Loving a sport from another continent leads to a lot of interesting consequences, one of which is that, assuming you also follow sports closer to home, you’re taking in media and tracking story lines in vastly different contexts. It can be like having a different song playing on either side of your headphones; one minute you’re absorbing the deranged fake laughter and manic camaraderie of an NFL studio show, the next minute you’re watching the Setanta halftime crew converse in a polite murmur and refuse to smile or look at one another. But as different as the assumptions behind the coverage can be, there’s no shortage of interesting points of convergence. Manchester United play Arsenal in the biggest game of the English football season the same weekend the Patriots play the Colts in the biggest game of the American football season. Everyone in Europe worries about fixing the Champions League while everyone in America worries about fixing the BCS. There are any number of opportunities to compare the way things are done in one place with the way things are done in another, and to draw your own conclusions from the similarities and the differences.
One of the comparisons I’ve been thinking about this season is the problem of sportsmanship. In American football there’s been a steady outcry all season over the size of the wins being posted by the New England Patriots, who have repeatedly scored in the 30s and 40s and won 52-7 over the Washington Redskins two weeks ago. In American sports, football especially, it’s assumed that a team will let up after they build an insurmountable lead in order not to humiliate their opponents, but the Patriots have continually elected to pass the ball and score touchdowns when they might have focused on the running game and let time slide off the clock. This has been interpreted by some of the teams they’ve beaten as a mark of disrespect, and by nearly every American football fan as a sign of poor sportsmanship.
It was a sharp contrast, in any case, with the admiration doled out to Liverpool after their record-setting 8-0 win against Besiktas, a result that was not only more lopsided than any Patriots score this season but that also saw Liverpool score three goals in the last 15 minutes, long after the result was secured. Liverpool’s performance was strewn with admiring adjectives (it was stunning, breathtaking, beautiful) while the Patriots were cast as villains and accused of mocking the values of the game.
What’s behind this difference? To some extent there’s simply a gap in the culture of the sports: European football is a game which prizes flair, style, and entertainment and in which teams are criticized for using defensive tactics, even if the negative approach is their best chance to win the game. The values of American football are more explicitly conservative and admiring of “toughness”: stifling defenses come in for high praise (although this sometimes has an it’s-dull-so-it-must-be-good-for-you quality), while flamboyant wide receivers shock the game’s moral guardians with provocative touchdown dances. It may be that American football, which features more scoring in general, can afford to disapprove of scoring in certain situations, while European football, in which goals can be scarce, has to admire attacking play wherever it is found.
But the larger difference, obviously, is the structural one: European football uses goal differential as the first tiebreaker in determining league standings, while American football does not. (“Margin of victory” does factor into the college football rankings, but in an ambiguous way.) In scoring 8 against a vastly weaker team, Liverpool are showing no disrespect, because that +8 margin of victory may well prove to be the difference between qualifying for the next round of the Champions League and watching it from home.
My intuition is that this use of goal differential is a reflection of, rather than the cause of, the difference in moral emphasis between American and European sports. But without judging the systems of values involved, can’t we say that given the essential nature of competition, the European system makes more sense? I understand why we would want to endorse the lesson that it’s wrong to humiliate others, but the mechanism that drives a sporting event is the agreement that two sides are going to work against each other until the end of the game. Don’t we uphold that tradition more honorably by giving our best for the full time shown on the clock?
Honestly, the unwritten rule about sportsmanship and scoring in America mainly seems to have the effect of making the ends of games less exciting (because at least one team has stopped playing competitively) while also causing more humiliation to the losing team (because it’s obvious to everyone that the winning team has stopped playing against them). There are still opportunities for sportsmanship in the European game (surrendering the ball when an opposing player is hurt, for instance). But using goal differential as a tiebreaker keeps the basic element of competition in place throughout the match, ensures that good sportsmanship never means not playing hard, and helps even blowout games retain some element of interest for the fans.
I’d be very interested to hear, in comments or by email, from anyone who has more experience of these questions. Would an 8-0 win be seen as unsporting in, say, a children’s game in England? Is there any circumstance in which an NFL team would be encouraged to run up the score?
Read More: American Notes, Liverpool
by Brian Phillips · November 9, 2007
Very interesting post, Brian. It’s something I’ve wondered myself, when I first encountered the American view on running up the score in college football.
