The World Cup and Its Unique Impact
Every four years, the World Cup turns everyday folks into soccer aficionados. Suddenly, that neighbor, usually engrossed in fishing shows, is dissecting the intricate tactics of the 4-3-3 formation. Just the other week, he was under the impression that VAR was some new electric vehicle.
People start donning jerseys from countries they’ve never set foot in. It’s funny, really.
Soccer hasn’t been a significant part of our nation’s history. Despite the challenges at our Southern border and a welfare system that’s robust, a premier soccer team still eludes us. Hosting the World Cup feels akin to inviting Shakespeare to perform at a monster truck rally—lots of buzz, but for very different reasons.
In America, it seems like around age 50 marks the line for those who care about soccer. Back in my day, only exchange students or kids from prep schools, who didn’t make the football team, played soccer.
The game seems perfectly tailored for those in their twenties and thirties. They head to the stadium, glance at their phones for most of the match, only looking up when a goal actually happens.
For those who missed it, Spain emerged victorious, which was neat because they set up camp in Chattanooga at Baylor Schools. The U.S. did reasonably well, even if it ranked lower than Senegal, the Ivory Coast, and that deserted island where Tom Hanks found companionship with a soccer ball.
So, when the U.S. floundered, at least we had Spain to cheer for, who ended up triumphing over Argentina with a final score of 1-0.
The way the rest of the world views soccer is quite different. We’re not quite on the same page when it comes to things like hydration breaks. Oh, and in Europe, it’s “football,” while down south, some refer to it as, well, “gay football.”
When Spain made it to the finals in New York, I jokingly asked friends if they wanted to hop on a Learjet with me to catch the game. I did mention that the Learjet and tickets were non-negotiable.
Visitors to the U.S. had their expectations set low by CNN and the BBC’s portrayal of America but ended up pleasantly surprised. While CNN tends to paint a not-so-great picture of us, most fans were thrilled by our Buc-ee’s, Walmarts, Ranch Dressing, and free refills. But above all, they appreciated our freedoms.
Many teams began belting out “Sweet Caroline.” Scotland’s team, after winning a match, strutted into local bars, clad in traditional kilts and celebrating wildly; it took some guts to pull that off.
Norway’s squad had a unique tradition of sitting with fans and pretending to row like Vikings. Venezuela attempted to mimic it, though their fake boat was a nod to the claims that Trump had sunk their real ones. Notably, Denmark and Norway boasted the most attractive fans—probably because, well, the Vikings didn’t bring back the less than stellar ones.
Controversies emerged, too. The World Cup coincided with Pride Month, and German player Matt Neur found himself in hot water for wearing a rainbow armband. Though, it’s worth noting that Germans have dressed in worse things.
Megan Rapinoe has, for many, negatively impacted women’s soccer in the U.S. Why do people think her social activism matters? If I wanted political views from someone who chases a ball, I’d ask my dog, Lily. My Drunkle Mac even suggested women’s soccer should only be televised during cold, rainy days.
The World Cup occurred alongside our 250th July 4th celebration. England fell 2-1 and missed the finals, squandering an early lead. It’s a bit of a historic irony; the British haven’t wasted a lead like that in America since the Revolutionary War.
We ought to acknowledge the athleticism and evolution of soccer. Renowned player Ronaldo pulled in $200 million a year playing professionally. And while Trump may work for just $1 annually, he’s as notable as Ronaldo for, in his own way, scoring his share of wins.
