[photo by Gregory Melle]

• by Andrew Orlando, writing from East Lansing, MI

Soccer in America is somewhat of a rarity. Aside from the few with knowledge about the game, most American heads are filled with misinformation about soccer. By simply searching the web, browsing American media and researching the facts, one can see the many misrepresentations of soccer and soccer culture in American society. Upon taking a closer look at various representations of soccer in America, one might find many messages about soccer culture, both manifest and latent.

The first area it is necessary to bring attention to is soccer’s representation online. Soccer seems to carry many negative connotations on the web. When one types the words “soccer is” into google, of the first 10 results, four of them are as follows; number one, “soccer is gay;” number six, “soccer is stupid;” number eight, “soccer is boring;” and number nine, “soccer is not a sport.”

More specifically there are several websites that promote an anti-soccer agenda. An example of this is soccersucks.net, a website well worth a closer look.

At first glance (especially by someone not familiar with the game of soccer) this website might seem somewhat credible, albeit over the top at times. Average readers might take some of the misinformation as factual, since it is presented as such. The author of the site attempts to organize logical arguments against soccer and its popularity.

One specific argument the author makes revolves around the idea that soccer is not in fact a sport. This is based on the definition of a sport as, “a physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively,”

[photo by Ole Olson]

The author claims that, “Soccer is not a physical activity, because it does not use the entirety of the body. It could be considered a physical activity by an amputee who lost both arms. Until soccer finally tests a person's upper torso, it is not a physical activity,”.

A casual Internet browser, lacking general soccer knowledge might stumble upon the site and see at is a trustworthy source of information. Its manifest appearance is to inform the world of how to most accurately feel towards soccer.

However, beyond the initially perceived intent of this website lies a more hidden purpose. The website’s real motive is to operate as a smear campaign against soccer much like politicians use. And like many politicians this website tries to ruin soccer’s image through any means necessary.

Soccersucks.net uses exaggerated and sometimes completely made up facts to support their claims An example of the totally false statements the site makes would be the author’s claim that the United States won the World Cup in 1991 and 1999.

The World Cup has been played, however, every four years starting in 1930 (expect for 1942 and 1946 due to World War II). Thus, if one were to do the math, at one World Cup every four years, you would see there was no World Cup in either of those years.

If an individual were to come across the website without the knowledge and/or ability to separate the website’s fact from fiction they would be susceptible to believe many of the slanderous lies told on the site.

Soccer also has an interesting relationship with the media. Newspaper, radio and television companies spend enormous amounts of money on their coverage of sports in the United States. Among the media’s sports covered regularly, soccer is conspicuously absent.

Every four years from early June to mid July one can find the FIFA World Cup being televised on ESPN. Outside of this time, soccer is relatively unseen in the American media. There are occasional Major League Soccer games but they are sporadic and hard to come by.

One might assume this lack of coverage soccer receives is due to the lack of soccer being played for the media to show. Instinctively, without thinking more critically, it would appear that soccer just is not prevalent enough to cover consistently. As Americans we value fairness and justice and feel compelled to give the media the benefit of the doubt that they are not purposefully cutting out soccer from their programming.

[photo by Drew Douglas]

Soccer’s lack of face-time in the media might say something completely different to a young child that devotedly watches SportsCenter. Imagine a young 5th grade boy that wakes up and eats breakfast everyday before school. And while he eats breakfast he watches TV. His morning show of choice? SportsCenter. And every day he is bombarded with sports.

This bombardment includes basketball, football, baseball, hockey and occasionally NASCAR. But it also includes one critical element. He is bombarded with a lack of soccer.

One might consider, what affect does this lack of soccer coverage have on such a child? Or, for that matter, anyone that lacks any practical knowledge about soccer? The effect is that ESPN perpetuates an American ideal that soccer is a lesser sport. Their lack of coverage might say to a young child aspiring to play sports, “basketball, football, baseball and hockey. Those are good options. But soccer? What is soccer? Its hardly ever on TV, it must be inferior to the other sports. And why would you want to play an inferior sport?”

By not covering soccer as much as other major sports ESPN, inadvertently or purposefully, discourage children from seriously pursuing soccer past elementary school days.

Soccer is also the topic in other areas of American society. “Nutrition and Football; The FIFA/FMARC Consensus on Sports Nutrition” is a compilation book of scholarly studies. The books entire focus is soccer and nutrition (as the title so aptly suggests).

The book discusses the nutritional and training habits and needs of top-level soccer players through a compilation of many scientific studies. One study discussed in the book involves the need for a soccer player to have a high-carbohydrate diet.

The study had two groups; one ate a low-carbohydrate diet and the other a high-carbohydrate diet. Within each group, they were further spilt into two groups. The first group took part in 10 minutes of exercise while the other exercised for 30 minutes.

The results were reported as follows, “Muscle glycogen were reduced by at least 50% in the low-carbohydrate trial, and were associated with a dramatic reduction in the work performed in both exercise protocols,”.

[photo via TheDailySportsHerald]

The more obvious meaning of this study is that soccer burns a lot of carbohydrates due to the amount of running involved. And since soccer burns carbohydrates, a soccer player would need to replace them more frequently.

What this study really speaks to, however, is the amount of physical and mental toughness it takes to fight through the very fatiguing nature of soccer. The fact that a soccer player requires above average carbohydrate intake to perform best is a testament to soccer players’ ability to work and push their bodies to an extraordinary a high level.

Regardless of the level of play, soccer is often misrepresented throughout all of American society. Though not always blatantly, multiple messages are sent when soccer is discussed in any space. The many different representations of soccer in America can range from appearing informational to somewhat supportive.

Spaces like the Internet and the popular media reflect the most common and popular of American beliefs. That is most likely the reason for anti-soccer messages being far more prevalent than pro-soccer messages.

It is only in the scholarly arena where a more balance view of soccer can be found. Sports journals, such as “Nutrition and Football,” recognize soccer’s validity as a sport. Scientific fact is provided to support the effort and toughness required of soccer players.

So if one conducted a critical analysis of soccer representation in American society, they would find an overall misunderstanding of soccer. The only accurate image of soccer in America can be found, ironically, in the solemn facts of science. Perhaps these findings are reflective of American Society in general.

---