Over the last week, Ann Coulter, a conservative columnist who holds degrees from Cornell and the University of Michigan Law School, wrote two articles laying out the reasons why she hates soccer. She claims that the sport is “a sign of the nation’s moral decay.”
Before I begin, I want to establish that I too am a conservative. I do not want my response to Coulter to seem politically charged. Because it isn’t a response to her politics per se, it’s a response to her total lunacy as an individual.
One great thing about this country is that everyone is entitled to an opinion. Freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment. Its role is of the utmost importance in our democratic society.
Coulter has a right to express how she feels about the most popular game in the world. (By the way that isn’t a statistic from Wikipedia that Coulter so readily rejects, it is a fact.) Also, this is not a response to Coulter’s support of football or baseball, because I am also a huge fan of college football and major league baseball.
But where I begin to find a problem with Coulter’s writing is the simple fact that she makes no coherent case on why someone should legitimately dislike soccer. She just lists incendiary comments to get under a large portion of the country’s skin.
I’ll take just a second to tear down a few of her most obscene points. I am going to go about this in a well thought out, rational manner, mainly to contrast with Coulter’s lackthereof.
First, she claims, “Individual achievement is not a big factor in soccer. In a real sport, players fumble passes, throw bricks and drop fly balls — all in front of a crowd.” So, you’re telling me that in the 89th minute (of 90, not 100 like you previously suggested), when Chris Wondolowski missed the go ahead goal with only the keeper to beat that individual achievement wasn’t a big factor? I find that tough to believe, mainly because that’s actually exactly what happened. If that doesn’t work, we can talk in person about how I lost the chance for my under-12 team a chance at a state championship. I have third party examples and firsthand accounts. What do you have? You have a baseless statement. This leads me to my next point.
Second, you claim that no sport is co-ed, even at the kindergarten level. Let’s examine this argument. While soccer is sometimes played co-ed under the age of eight, it is not like baseball. It doesn’t have the counterpart of softball. There is no higher level of football that girls play, so why would they flock in masses to play flag football with their seven year old peers? And to the contrary of your main point, basketball is played co-ed in many parts of the country. So we’ve hit the major three sports and you were wrong on all accounts. Moving on.
Third, you argue that a sport that presents no opportunity to feel humiliation or major injury is in fact no sport at all. Even though these two points are in no way related, I’ll humor you for a second. As far as injury is concerned, sure, not many people playing soccer are carted off with the caliber of serious head injuries and fractures that are found in football. But they do happen. However, baseball diamonds see about the same amount of major injury as soccer fields do. Again, your argument is not consistent.
Fourth, you go on a diatribe about how it is ridiculous that a game is played without hands. Name any other sport that doesn’t restrict some type of movement. You can’t hold in football, you can’t run reverse around the bases in baseball and you can’t kick the ball in basketball. These are simply parameters to which the game should be played. This isn’t some sign that the designers of soccer were less evolved.
Fifth, you offer “Soccer is like the metric system, which liberals also adore because it’s European.” But the greatest part about this is you do not mention soccer in the context of your hate of the metric system! Not once. You need to hop back in the classroom to freshen up on the principles of argument.
Sixth, you say “I promise you: No American whose great-grandfather was born here is watching soccer.” Yet again: wrong. I’m from Mississippi and I can trace my lineage to Jamestown. Yet, I find myself cheering for my country along with thousands of others just like me. You undermine yourself with every line with broad generalizations that are simply false.
Seventh, in your next article, you say “You can never tell how much time is left in soccer, which only adds to the agony.” Sure. You can never tell how much time is left in soccer. This is true when you are either an infant with no knowledge or sense of time or too stupid to read the clock at the top of the screen. If you did any research whatsoever, you would find that stoppage time is minimal in each game. Rarely does it exceed four or five minutes. That’s about the time it would take you to read about the game and not sound like an idiot.
Finally, the last item I will address rang something like, “Why must soccer fans get in such a snit about people who hate soccer?” It’s because very few people take to the written word to express why they loathe football, baseball or basketball. People either watch or they don’t. They aren’t trying to market books and increase readership. Good for you for using a worldwide event to market your brand, but don’t chastise those who attack you for your comical arguments.
What’s so great is you consistently use self-defeating arguments. You equate the danger of soccer to receiving a juice box at the end of a game, but you use golf as your principle argument that there are other sports that are patriotic. Please, Ann, do us a favor and move on. You spent the time to write two articles about a sport you could simply ignore and wonder why people respond. You, my friend, are a professional lunatic.