-rate sources such as The

NFL's Official Encyclopedia History of Professional Football (New York: MacmillanPublishing, 1977), p. 10; Young, The History of British Football, p. 63; and DavidRiesman and Reuel Denney, "Football in America: A Study in Culture Diffusion" in theAmerican Quarterly, Volume 3, number 4 (Winter 1951), pp. 311, 312, i t was in 1823that William Webb Ellis , a Rugby student, picked up the ball in a match at hisschool, tucked i t under his arm and ran with i t past the goalline. Walvin, in aninteresting departure, claims th is whole thing to be untrue and maintains that thismyth was invented by Rugby fans and alumni in 1895 as a post-hoc reassertion thatth e game of rugby had originated at their school. (See Walvin, The People's Game,p. 34.) If Walvin i s right, then the origins of American football - via rugby - are

based on an equal myth to that of baseball 's supposed invention by Abner Doubledayin Cooperstown, New York in 1839. I t i s interesting that baseball 's DoubledayCooperstown myth also arose at the end of the nineteenth century, thus paralleling

football 's William-Webb-Ellis myth with respect to time of creation.

30. On th is point, see Walvin, The People's Game, pp. 42-43; Young, The History ofBritish Football, pp. 89-92; and Ph. Heineken, Das Fussballspiel. Association (ohneAufnahme des Balls): Seine Geschichte, Regeln und Spielweise (Stuttgart: GustavWeise Verlag, n.d.) , p. 15.

31. Young, The History of British Football, p. 79.

32. Ibid. , pp. 93, 94. Among th e many commonalities between SOCCer and basketball- team effort , both centered on collective strategies requiring constant on-the-spotimprovisation as opposed to the execution of clearly defined plans brought in fromthe outside of th e actual contest a la American football - is most certainly thefact that both only had 13 rules at their respective founding which to this days t i l l form the core of each sport 's essential existence. It i s tell ing that Dr.James Naismith, the founder of basketball, used a soccer ball when he invented thenew winter sport in 1892 in Springfield, Massachusetts. Both sports are "simplegames", making them easily understandable and readily transferable across diversecultures. Soccer, however, is even lIIore "democratic" than basketball. Not in needof hoops and indoor arenas, soccer, above al l , continues to be played by "normal"people rather than giant-like athletes who have all but become de rigueur in any

kind of competitive modern basketball. For a nice analysis contrasting basketballand soccer on th e one hand with football and baseball on the other, see Robert W.

Keidel, "'The Soccer-Basketball Connection", Letter to the Editor, The New York



44

T i m ~ s , July 17, 1986.

33. Young, A History of British Football, p. 113.

34 . Walvin, T h ~ P ~ o p l ~ ' s G a m ~ , p. 74.

35.S ~ ~

againt h ~

comparisons tob a s k ~ t b a l l

- andt h ~

contrasts tob a s ~ b a l l

andfootball - m ~ n t i o n ~ d in f o o t n o t ~ 32.

36 . Walvin p r o v i d ~ s a good analysis of d i s i l l u s i o n m ~ n t with s o c c ~ r on t h ~ part oft h ~ English g ~ n t l ~ m ~ n o n c ~ t h ~ g a m ~ had b ~ c o m ~ a p p r o p r i a t ~ d by t h ~ working class int h ~ c o u r s ~ of t h ~ 1880s.