Of course, teams in soccer do ease off the pedal when winning by a lot almost unconsciously. You often see less pressing and less urgent attacking. But the supporters are also a big factor, as they so badly want to humiliate their opponents, especially if there’s a strong away support (“We want ten!”).
That pressure from the fans is important, but I can’t explain where the difference comes from exactly.
Tom, that’s interesting–I think you’re right that differences in fan culture play a large role here. I wonder if a central factor may not be geography: the much larger distances teams cover in America means that there’s less of a tradition of fans travelling with the teams, meaning that away support is generally smaller and less consistent for teams playing on the road. So the frenzy in the stands may be somewhat calmer, at least when the home team is winning comfortably, because the home crowd isn’t competing against a rowdy faction of away supporters.
Distance has also meant that American football became a TV-oriented game (rather than a go-to-the-match-in-person game) long before European football did. One result of that may be that coverage tends to bend more toward the perspective of neutral and casual fans, for whom a 52-7 blowout feels distateful, than that of the committed supporter, for whom it’s understandable even if your team winds up on the wrong side.
I wonder, if we could change all the distances involved in our respective leagues, would we see changes in their conceptions of sportsmanship?
Very thought provoking post. I’m glad I found this blog. I’m not sure I can come to any real conclusions though. The difference is not purely cultural. A MLB team won 30-3 this year with 16 of those runs coming in the 8th and 9th innings. I can’t remember anyone complaining about running up the score. In basketball, there are few complaints about it. High school teams routinely do it all the time. When I played youth soccer I was taught to play hard throughout no matter what the score. Worst loss I remember was 10-0 and I don’t think I blamed the other team for not letting up. Just angry about being outclassed so thoroughly. I don’t know anything about rugby, but from a quick google search, it doesn’t appear to be an issue in that sport either.
It’s primarily an issue with American football. There are some things that may be part of the difference, but are far from a full explanation:
- Running the ball makes the game clock run more continuously, effectively shortening the game.
- Unlimited substitutions are allowed with very deep benches.
- Injury is more of a concern. Why risk the starters?
- It’s a more physical sport than most. If you run up the score, the other team will remember next time out.
I could easily argue with each of these though. As an aside, in the Liverpool match I did notice that the ref did not allow any stoppage time. Very minor, but it was obviously some attempt at lessening the embarrassment.
Good points all. (And so much for my geography theory!) I do remember there being mechanisms to prevent running up the score in sports I played as a child–the “mercy rule” in baseball, for instance. But now I’m leaning toward agreeing with you that the difference between American football and all these other sports must be some structural element.
Still, I think all these observations do point out how odd it is that people become so outraged by NFL teams running up the score, and what an anomaly that sensitivity is in athletic competition.
interesting. I have generally heard – in Europe, and in football – that to deliberately slack off is unsporting. In fact, to sit back and pass the ball around without trying to score is to disrespect your opponents – it is deeply condescending and shows you don’t think they can get back into the game.
I very vaguely recall seeing a clip of someone – in the 70s maybe? perhaps Cruyff? I can’t remember – dribbling the ball right to the goal line, then turning around and not scoring, to demonstrate that he could have scored, but chose not too. It caused a scandal, and was considered very unsporting.
I think another major reason why everyone is lambasting the Patriots is because of the “CameraGate” that occurred at the beginning of the season.
Belicheck and crew made all the (ridiculous) hoopla over it personal. So thats why they’re running up the score – its a symbolic middle finger to everyone. And people realize that, and blame the Patriots for running up the score.
Although I agree with practically everything else you write about sportmanship, the Patriots are a unique example.
You may want to look at college football games, specifically when juggernauts play cupcakes. Now that is running up the score.
Flying Circus – True enough about CameraGate, though it’s also the case that there had to be a widespread disapproval of running up the score already in place for it to work as a middle finger for the Patriots. The situation in college football borders on the insane–margin of victory used to be a factor in the computer-rankings component of the BCS, but then was dropped by mandate after the USC fiasco in 2002, but continues to play some undetermined role in the minds of the human voters, which is reinforced by the presence of computer rankings which do take it into account (but which can no longer factor into the BCS). I don’t think anyone knows what’s going on, with the result that a lot of big-school coaches run up the score on smaller schools just to be safe, and people still complain about their lack of sportsmanship even though it’s obvious that the rankings system is behind their decision. It’s crazy.
Spangly Princess – I’ve been desperately searching for that clip, but with no luck so far. Let me know if the details come back to you!