WITH A FEW CHANGES TO SOCCER RULES, THE WHOLE WORLD COULD HAVE A BALL

• By MIKE ROYKO
• Jul 4, 1994

IT'S ALWAYS been my policy to keep an open mind and be receptive to new ideas. So I have been listening closely to those soccer fans who say I'm a fool for failing to appreciate their game.An example: Monica Svars, a native of Argentina, who moved to Chicago 26 years ago, says:

"You really showed your ignorance of soccer and your American provincialism.

"First, soccer is not just a game from poor countries. Second, it is a very interesting game. Third, what makes you think baseball is such fun? What's the fun in a game that lasts four hours, the players spit on the field and constantly touch their genitals?

"When the Bulls won the championship in 1993, Chicagoans went into a frenzy, destroying property. All this because the Bulls could throw a ball into a basket?

"Football fares no better. Big, tough guys with brains the size of a raisin pushing, hitting and throwing themselves on top of each other just to score some silly points."

Ms. Svars makes a valid point: Just about any sport or game can be ridiculed, even my favorite: women's mud wrestling. The acts of hitting, kicking or throwing balls have no great value, other than as entertainment or exercise.

So like many American commentators, I was probably misguided when I poked fun at a game that has such great worldwide popularity.

However, I still believe there is something about the game that turns off the vast majority of American sports fans.

I don't know if it is the lack of scoring, the helter-skelter dashing about and falling down, or the undignified act of bouncing a ball off one's head.

But the game lacks a certain something, and until it finds this certain something, it won't ever catch on big in this country.

Maybe I can help. I've forced myself to watch a couple of the World Cup matches and have an idea or two how the games can be made livelier and less predictable.

They should get rid of the ball.



Instead of a ball, they should use a dog.

Obviously, I am not suggesting anything that would be cruel to an animal.

The dog could be encased in a suit of thick, inflatable rubber that would protect it from harm, even when booted long distances or bounced off a head.

However, it would still have the full use of its legs, which would make it mobile, so it could scamper about with as much or more speed and agility as the players chasing it.

Imagine the merriment of a game in which the ball has the capability to run from the players, change directions on its own, or relieve itself on the foot or head of a world-famous athlete.

And if they really wanted to enliven the game, they could use a strong-jawed breed of dog, such as the notorious pit bull, which might resent being kicked about.

Then we would have the added element of the ball retaliating by chasing the players and biting off a toe or chomping on an ankle.


That would give the spectators the choice of cheering for one team, the other team, or the heroic ball, which would be acting in self-defense.

And the announcer, instead of howling "goooooooooal," could occasionally shriek: "biiiiiite."

When I mentioned my idea to several friends who are avid sports fans, they all said that they would enjoy watching such a contest.

As one of them said: "I have a dog that is a great Frisbee catcher. So if someone tried to bounce my dog with his head, he could easily nip off an ear, which would be a dramatic touch."

Another said: "How about using little people -- dwarfs or midgets?"

I had to remind him that when the game of dwarf tossing spread to this country from Australia, it provoked such outrage that the mayor of Chicago, the governor of New York and other sensitive public officials declared it illegal to toss a dwarf, even if the dwarf consented and was well-compensated.

But I don't see how any animal rights activists could be upset by the use of dogs, so long as the animals are well-padded and have the opportunity to bite the athletes.

And if not dogs, how about sharp-clawed chickens, which have the advantage of being able to fly short distances?

Then the winning team would get to eat the ball. In no other sport does that happen. Let the games begin.

Inevitably, the names would be shortened. Linguistically creative students at the University of Oxford in the 1880s distinguished between the sports of “rugger” (rugby football) and “assoccer” (association football). The latter term was further shortened to “soccer” (sometimes spelled “socker”), and the name quickly spread beyond the campus. However, “soccer” never became much more than a nickname in Great Britain. By the 20th century, rugby football was more commonly called rugby, while association football had earned the right to be known as just plain football.Meanwhile, in the United States, a sport emerged in the late 19th century that borrowed elements of both rugby and association football. Before long, it had proved more popular than either of them. In full, it was known as gridiron football, but most people never bothered with the first word. As a result, American association-football players increasingly adopted soccer to refer to their sport. The United States Football Association, which had formed in the 1910s as the official organizing body of American soccer, changed its name to the United States Soccer Football Association in 1945, and it later dispensed with the “Football” altogether. No longer just a nickname, soccer had stuck.