37 . O n ~ of s o c c ~ r ' s major m i s s i o n a r i ~ s until 1939 was t h ~ famous Corinthians.F o u n d ~ d in 1883 by N.L. Jackson with t h ~ ~ x p l i c i t p u r p o s ~ of c r ~ a t i n g a f i r s t - r a t ~ a m a t ~ u r t ~ a m which could c o n t i n u ~ to uphold t h ~ ~ l i t i s t g ~ n t l ~ m a n l y v a l u ~ s of oldy ~ t at t h ~ s a m ~ t i m ~ play ~ x c ~ l l ~ n t football, t h ~ Corinthians c o n s i s t ~ d ofu n i v ~ r s i t y g r a d u a t ~ s among whom O x b r i d g ~ m ~ n p r ~ d o m i n a t ~ d . T h ~ y w ~ r ~ such ~ x c ~ l l ~ n t f o o t b a l l ~ r s that in 1904 t h ~ y h u m i l i a t ~ d Bury by a s c o r ~ of 10-3 following t h ~ l a t t ~ r ' s r ~ c o r d

6-0 victory in thaty ~ a r ' s

F.A. Cup final. Always arriving in tophats and c a n ~ s to t h ~ ballparks w h i l ~ t h ~ i r o p p o n ~ n t s typically w o r ~ cloth caps, t h ~ Corinthians w ~ r ~ an anachronism r ~ p r ~ s ~ n t i n g s o c c ~ r ' s g ~ n t l ~ m a n l y ~ r a of t h ~ 1860sand 1870s in a p ~ r i o d w h ~ n t h ~ gam. had b ~ c o m ~ t h ~ mass sport par ~ x c ~ l l ~ n c ~ in t h ~ world. H o w ~ v ~ r , t h ~ fact that s o c c ~ r b ~ c a m ~ so popular a ll o v ~ r t h ~ world had atl .as t s o m ~ t h i n g to do with t h ~ s ~ d ~ d i c a t ~ a m a t ~ u r s . L i k ~ m i s s i o n a r i ~ s , t h ~ Corinthians t o u r ~ d t h ~ world, playing ~ x h i b i t i o n g a m ~ s ( " f r i ~ n d l y " m a t c h ~ s ) againstlocal clubs and al l -s tar t ~ a m s in a numb.r of c o u n t r i ~ s on t h ~ E u r o p ~ a n c o n t i n ~ n t . T h ~ y m a d ~ such an impact in Brazil, that a t ~ a m in Sao Paolo was c h r i s t ~ n ~ d a f t ~ r t h ~ m . Corinthians .Sao Paolo r ~ m a i n s to this day o n ~ of that country's l ~ a d i n g s o c c ~ r clubs. T h ~ Corinthians also t o u r ~ d t h ~ U n i t ~ d S t a t ~ s in 1911 routing a ll sixA m ~ r i c a n t ~ a m s whom t h ~ y p l a y ~ d . This prompted t h ~ i r p r ~ s i d ~ n t , th . old Oxfordian

C h a r l ~ s Wr.ford-Brown - t h ~ a l l ~ g ~ d i n v ~ n t o r of t h ~ t ~ r m " s o c c ~ r " as p r ~ v i o u s l y m ~ n t i o n ~ d - to s t a t ~ his disappointm.nt r ~ g a r d i n g t h ~ stagnation he f ~ l t soccer hade x p ~ r i ~ n c ~ d in t h ~ U n i t ~ d S t a t ~ s . T h ~ Corinthians w ~ r ~ d i s b a n d ~ d in 1939, having

o u t l i v ~ d t h ~ i r ~ r a by n ~ a r l y half a century yet proving to h a v ~ b ~ ~ n n o b l ~ andimportant r ~ p r ~ s ~ n t a t i v ~ s of t h ~ wcrld's most popular mass sport. On t h ~ Corinthians, s ~ ~ Walvin, T h ~ P ~ o p l ~ ' s G a m ~ , p. ' 88; and Young, A History of BritishFootball, pp. 128-131. On t h ~ Corinthians' visi t to t h ~ U n i t ~ d S t a t ~ s in 1911, s ~ . H o l l a n d ~ r , T h ~ A m ~ r i c a n E n c y c l o p ~ d i a of S o c c ~ r , p. 35.

