The first thing that struck me upon arriving in Washington, D.C. was that everyone here seems to love soccer. Granted, my move at the beginning of June lined up pretty well the building momentum and visibility of the American team, but it was still pretty amazing that in the middle of the political journalism industry the subject I heard discussed the most was the World Cup.
For myself, I’m not a huge fan of the game. Whenever the World Cup came up in chit-chat, or the intricacies of particular matches or calls were debated, I was totally lost. To the extent I prefer any sport, it’s American football, and even that’s just during college season. So I guess in the great football vs. soccer debate, I come down in favor of the former. Still, I thought this takedown of the “soccer is for effete un-American socialists” meme, courtesy of Mark Thompson, was a lot of fun. You can never point out what an idiot Marc Thiessen is too often.
…what’s the more socialist sport? The one that has only a handful of easily understood rules and gives no free handouts to make it easier to achieve your goals, or the sport with a mountain of rules and gives you all sorts of free tools to make it easier to score? If “no hands is a rule only a European statist could love,” then I wonder what a statist would think of “no breathing on the quarterback,” “no touching the fragile wide receiver more than five yards from the line of scrimmage,” “no touching the ball at all if you you’re obese unless it’s first touched by a player with a healthy diet,” etc.? Not to mention “no hurting your opponents’ feelings by celebrating when you score”?