[Marxism] Renato P. on soccer

Alan Bradley alanb1000 at yahoo.com
Tue Feb 14 13:46:03 MST 2012

> What is unique to soccer is the absolute preponderance of the foot. On
> another hand, soccer developed itself during the Industrial Revolution
> in England. ... So soccer triumphed in Europe and South America, and
> basketball and baseball in North America.
> Well, I could extend myself, if there is someone interested. This theory
> is well accepted among a small circle of intellectuals and academics in
> Brazil. What do you think?

Off the top of my head: nonsense.

First of all, "the kicking game" was not the only historical variety of football. Yes, it was dominant in at least the south of England, but other forms dominated in other parts of Britain. This is why games like Rugby and Australian Rules exist.

Rugby, of course, is a major international game in its own right, while Australian Rules is essentially a regional game even in Australia. It is worth studying though, because it was one of the earliest codified varieties of "football". Essentially, it's rules are a compromise between the varieties of football played in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, with perhaps a little indigenous Australian influence thrown in. (The latter is uncertain, but possible.)

My point is that "the absolute preponderance of the foot" was not an intrinsic feature of historical football.

There's another game which needs to be considered too - one extremely popular in places like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the West Indies, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Australia, New Zealand, and, yes, England. I'm talking about cricket, of course.

Cricket shares a common ancestor with baseball, and is a far more popular game on a world scale. It would need to be included in your theory for it to be valid.

In other words, have another drink. ;)

More information about the Marxism mailing list