38. H o l l a n d ~ r , T h ~ A m ~ r i c a n E n c y c l o p ~ d i a of S o c c ~ r , p. 35 .

39. Ibid., p. 21.

40. Ibid., p. 22.

41. It is unclear to why Harvard r ~ f u s e d so steadfastly to play t h ~ kicking

g a m ~ , sticking t ~ n a c i o u s l y to t h ~ r u n n i n g - s t y l ~ Boston game and t h ~ n conv.rting torugby following t h ~ matches with McGill in 1874. O n ~ h y p o t h ~ s i s might that t h ~ u n i v ~ r s i t y ' s anglophilia and strong p r ~ o c c u p a t i o n with imitating Oxford andC a m b r i d g ~ as c l o s ~ l y as p o s s i b l ~ , l ~ d i t to i d ~ n t i f y with rugby as b ~ i n g t h ~ " p r o p ~ r " sport for s t u d ~ n t s at A m ~ r i c a ' s oldest and most p r ~ s t i g i o u s u n i v ~ r s i t y . T h ~ r ~ can no doubt, h o w ~ v ~ r , that, i t was u l t i m a t ~ l y Harvard's u n i q u ~ p r ~ s t i g ~ andstanding among A m ~ r i c a ' s c o l l ~ g ~ s at t h ~ t i m ~ which s w a y ~ the o t h ~ r u n i v ~ r s i t i ~ s away from a s o c c ~ r - s t y l e football, which t h ~ y w ~ r ~ a l r ~ a d y playing making them~ m b r a c ~ the H a r v a r d - d o m i n a t ~ d running g a m ~ . Thus, Harvard can be a c c o r d ~ d an

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disappointm.nt

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disappointm.nt



45

important role in the development of America's "soccer exceptionalism".


43. I t is faSCinating how the stigma of soccer as being a boring sport haspersisted among Americans. It is equally interesting to observe how Europeans in

turn label baseball, and to a lesser degree even football, as being boring. Thisleads me to the conclusion that a lack of understanding and appreciation of anysport easily renders i t "boring" in the eyes of the uninitiated spectator.


45. The NrL's O f f i ~ i a l Encyclopedia History of Professional rootball , p. 10. In abri l l ian t application of Max Weber's t r ipar t i te scheme of domination - charismatic,traditional, legal-rational Seymour Martin Lipset shows how the earlyinstitutionalization of George Washington's charisma as this "firs t new nation's"f i rs t president and foremost military leader helped create a smooth transition toand a legitimate continuation of the legal-rational form of authority which hasregulated much of th e public discourse and behavior in the United States for over

two centuries. See Lipset, The r i r s t New Nation, pp. 21-26.

46. The NrL's Official Encyclopedia History of Professional rootball , p. 10.

47 . Riesman and Denny, "rootball in America," pp. 318, 319; and Oriard, "In theLand of Merriwell," p. 112.

48. All of the preceding information is deri ved from Riesman and Denny, "rootballin America"; The NrL's Official Encyclopedia History of Professional rootball; andJohn Arlott, The Oxford Companion to Sports and Games, pp. 321-323. I t is helpfulfor the argument to furnish yet another detail concerning the orlgln of thenecessary yardage rule, since i t conveys the difference between th e myth of aleisurely and gentlemanly activity on the one hand, and the real i ty of a .fiercely

contested bourgeois game in which winning became all-important on the other. WhenCamp and his colleagues devised the American scrimMage ou t of the British "scrum",they assumed "that the chivalrous Ivy L ~ a g u e r s would gladly give up ' the ball whenthey could no t gain ground during the scrimmage." (The NrL's Official Encyclopedia

Historyof Professional rootball, p.- 10.) This, however, was clearly not the case.Worried about being outperformed and outwitted by i ts opponents, each team chose toplay i t safe by simply maintaining possession of the ball as long as possible, whichin effect meant for one-half of the game. Trust in the opponent's honest intentionsand th e simple desire just to enjoy playing a good game regardless of winners andlosers so essential , to a quasi-aristocratic, non-competitive, gentlemanly

atmosphere - had all but disappeared in American sports and society, even at thenation's most el i te universities.

