It's news that you probably have heard of by now - on Saturday the US blew a 2-0 lead and lost to Mexico 4-2 at the Rose Bowl. From the US point of view, the game was a total disaster after the 20th minute. Our defense was wretched. Our midfield and forwards were nothing to write home about (except for one Mr. Fredy Adu who played damn well!). Our goalie had one of his worst matches ever. All around it was not good. Yet still, the only thing I have been able to think about for the past 5 days is what happened off the field. After the game Tim Howard blasted CONCACAF officials after the game for having the entire championship ceremony in Spanish. Said Howard, "CONCACAF should be ashamed of themselves. I think it was a [expletive] disgrace that the entire postmatch ceremony was in Spanish. You can bet your ass that if we were in Mexico City, it wouldn't be all in English." It was obviously a comment said hot on the heels of a stunning loss. He then amended his remarks a few days later, apologizing for swearing, but he did not back down from the point of his comments. The game was in the US between the US, a primarily English-speaking country, and Mexico, a Spanish -speaking country. Just like the World Cup and other international events, the ceremonies should have been done in both languages.
Even though it might be seen by some as being close-minded or ignorant, I tend to agree with Howard’s sentiments. The problem is that he picked a terrible time to say it. The US had just lost - check that, they just folded to a better team. Anytime a team loses they have one of two ways to react: they can either vow to get better and win next time they play or they can sulk and complain. Clint Dempsey was visibly frustrated. He knew they wasted a golden opportunity. You know he is going to go back to England, improve his game and try to make sure it doesn't happen again. That is a positive reaction. Howard's reaction was the opposite - he is seen as bitter; he seen as a complainer; most importantly he is seen as ignorant?. It is a minor black eye for the federation, but one that will not be discussed stateside (credit to Scoop Jackson for actually discussing it even though I don't agree with his point) because this country would clearly rather talk about the NFL lockout.
Moving past the Howard incident, the second and most powerful controversy remains the scene of Mexican colors and show of support that we saw in the stands. This game was played in the Rose Bowl, a stadium that –geographically - should be considered a home game for the US, yet conservative estimates put the Mexican/US fan split at 80/20. It's not really anything new - for as long as I have been watching soccer, the US has never had a real home field advantage against Mexico or any of its Central American opponents - but it still eats at me a bit. Speaking from an emotional standpoint only, I feel like US fans are letting its team down.
For a brief month -long period in July 2010, the American audience seemed to actually like watching the US team. I thought maybe we were starting to turn the corner; that maybe we were growing to a bigger audience. Apparently that is not true - Americans again are not out supporting the US team. In fact, most Americans supported the opposition this past Saturday.
Emotionally, I wanted to come out and rail on the Mexican -born Americans who chose to wear the Mexican colors, but before I did so, I wanted to really make sure I had some solid points to back up my argument. I spent the past few days thinking about this because I didn't want to mess this up. It is an emotional and political issue that can turn sour quickly.
I started with the point that immigrants from Mexico who now live in the US should somehow be loyal to their new country. Many have come to the US to pursue a better life or chase the “American Dream.” I thought, “Now that they have that, shouldn't they be thankful?” I realized that this thinking was an easy opinion to provide, and a bit short-sided. Immigrants to this country can and do show how thankful they are by doing the same thing American born citizens can - they can work hard, live productive lives, and raise their children to be contributing members of society. They don't necessarily need to wear the red, white, and blue to watch a soccer game. It's a soccer game, not war. The fact is that culture doesn't change just because you change your geographical location. Mexican -born Americans can always retain their Mexican culture. It’s not revoked the minute you cross a political border. It's like if I were going to move to Canada: I would be happy to be there, but I would still identify myself as an American.
So what is it then? Why does seeing all the green in the stands eat at me? Am I really biased against Mexicans? What if this weren’t Mexico, but Canada? Would I feel the same way if I saw 75000 Canadians wearing red and waving the maple leaf in Seattle? Would it irk me? Annoy me? Enrage me? It might have an impact...but I'm not sure. The idea of it seems so foreign because it has never and (likely) will never happen. Canadians hockey, not soccer, and they are not willing to travel to watch their soccer team play. If, all of a sudden, Canadians were overrunning US home games at US stadiums, I might be annoyed, but until it happens on a consistent basis, I wouldn’t even begin to get angry.
So really, the fact that this team was Mexican and that the majority of the fans were rooting for Mexico is entirely beside the point. However, with the continued political debate over whether the US should close its borders to Mexico, it is hard not to eliminate it from this discussion. If you are able to exclude political, economic, and cultural factors, I think you can see that the real reason to be pissed is simply that the US team doesn't have a home field advantage. I can honestly say that it is the ONLY athletic team in the world that I can think of without a home field advantage. Sure, Marlins fans are outnumbered by Mets fans when they play in Miami and Red Sox are starting to invade other parks at an alarming rate, but those are once-a-season occurrences. I feel like unless the US is playing a tiny nation like Grenada in a cold weather location like Columbus we might never have a home field advantage.
No matter your country or sport, the key to winning competitions is the same - you must win at home. If you can't win at home, then you might as well kiss winning on the road goodbye. Good teams hold the fort and have crowds there to provide support. For the US Men's National team, winning games is never going to be easy regardless of where the game is being played. We are not a soccer nation and never will be. Our best athletes aren’t playing the game and those that do simply don’t have the advantage that soccer-specific countries do. Winning will always be an uphill battle. Taking away any semblance of home field advantage is just devastating. Simply devastating.
Now I know that part of the reason the crowd was so overwhelmingly Mexican on Saturday was because the game was played in LA. I couldn't find the exact stats on the census website, but in California, Latinos represent 32% of the population (12% overall in the US) and 26% of its citizens were born outside of the US (11% overall in the US). Tijuana is a 15 minute plane ride or 2 hour car ride from LA. So CONCACAF scheduled the game to be played not only in an area with a high Latino population, but one that was 15 minutes away from the opposing country. I'm in no way crying about it, I'm just pointing out that as long as a US-Mexico match is played in LA (the Rose Bowl seats 93k which is perfect for the money making machine), we should never expect the crowd to support the US team. If the US soccer federation wants to combat this, then they will need to put all future games such as World Cup qualifiers against Mexico in areas of the country like Seattle, Portland, Columbus, Milwaukee or Boston (hell, even Omaha or Bismark) - cities that are far away from Mexico geographically and whose Mexican population is small (or of course, US supporting Americans need to show up more, but we know how likely that is). Of course, the problem with this is that games would only be played in stereotypically white areas, which is just so anti-American. Part of what makes this country great is the racial and cultural diversity that we have cultivated. In a way, having a game on US soil that is supported by fans of another country is a testament to the free speech that we are all afforded. As long as we live in such a society, and as long as fans of the US National Team are few, scattered, and unwilling to travel to see their team, we are going to have to live with being outdrawn at soccer home games. It may not feel right, but it is the reality we are facing.
No comments:
Post a Comment