Next entry: Game Day! Previous entry: Chelsea given transfer death penalty by FIFA

Soccer has nothing to do with objectivity; why does everyone keep acting like it does?

Eduardo's flop. Rooney's pseudo-flop. Arshavin's non-flop no-call. Chelsea's transfer ban. Man U's potential transfer ban. Bolton's red card vs. Liverpool. Old Trafford's record of convenient calls. The ejection of Arsene Wenger. The FA charges against Rafa Benitez. Clock management and injury time. The transfer value of any player. Pretty much every tackle, every non-tackle flop, every clutch, every grab, every player who was clutching and then was grabbed, every referee grudge, and every game that isn't decided by 3 or more goals... though plenty of blowouts are included, too. All of these come down to judgment calls. Often, they come down to a single moment, a single judgment that turns a game or results in a punishment or determines what a club will charge for one of its players. Sport is typically portrayed as a haven of objectivity, a place where rules governing behavior between white lines create the conditions for absolute correctness. Soccer shatters this illusion. The Beautiful Game is closer to court room drama than it is to a 100 meter dash. Competing sides argue their case before a judge, pursuing whatever strategy they believe gives them the best chance for a verdict in their favor. But at any moment, the judge can rule out evidence, alter the proceedings, or toss someone out because he/she's grumpy from gas pain. Everybody tries to bend the rules as much as possible. Everyone constantly cries foul at the other side. And everyone genuinely feels cheated all the time while protesting any attempts to curb their own "creativity." Sometimes, one side or the other makes a clear mistake and there's little chance for subjectivity to enter into a decision. But any well-fought battle will include dozens of close calls, toss-ups, and rock-and-hard-place rulings for the judge. And that's just what happens during the main event. Outside of the proceedings, various boards make ethical rulings, everyone is trying to poach talent from everyone else, and there are tons of off-the-record conversations that would make believers in justice blanch. Take the case of Eduardo. One side argues there have been plenty of flops just like his that have gone unpunished. They also argue that the rules explicitly state that no rulings can be made on actions that were not penalized by a referee. They argue precedent. Then you have the other side, who want justice in this individual case against a player who clearly flopped and turned the game -- why should he get away with this just because other players have? Isn't that why players continue to flop in the box, because there is no threat of punishment? They want justice for this moment and a landmark decision designed to deter future crime. Honestly, everybody is right. But either Eduardo will or won't be punished, and thus someone will be left to cry foul... and then flip to the other side when Wayne Rooney does them up the same way. Litigators will tell you that "big players" in the courtroom often have friendly relationships with judges and "get the calls" against less-established opponents. Often, corporations can simply afford to throw millions at piles of lawyers that will drown the little guy in paperwork and counter-suits. Likewise, soccer sees results lean in favor of the powers that be. Then again, when one of them is slapped with a transfer ban, one of the central reactions is "how can you do this to us?!" The aggrieved French club even claimed that Chelsea bragged about how they'd get away with stealing the player because they're Chelsea. Speaking of Chelsea, Roman Abramovich had no qualms about spending more than he made on the club to build a title contender. But now that Man City wants to do the same, he's trying to partner with UEFA to prevent it. If those aren't courtroom-style shenanigans, what are? Instant replay won't make soccer objective. Nothing will. There are too many moving parts, all of them trying to get away with as much as they can, arguing and acting for any advantage. And ruling bodies are always going to have to make difficult calls on incomplete evidence with competing precedents about what is and isn't fair play on and off the pitch. All we can hope is that our side wins. But at no point should we confuse a rooting interest with being right or wrong. Or, perhaps more accurately, at no point should we assume being right or wrong has anything to do with winning or losing. That's soccer.

------

Registration is required! Don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper right menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Marc on 11:19 AM • Permalink

As an American fan trying to learn the international game, this was a real stumbling block for me. American sports like to keep the illusion or, more charitably, the ideal of fair play within the rules and the white lines. I played soccer growing up, and you just didn’t do any of that diving or shirt-pulling crap. You might argue with the ref just like you might with the ump in baseball, but not as a strategy. And so on. I played soccer with the same assumptions that I brought to any other American sport, and tended to be rather taken aback and even angered when I came up against others (exchange students, hispanic immigrants) who had the international understanding of the rules of engagement.

So when I first started casually following the EPL and the Champs League, I was really annoyed by all the diving and gamesmanship and manufactured controversy and slap fights between The Special One and Wenger and arbitrary nonsense from FIFA and UEFA and on and on. However, as I got more and more engaged and began to follow things on a daily basis, at some point a switch flipped and I started to understand and even enjoy all the outside the lines stuff. I realized that the game is much more immersed in the fabric of the culture, and that it was a battle fought on multiple fronts: athletic, political, bureaucratic, financial, cultural, media, interpersonal, and so on. In a lot of ways, I began to understand it in the same way that I understand politics, and appreciate it more for those reasons. That said, I still hate divers and fakers. But at least I understand them now, and see how in some circles it can be seen as legitimate gamesmanship.

Of course, much of this stuff happens in American sports too, if you pay close attention. It’s that the participants are supposed to be ashamed of it and thus subtle about it. Here you are trying to get away with something, whereas elsewhere it’s just another facet of the competition.

Comment #1: J. Dunn  on  09/04  at  05:24 PM

Yeah, the NBA kind of broke me because I had an illusion of objectivity.  Then I watched Jordan, Shaq and Kobe, and Dwyane Wade get handed tons of subjective advantages on their way to titles.  Of course, it’d always been that way in the NBA, but I hadn’t known that. I’d always assumed that it was supposed to be impartial, and when I finally got it through my thick skull that it was never and would never be that way, I couldn’t watch it for years.  Only now am I able to stomach even a few quarters of a game.

I think that experience has made it easier to frame soccer as subjective from the start and simply accept it as such.  I don’t think that’s how it ought to be, but that’s how it is.  And I’ve realized I can enjoy it the way I might enjoy a great (and subjectively judged) debate.

Comment #2: Marc  on  09/04  at  06:21 PM

I think the American frustration with soccer is a combination of two things. One is the lack of objectivity. The other, like we were talking about in the stats thread, is the lack of easily quantifiable data.

Baseball, for instance, is easier for Americans to wrap their minds around, because although there’s a lot of subjectivity (and a lot of randomness), there’s a stat for pretty much everything. At the same time, of course, it’s also the sport that harbors the most superstitious behaviour, from rally caps to game socks and everything in between.

And you’re right about the NBA and basketball in general, but it’s pretty funny to see the way people react to the favoritism shown to certain players or teams. I’m guilty of it myself. We know that referees will give Kobe or Shaq (or, in college, Duke) the benefit of the doubt when it comes to whistles, but we still throw screaming hissy-fits about it at every possible opportunity. There are tons of people who hate a particular player or team solely because of the perception that they’re the object of preferential treatment. I always giggle a bit when I see some random non-ACC person heaping hatred on Duke. St. John’s fans get a pass (does anyone even root for St. John’s, anymore?), but on everyone else, Duke hate just looks goofy.

Comment #3: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  09/05  at  01:32 PM

Just because I’m still seething with anger: Soccer may not be objective, but that offside call by the referee just now was an absolute joke.

Comment #4: Auguste  on  09/05  at  10:29 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.