49. Surely the involvement of a military man at the highest level of the country'ssports world connoted some affini ty between the "scientization" and str ic t

regulation of sports on the one hand, and very similar values expressed by thecountry's military establishment on the other. Tne common denominator betweensports and the military was furnished by the fact that both of them were perceivedby the eli tes as "modern".

SO. Oriard, "In the Land of ,Merriwell, II p. 107.

51. Ibid. , p. 114.



46

52. It is worthy mentioning in this context one of early pro football 's mostsignificant legacies to America's sports world. It was in New York City 's MadisonSquare Garden that a "World Series" was played indoors between two professionalfootball teams in 1902 and 1903 giving r ise to the same - and subsequently much morepopular event in the game of professional baseball. See The Nfl 's OfficialEncyclopedia History of Professional football, p. 12.

53. In the context of discussing professional football 's precursors, The Nfl'sOfficial Encyclopedia History of Professional football contains a passage whichprovides an excellent example of the atmosphere underlying th e formation of Americansports (especially football) which - i f no t explici t ly anti-Brit ish - was clearlyconduci ve to separate the "new world's" sports from those of the "old";"Pi ttsburgh' s f i rs t athletic clubs were the Allegheny Athletic Association and thePittsburgh Athletic Club. Such clubs emerged af ter the Civil War, according toresearcher Thomas Jable, as an antidote to Victorianism. American men could through

competitive athlet ics at their clubs 'countermand the Victorian principles ofdelicacy and refinement. ' football , aggressive and sometimes violent, served thisneed especially well; i t ' represented a significant triumph of robust manliness over

tender and fragile feminini ty ' . II Ibid., p. 11.

54. The link between American football and capitalism has often been made. for arelat ively recent comparison between "democratic" and "capitalist" American footballon the one hand and "socialist" European soccer on the other, see Congressman Jack

Kemp's following views as expressed in liThe old quarterback doesn't approve of thatother football game" in The Boston Globe, Hay 12, 1983: "In debate about aresolution urging the United States to try to snare the World Cup games, up leapsthis ex-quarterback, a 13-year veteran of pro football, to snipe at soccer. f i rs t

he thinks there s t i l l may be folks out there who don't understand that what the restof the world knows as ' footbal l ' is not the football he knows and 10ves••• ' I thinki t is important for a ll those young ou t there, who some day hope to play realfootball, where you throw i t and kick i t and run with i t and put i t in your hands, adistinction should be made that football is democratic capitalism, whereas soccer is

a European social ist ••• ' ••• 'He [Jack Kemp] believes that football is entrepreneurialcapitalism, i t has a quarterback, someone who is in charge, while soccer is based

more on the European social ist tradition; no one's in command, i t ' s more of asharing, cooperative game.' ••• Jack was speaking 'extemporaneously,' the aidecontinued, as i f that alone should explain i t . ' ~ e te l ls that a ll the time tol i t t l e league footballers when he travels around the country, and their eyes glazeover. ' ..

55. Harold Seymour, Baseball: The Early Years (New York: Oxford University Press,1960), pp. 8, 9.

56 . Ibid.

57. One of the reasons baseball and soccer developed into "people's sports" has alo t to do with the accessability of both games. Just as st ickball , for example

availing i t se l f of such urban props as f i re hydrants or parked cars in l ieu of bases- formed an integral part of inner city dwelling in the United States, so has soccercontinued as a street game in the ci t ies of Europe and lat in America. Theseenvironments have created many a major star for both sports respectively. There is

yet another dimension to the "democratic" component of soccer and baseball. Innoticeable contrast to football and basketball, neither of the two previous sportsnecessitates any special physical abil i t ies such as exceptional height or strength.

