FIRST PUBLISHED AT The Conversation at wamu.org
(These are Mark's views, not WAMU's views, AU's views, or any other U's views)
Didn't the British invent soccer? then how come the England team is so poor? These are the questions "du jour" for me in the WAMU corridors as my work colleagues have sustained their interest in the World Cup even after the USA's defeat.
There are three reasons.
1. Money. The English game has been poisoned by debt and leveraged buy-outs, as the big four teams constantly battle for the world's best players. The biggest two clubs, Liverpool and Manchester United, have borrowed up to their eye-balls. Unlike, say, Major League Baseball, there is little regulation of the sport's finances. The subsequent greed for more means that the season is too long and punishing for the players, and club games take priority over international matches.
2. Team Spirit. As a consequence of the money-driven culture, some of England's hugely over-paid stars are much more interested in (paid) success at club level, rather than sporting glory for England. So this has spawned a culture of "every man for himself" on the pitch, while the game's sages know that team-spirit is the key to success. Look at Germany, Spain, Uruguay and Holland, this year's semi-finalists. For all four, team-spirit conquers individual talent.
3. Expectations. The anticipation of the World Cup is huge in England. But the poisoned tabloid media culture means the press are always looking for a chance to undermine the players for a cheap story. Both the fans' inflated expectations, and the media's determination to invent a banner headline, put enormous pressure on the England players. Hence the paralysis we saw on the pitch, where they were largely unable to make a correct pass, for fear of failure.
Long live the teams who stick together, whose fans and media get behind them, and who play with the flair of a group of young men enjoying their sport. Look at the four semi-finalists, or, for that matter, the USA, still new to top-flight soccer.
