Americans Ponder Soccer

It’s difficult for Americans to understand how important soccer is in Brazil. The US has never gotten beyond a semifinal in the World Cup and that was in 1930. Americans aren’t very good at soccer compared to the rest of the world although in the last few years the women’s team has changed that perception, ranking first in the world. Even the men’s team did better in the World Cup this year than predicted, surviving a difficult first round. So why do Americans lag behind in this sport while they excel in many others?

I believe it's because Americans are mystified by soccer. We simply cannot comprehend a game played with a ball but no hands. Hand movements fit the biophysics of the human body better than feet. Soccer is metaphysically unfathomable to Americans because American footfall and basketball and baseball are based on the accuracy of one’s hands.

Soccer is the opposite – an imprecise game of feet. Kicking a ball is less accurate than throwing it. It’s easy to make a mistake and not kick the ball to the exact spot it was intended. In American football, the movement of the ball goes where it was intended. To throw the ball to the wrong person in American football, an interception, is rare.

By contrast, what Americans find perplexing about soccer, Brazilians thrive on. It's precisely the imprecision of soccer that makes Brazil excel in the sport. The lack of exactness in the physical movements of soccer forces spontaneity and improvisation, which is why Brazil has won more World Cup championships than any other country. Brazil is so good with improvised movement on the field (or pitch) that soccer fans have a name for the Brazilian style of play – jogo bonito. One of the keys to the jogo bonito is the fluid movement of impulse on the field.

While difficult to define, fluidity is the theme of Brazil’s winning style of play and originates in Brazilian culture. Brazilians are a spontaneous culture, especially when it comes to fun and games. Parties arise on the spur of the moment in much the same way that Brazil’s best teams score goals – using the improvised beauty of the game.

Besides the sole use of feet (or the head) to move the ball, there are other highly imprecise elements of soccer; for example, the clock. At the end of a 90-minute game, when the referee adds the lost time, he doesn’t add 3 minutes and 40 seconds; he adds 3 minutes or 4 minutes rounding off the time lost to injuries and penalties, etc.

An example of the imprecise nature of soccer time was in the US/Portugal game, when Portugal scored during added (or stoppage) time. The referee had originally added 4 minutes of stoppage time to the end of the second half, but then changed it to 5 minutes. The final goal by Portugal came at 4:43 of stoppage time to tie the match. In sports like basketball and American football, the time clock is a precise tool, with coaches and referees conferring on whether to add or delete one second to the official game clock.

In the World Cup, the loyalty of the players is imprecise as well. Opposing teams enter the pitch together, more like the Olympics. This never happens in US sports. World Cup players shake hands or hug in the tunnel leading onto the field before the start of the match because they know each other from professional play in Europe. Many on opposing teams are greeting their own European teammates.

Even the name of the sport is imprecise. Is it soccer or football? It’s worth noting that while Americans continue to call the game soccer, this can’t be blamed on American arrogance. The name of the game as invented in England was originally “socker.” The updated spelling to soccer was still being used in England into the 1950s and 60s. Even today, it is referred to as soccer in Australia.

Despite an American team in the World Cup this year that no one expected to reach the finals, soccer is becoming more popular in the US. This is partly due to FIFA’s influence, making changes to the game in the direction of precision. For example, all the World Cup stadiums in Brazil this year had numbered, assigned seats like the stadiums in the US. Additionally, all the games started precisely on time. Most important, FIFA permitted the introduction of goal-line technology, putting a computer chip inside the ball to ensure there would be no human error when a goal was scored.

Maybe it’s time for FIFA to consider changing some other rules, and not only to please precise fans like me. FIFA should consider using a video review of calls by the referee. As fans of American football have learned in the past few years, precision adds accuracy and honesty to the game. International tennis allows for challenges of the referee by the players, and the referee can be overruled after a video review is displayed on a large screen in the stadium for the fans and the TV audience to see. The video review in tennis is so precise through extreme magnification that it’s impossible to make a mistake on whether a shot was inside or outside the lines.