Indeed, exceptional physical attributes which are the sine qua UQn for anysuccessful football or basketball player could in fact be detrimental to a career in



47

either baseball or soccer. While excellent athletes, soccer and baseball playerslook "normal". In the not so distant past, when both games were a good deal less"athletic" and "physical" than they are today, one could observe a number of aging

and paunchy players who maintained their careers in baseball or soccer, something

they could never have done in major league football or basketball .

58 . Seymour, Baseball: The Early Years, p. 16; and Robert Smith, I l lustratedHistory of Baseball (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1973), pp. 18-22.

59. Seym.:::>ur, Baseball: The Early Years, pp. 19, 20.

60. As quoted in ibid. , p. 65 .

61 . Smith, I l lustrated History of Baseball, p. 44. For a detailed biography ofSpalding and his role in baseball, see Peter Levine, A.G. Spalding and the Rise of

Baseball (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985).

62 . David Q. Voigt, "Reflections on Diamonds: American Baseball and AmericanCulture" in Journal of Sport History, Volume 1, Number 1 (Spring 1974), pp . 18, 19.

63. On Organized Baseball 's "reserve clause" which ruled the game's capital-laborr e l a t ~ o n s unti l the courts struck i t down as being unconstitutional in the early1970s, see John Arlott , The Oxford Companion to Sports, p. 59.

64 . Ibid •

..

65 . The term "World Series", as previously mentioned adopted by major league

baseball following football 's immodest claims in the same direction in 1902 and1903, i s very tel l ing of America's "sport exceptionalism". On the one hand, fewaspects of American culture seem more peculiar, incomprehensible and i r r i ta t ing toEuropean sports fans than calling the contest between two domestic teams fo r whatessential ly i s the United States championship "world series" as in baseball, and

following that sport "world championship" in both professional football andbasketball . What better ref lects America's self-contained, parochial yet at thesame time self-assured, even smug, culture than equating i t se l f with the world, atleast as far as sports are concerned. Contrast the three American "world

championships" to soccer's World Cup where vir tually all 144 countries belonging toFIFA play in lengthy elimination tournaments for the right to part icipate in thequadrennial final event s t i l l comprising 24 teams. The eventual winner can thuslegitimately bear the t i t l e of "world champion" during i t s four-year incumbency.World championships in al l team sports other than the American "Big Three" are

bestowed upon a country in this world of nation-states, no t upon a club. Thus,world championships, typically, are won by al l -s tar teams whose members are all

ci t izens of the same state . (I t is interesting to note that in the never-ending

quest to make more money, a "World Cup" fo r clubs rather than countries was

introduced in soccer during the late 1960s, pit t ing the European club championagainst i t s Latin American counterpart on a yearly basis. Tellingly, thistournament has never really captured the imagination of soccer fans on eithercontinent, remaInIng an incomparably less important event than the "real", i .e .

"inter-national" World Cup.)

And yet, precisely because baseball, football and basketball are America's

games, the arrogance of call ing the winner of the American championship "world

champion" enjoys no t only a certain. logical consistency but is also supported by

empirical reality. For there can be no doubt that the respective American championsin football , baseball and basketball are indeed the world's best in their sport by

virtue of being almost the only ones. No other country plays American football ,



48

thus making the American superbowl champion the automatic champion of the world. In

baseball, the winner of America"s "world series" surely represents that sport 's best

team in the world, though this champion's uncontested position may be a b it moreprecarious than football ' s since baseball is , after al l , being played in a number ofCaribbean countries, Mexico and Japan. What would happen i f Tokyo's Yomiuri Giantssuccessfully challenged our "world champion" baseball team, beating i t decisively in

a ser ies of games? Would this then expand baseball ' s world to include Japan? Wouldi t eventually lead to the "nationalization" of the sport pit t ing American al l-s tars

fielding only U.S. cit izens as players against the Japanese national team?

