David Brooks Weighs in on The World Cup

In his New York Times Op-Ed piece today, David Brooks lets us know that he's keeping an eye on The World Cup. He states:

"Going into today's World Cup match against Ghana, no American player has managed to put a ball into the back of the net, but the U.S. team does lead the world in one vital category: college degrees."

Brooks points out that most (not all?) of the US team's players have attended college whereas most of the elite players in the rest of the world are sent to soccer clubs when they are kids. This is true, and I'm sure that there are many kids who showed promise as youngsters, but didn't make it into the elite clubs or national teams. Without an education, it's disconcerting to imagine what happens to these kids. Brooks goes on to point out the prowess of the US educational systems, and how US college sports bring together communities, provide a nexus for social and intellectual activities, and act as engines of productivity for the economy. Implicitly, no explicitly, he asserts that the US has consciously chosen to accentuate the educational system which, therefore, means that our brightest soccer talent remains unfulfilled (and, as he points out, unable to find the back of the net in The World Cup).

Hard to argue with his line of reasoning, right? Of course, Brooks doesn't ask the question of how would our college educated national team players react if they had a chance to join the elite club team academies? Would they choose college over the (slim) chance of being a soccer superstar? I mean, the US would never compromise a child's education in an effort to bolster his or her soccer prospects. Oh, you might want to check out DC United's page on Freddie Adu, bragging about how young he was when he started for them. To his, and his parents', credit, he plays for DC United because it's the closest team to home, and he continues to participate in the US educational system. But I wonder what would have happened if DC United had a professional soccer academy.

Brooks also provides a utopian picture of collegiate athletics, mentioning that love of a college athletics breaks down social barriers and builds a sense of community. I'm sure the poor and disenfranchised tailgate with the rich and powerful. My aunt lived a university college town for a few years. She told me about a conversation with an ardent (US college) football fan who said that when she saw a black person, she assumed he was a football player or "just passing through." Heartwarming. Brooks conveniently forgets the dark side of college athletics, including corruption and violence.

While soccer may be an obsession, even religion, for much of the world, this is certainly not the case in the US. Brooks' piece provides evidence of an obsession in the US: money. It is sad that he believes one of the successful metrics for education is contribution to the economy. How about creating critical, independent thinkers? The reality of the situation is that soccer is a secondary consideration in the US for two reasons: the US team is not very good, and there isn't big money in the sport. This is a chicken and egg situation in that the US team won't be very good until there's more money, and there won't be more money until the US team is very good. But I can assure you this: if the US poured money into soccer the way it does for baseball, US football, and basketball, the US would have a damn good team. This might happen if the US tires of being defensive about having a good, but far from dominant, team. And college soccer world would become as competitive as the college football and basketball world, with all the unfortunate influences that the relentless pursuit of profit maximation brings.

Like when a prominent newspaper of record charges people for access to "select" online articles.