I have written under that post heading several times, have read things I've come across, have thought about it with average intelligence, and although I was a sports fan for most of my sentient life, I have never read or thought of anything that produced a "That's it!" moment. Bugs me that I don't understand. Critchley's article did not make me understand.
I thought, I have thought, that there is something peculiarly English in English sports fandom. I thought maybe the first English Google image captured it: loss of empire. You could read Critchley's article as consistent with that. There is a theory that the popularity of tackle football in the American South is related psychologically to the South's similar loss of nationhood. I think it would be a mistake to read Critchley's article or that photograph in that way. Critchley is a Liverpool fan. His theory of "home," of "belonging" is to Liverpool, not to England, which would include--"God forbid!"--Manchester. The image is from before an England-Argentina international match, not a club football match. So my "loss of empire" theory is not at all what Critchley is talking about.
The theory on the American South doesn't explain why tackle football as opposed to baseball or basketball is so important. Nationalism does not explain it either. I was talking with my daughter about sports fandom one time and she pointed out that Americans sing the national anthem before every...God-blessed sports event. There could be a tiddly-wink tournament and the "Star Spangled Banner" would be played. Not so in England. They don't play "God Save the Queen" before a Liverpool-Manchester United match. You'd think with the nationalist spur of the anthem that American fans would be more rabid than English soccer fans. You'd think wrong if you thought that. English football fans are insane, much more rabid than American fans of any sport.
There is a theory to explain the popularity of tackle football generally in America: it is land-acquisitive, it appeals to the land-acquisitiveness of Americans. That struck me as correct! Tackle football is unique in the major sports in land acquisition and Americans love to acquire land. But that's not the point of the game. The winner of a tackle football game is not the team that racks up the most yardage, you get no points for that. I still think there's something to that theory but I can't put my finger on it. In any event, as explanation for American sports fandom generally, its utility is limited. As explanation for tackle football's popularity in the American South, it doesn't explain anything.
There ought to be, there has to be, a plausible General Theory of Sports Fandom, especially one that explains English fandom and the fandom of the wayward sons of England in the New World, that covers the passion for American tackle football and English soccer. Yet the two games are not remotely similar. If empire is in England's soul then England was sure enough land acquisitive, whooo-doggie, at one time. If loss of empire explained anything, you'd think it would mean tackle football was even more popular there than in America. Yet.... The English don't even play tackle football. Conversely, Americans borrowed quite a bit from England, like our entire legal system! And tons of American kids play soccer. Yet...Something happens to all those soccer-playing tikes in America; they grow up and if they encounter a soccer match on TV they do a no-look click to something--anything--else. To call soccer in America a major spectator sport is to do violence to the meaning of "major" in any version of English.
I don't know. I don't understand it. Bugs me, too.
I thought, I have thought, that there is something peculiarly English in English sports fandom. I thought maybe the first English Google image captured it: loss of empire. You could read Critchley's article as consistent with that. There is a theory that the popularity of tackle football in the American South is related psychologically to the South's similar loss of nationhood. I think it would be a mistake to read Critchley's article or that photograph in that way. Critchley is a Liverpool fan. His theory of "home," of "belonging" is to Liverpool, not to England, which would include--"God forbid!"--Manchester. The image is from before an England-Argentina international match, not a club football match. So my "loss of empire" theory is not at all what Critchley is talking about.
The theory on the American South doesn't explain why tackle football as opposed to baseball or basketball is so important. Nationalism does not explain it either. I was talking with my daughter about sports fandom one time and she pointed out that Americans sing the national anthem before every...God-blessed sports event. There could be a tiddly-wink tournament and the "Star Spangled Banner" would be played. Not so in England. They don't play "God Save the Queen" before a Liverpool-Manchester United match. You'd think with the nationalist spur of the anthem that American fans would be more rabid than English soccer fans. You'd think wrong if you thought that. English football fans are insane, much more rabid than American fans of any sport.
There is a theory to explain the popularity of tackle football generally in America: it is land-acquisitive, it appeals to the land-acquisitiveness of Americans. That struck me as correct! Tackle football is unique in the major sports in land acquisition and Americans love to acquire land. But that's not the point of the game. The winner of a tackle football game is not the team that racks up the most yardage, you get no points for that. I still think there's something to that theory but I can't put my finger on it. In any event, as explanation for American sports fandom generally, its utility is limited. As explanation for tackle football's popularity in the American South, it doesn't explain anything.
There ought to be, there has to be, a plausible General Theory of Sports Fandom, especially one that explains English fandom and the fandom of the wayward sons of England in the New World, that covers the passion for American tackle football and English soccer. Yet the two games are not remotely similar. If empire is in England's soul then England was sure enough land acquisitive, whooo-doggie, at one time. If loss of empire explained anything, you'd think it would mean tackle football was even more popular there than in America. Yet.... The English don't even play tackle football. Conversely, Americans borrowed quite a bit from England, like our entire legal system! And tons of American kids play soccer. Yet...Something happens to all those soccer-playing tikes in America; they grow up and if they encounter a soccer match on TV they do a no-look click to something--anything--else. To call soccer in America a major spectator sport is to do violence to the meaning of "major" in any version of English.
I don't know. I don't understand it. Bugs me, too.