As fo r basketball 's "world champion", the claim can again be justi fied. Thoughbasketball is the second most popular team sport in the world, the professional game- with some minor exceptions such as the leagues in I ta ly and Spain - is exclusiveto the United States, thus arguably making the NBA champion the best in the world.But the potential dilemmas delineated for baseball hold e fortiori for basketball.What would happen i f Dynamo Moscow, Real Madrid or Partisan Belgrade would beat the

NBA champion some day? The fact that this hypothesis i s not completely withoutprecedent is best demonstrated by the bursting of hockey's previously exclusiveNorth American world, following the f i rs t USSR-Canada series in 1972 in which theCanadians barely prevailed after their smug and self-contained predictions that they

would demolish and humiliate the Soviets. Ever since that series, no Stanley Cupwinner can continue to enjoy i t s "world championship" without a somewhat fr ightened

glance across the Atlantic.



1

Comment on Andrei Markovits, "The Other 'American Exceptionalism': Why i s there no soccer in the United States?"

Let me star t by saying this i s a wonderfully conceived piece, a delight

to read, one that unites serious concerns with playful research in the best

sense. I do not wish to contest i t s major point, namely that each society has

a certain "space" for games, as i t does for poli t ical parties. Once that

sports space i s f i l led , i t i s not easy to uproot the established choice, nor

to f i t another game in . The American sports space could accommodate two major

outdoor games. Baseball was the f i r s t , and certain contingent, historical

factors made American football, not soccer the second. Of course, as Andrei

Markovits recognizes, the problem i s also: why is there no baseball in Europe?

But what then would be the parallel question for Sombart's inquiry? Why i s

there no Democratic Party in Europe?

My reflections, in fact , are prompted more by the question concerning

Europe than the one concerning the United States. For the inabil i ty to export

baseball suggests that more may be a t stake than the contingent circumstances

by which a sports space gets f i l led. The key may be in the way given sports

ref lect a national cultural configuration. We can make more progress in

decoding this relationship, I believe, i f we recognize that the social-class

categories proposed in the paper are not the most refined possible. The paper

i t s e l f provides the clue for i t s own deconstruction when i t refers to American

football ("the running game") as Taylorized. Precisely - - but Taylorism

represented a revolt of the engineering mentality against class



2

categorization. I t allegedly transcended classes and was not a simple

imposition of bourgeois norms. Obviously i t reinforced capi tal is t class

hierarchies - - but did so in the name of a technical intelligence that denied

the relevance of social class and insisted on a functional division of labor.

To my mind, the point is that in America baseball i s an "artisanal"

sport, football, i t s Taylorized supplement. As an artisanal support (replete

with craft r i tuals , premodern methods of production - - i . e . assignments by

position, not by function) baseball could cut across the class hierarchies of

capitalism. The paper might think further about the games themselves. I

bring up several distinctions that Dan White painted out to me many years ago.

The f i r s t was the one just mentioned: baseball anchors i t s men to places,

football has increasingly gone from designation of positions according to

place to designation according to function. The wide receiver has replaced

the l e f t end. What the player does, not where he l ines up i s crucial .

Football res t r ic ts players from certain options: only certain players can

receive passes. I t has pushed specialization to the two-platoon system. I ts

stadiums are in the suburbs and at t r ac t a less raffish, far more managerial

crowd. The general point i s that baseball has remained popular because i t

appealed to a rural myth of pre-class society. I t has overtones of Masonic

l ike r i tes : what outsider could possibly understand the game? But i t is a

freemasonry in which a l l of small-town America could share. The analogue in

American history i s more the community of the elect than the working class.

Baseball is the generalized extension of John Winthrop's covenant.