Brazil 2014 had its fair share of referees' mistakes. Last week a group of fans from Colombia sued FIFA for a billion dollars for what they say was a mistake when the referee denied a goal scored by Colombia, calling it offsides. Brazil went on to win that game 2-1, eliminating Colombia.

However, besides FIFA’s conservative history of reluctance to alter the rules, there is also the problem of whether introducing video reviews would interrupt the nonstop flow of the game, which is one of the most exciting elements of the sport. To allow for video review in soccer, it would be necessary to have a more precise system of time-keeping. Stopping the game for a video review also would allow the players a chance to rest and hydrate, as was done in many of the World Cup games this year that were played in very warm cities like Manaus.

I would like to see a more precise measurement for stoppage time created that includes not just whole minutes but seconds. The time of the game should be exact and controlled by an official timekeeper rather than the referee. And when stoppage time is completed, the game should end immediately, unlike today where the referee lets play continue until there is a break in the action. As the game exists today, the referee, one man, is in complete control of a country’s success or failure.

With an official game clock, the time would be displayed for everyone to see – fans, players, and the TV audience. Today, the clock shown on TV during a World Cup game isn’t the same as the referee’s watch. A precise, official clock would add more excitement for the fans and TV audience, and it would also allow for better strategy by the players who would know exactly how much time was left in the game. As The New York Times noted in an article about the World Cup: “Soccer’s elastic definition of time means that no player on the field, no fan in the stands, and no announcer on television has any earthly idea as to when the last kick of the ball will come.”

Another helpful addition that would alter the FIFA arena, besides video review and a precise clock, would be to add an additional referee on the field. With two main referees running on the field during the game instead of the current one, there would be less chance of bad decisions. As in American footfall and baseball, when there is a difficult decision for the officials, they confer to see who had the best viewing angle. Additional officials would also make bribery of referees more complicated and help clean up FIFA’s corrupt-image problem.

While spontaneity and an elastic definition of time in the game of soccer may be at the heart of Brazil’s five World Cup victories, it clearly wasn’t working this year. Obviously, the jogo bonito wasn’t strong enough to beat the precision of the German team. Perhaps the devastating loss by Brazil in the semifinals will prove to be a lesson that the days of spontaneity are over. Precision, timeliness, and learning to speak English may be the new pursuits in Brazil. They could mark Brazil’s entrance onto the world stage and emergence one day as a developed country instead of a developing one.

Besides the German team’s crushing of Brazil, the other unexpected result of the 2014 World Cup was the smooth logistical unfolding of FIFA’s extravaganza. Because Brazilians are not strong with their long-term organization and timeliness, preferring to rely on spontaneous improvisation to solve problems, it was expected (and predicted by FIFA) that the World Cup would be a disorganized mess. Even Brazilians worried that tourists would get lost or delayed at airports and miss games with no one to assist them in their native language.

Instead, for the first World Cup held in Brazil since 1950, recognizing the importance of massive worldwide tourism not to mention the country’s image for its hosting acumen, the government employed a time-honored Brazilian tradition. The country rose above expectations using jeitinho brasileiro, the Brazilian way, which describes its creative abilities at last-minute problem solving. Without warning, tens of thousands of government employees were dismissed from their office duties and sent to the airports and arenas in the host cities to help with the onslaught of foreign tourists.

Brazil also exhibited its ingenuity by accommodating tens of thousands of fans who arrived for the World Cup without tickets. Estimates of World Cup Argentina fans alone were as high as 100,000, many arriving by car without tickets or hotel accommodations. Parking lots, tent cities, and even arenas were opened up to make room for fans without places to sleep. Additionally, every host city had an area designated as Fan Fest, giving Brazilians and foreigners who had traveled a long way a chance to celebrate the games without tickets by watching on giant outdoor screens, often with live music concerts before or after the game. The idea of tent cities going up during a World Cup hosted by the US or Europe is incomprehensible

Needless to say, Brazil found a way to capitalize on its tourism attraction, thanks to the jeitinho brasileiro. Brazil proved that the developed world has a few things to learn from its South American neighbor. Now, we just need to wait and see if the US men's team can one day win a World Cup and overcome its psychological block against an imprecise ball game played without hands.

This essay originally appeared under a different title on Brazzil.com