This raises the issue of American exceptionalism in general. As a

comparativist I find the concept over-used. On the one hand, the idea was the

creation of an unsuccessful American Communist Party that needed a social

theory to explain i t s frustrat ions; on the other hand, it elaborated that

,



3

Partisan Review-type celebration of American values precisely during th e

period of the late 1940's and 1950's, when a generation of academics, neo

conservative avant la le t t re , were renouncing th e social is t enthusiasms of

their City College or Columbia youth. American exceptionalism, l ike Turner's

f rontier hypothesis, has been largely a myth. The reason that an American

Socialis t Party was weaker than the SPD, but hardly negligible in 1912 - - was

less the absence of a feudal past than the ethnic divisions among recent

immigrants. However, i t is a l l the more f i t t ing that American exceptionalism

is a myth, because I would argue that the importance of baseball is as a

mythic sport. I t i s the game of the exceptionalism we l ike to believe we have

enjoyed.

The confirmation of this I find by thinking about the sport that Andrei

Markovits's essay inexplicably does not cover: cricket . Cricket is the

English pre-modern equivalent of baseball. Indeed cricket is even more

archaic in i ts gentlemanly aspects. Consider the tes t matches that go on for

days without heed of time, one team's voluntary but strategic decision to

renounce batting, the provision of an indef inite turn at the bat for the

individual, the primitive homogeneity of playing space with batter and pitcher

in the middle of an ell ipt ical field (think of the progression from cricket

oval to asymmetric baseball diamond to football gridiron in this sense), in

i t s white flannel uniforms. In contrast to soccer, which became big-time in

the industr ial north, cricket could unite village communities and serve as

game of an el i te and laborers simultaneously. Of laborers, mind you, not of

Labour in i t s collective sense. I t could persist at Oxbridge and in the

country, but i t , too, presupposes a pre-industrial community. Indeed i t s

community can embrace the spectrum from colonial masters to dependent people:

recal l C. L. R. James's great cricket memoir, Beyond a Boundary, which shows



4

how cricket as a game might overcome the gap between masters and colonized.

Thus i f this essay included cricket, I think, i t would find the pre

industr ial/ industr ial axis more relevant. Of course i t has implications about

class: for in a sense baseball and cricket must represent a somewhat utopian

denial of the class divisions of industrial capitalism. But that is precisely

their power. Might one of the reasons that we had no socialism be because we

had baseball instead?

In this regard I find the paper could profitably have taken up another

issue, which is precisely that of what any game or play represents. In a

sensegame

playing is theactivi ty

that the society uses to counterpose

against the workplace, just l ike the Carnival turns society upside down. I t

is , in Victor Turner's sense, a liminal or anti-s tructural experience: an

anthropological program that might be thought of as the logical playing out,

so to speak, of James' polyvalent t i t l e , Beyond a Boundary . Hence a serious

game should not be simply a reflection of the dominant class structure, but a

utopian counter-structure. I t incorporates an idealized vision (or

alternative construction) of society's principles of hierarchization, which

s t i l l remains in some sort of dialectical relationship to the dominant

structure.

But how then, i t will be asked, do the pre-industrial aspects of

baseball retain their vital i ty even when the forces of production and class

formations have moved way beyond baseball 's archaic arrangements? They do so

precisely because they serve as the liminal r i te that invokes the community of

an ear l ier era. In effect, we can envisage sports forms of ant i

structure: the one, football, i s contemporary and merely reworks current

social-structural divisions. This will yield a sport that quite as

ruthless as the social structure i t counterposes: indeed the game must take on



5

the function of giving ful l expression to the agonistic relationships of the

contemporary social order. In this sense Vince Lombardi served as the Carl

Schmitt of the game world.

But the other game, baseball, must evoke a now archaic pre-industr ia l

social formation to play i t s anti-s tructural role . Competition can be less

ruthless since the game embodies an idealized image of now vanished artisanal

or village relationships that were less stra t i f ied than industrial capitalism.

Indeed, the effect of temporal displacement is even greater, because baseball

and cricket were codified precisely as the pre-industrial community was

already being displaced. Baseball 's heroes are the game equivalent of Hegel's

owl of minerva, rounding the bases of th e village green as dusk fa l ls . I t is

redolent with nostalgia and probably was from the days of i t s birth. We

preserve that nostalgia with the mania for sta t is t ics and t r ivia , which now

can be enhanced by th e almost infini te storage capacity of the computer that

creates new sta t is t ica l categories as each man comes to bat. We enhance the

nostalgia further by surrounding th e game's origins, as this essay shows, in

myth. So too baseball 's current l i terature will be suffused with an elegiac

quality that purely contemporaneous anti-structure cannot take on: I have not

read The Boys of Summer or Christopher Lehmann-Haupt's recent Me and Dimaggio,

but from a ll descriptions this i s the l i terature of Heimkehr.

Let me conclude by pOSing a question. I f baseball was the ant i

structural game that evoked the pre-industrial order, and football is the

sport that has served as anti-structure for the postwar industrial age the

carnival of managerial capitalism, as Jack Kemp has recognized - - what will be

the sport for what Sabel and Piore have called "the second industr ial divide?"

Tennis remains the aristocrat ic game, the jeu de paume born in the medieval

courts of France, preserved l ike some scarab of sport. Basketball is an



6

indoor alternative. Ice hockey will continue to preserve some regional winter

outlet . But football already finds the class structure i t inverts fading into

some future we only dimly discern. Can i t survive as baseball thrived, as the

game image of a mythic past? Can each prior social formation preserve i ts

respective game inversion as new productive forces come into being? Or does

society have room for only one atavist ic game and must the other be crowded

out? I t seems to me that the new sports which offer the anti-structural

alternative for the computer era are the individualized, participatory ones:

namely running, aerobics, and f i tness. They allow the collectivized, but non-

team, individualized testing that i s characteristic of a society bui l t upon

networks and circuit boards.

With these thoughts and queries we turn from Sombart -- who asked

Markovitz's original question - - to Sombart's contemporary, Simmel, who asked

an even more basic question: "How i s Society Possible?" He answered by

explaining that i t is possible only because i t s constitutent members are

inside i t and outside i t simultaneously: their social roles are possible only

insofar as they are granted by individuals who are not totally socialized.

That refusal to be gleichgeschaltet , which ultimately is the foundation of our

sociabil i ty , is also expressed in play, as Simmel himself explicitly

recognized. So when we run our 10k races, and when, nurtured by hope and

i l lusion, we focus on Fenway Park once again, le t us recal l that we both

affirm sociability and ins is t on our individuality.

Charles S. MaierSenior Associate,

Center for European Studies

I



The Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies

The Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies is an interdisciplinary programorganized within the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences and designed to promote thestudy of Europe. The Center's governing committees represent the major social sciencedepartments at Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Since its establishment in 1969, the Center has tried to orient students towards questionsthat have been neglected both about past developments in eighteenth- and nineteenthcentury European societies and about the present. The Center's approach is comparativeand interdisciplinary, with a strong emphasis on the historical and cultural sources whichshape a country's political and economic policies and social structures. Major interests ofCenter members include elements common to industrial societies: the role of the state inthe political economy of each country, political behavior, social movements, parties andelections, trade unions, intellectuals, labor markets and the crisis of industrialization,science policy, and the interconnections between a country's culture and politics.

For a complete list of the Center for European Studies Working Papers and informationabout its other publications (German Politics and Society, a journal appearing three timesannually; French Politics and Society, a quarterly journal; and the East European WorkingPaper Series) please contact the Publications Department, 27 Kirkland St, Cambridge MA

02138. Additional copies can be purchased for $4.00. A monthly calendar of events at theCenter is also available at no cost.

The Other 'American Exceptionalism': Why Is There No Soccer in the United States? (WPS 1, 1986) ...

Documents

Transcript of The Other 'American Exceptionalism': Why Is There No Soccer in the United States? (WPS 1, 1986) ...