An Analysis of How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization by Franklin Foer

 
An Analysis of How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization by
Franklin Foer
Franklin Foer’s How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization is
undoubtedly a good read in terms of its development towards the arguments made inside the
content. Apparently the text cannot be referred as the best piece due to its scope limitation being
a sporting topic reflected on an economic agenda which is strongly tied with individual interests.
However, Franklin Foer should be appraised towards the efforts he made and for the exemplary
points he made.
Franklin Foer explains the game of football using its players, fans and spectators. It is a
rarity to bring a game as a distinguisher of globalization choice as an indicator. Even though we
perceive his notions in the interpretations that the economies surrounding the game can be key
indicator towards the perceptional adoption of globalization on the North American context. In
his work, he details his personal experience as a Football player, details on his mentors, his
family’s involvement and the class he represented. At the same time he clearly divided the
explanations into political ideologies of Americans and Europeans. His obvious commentaries
are all applied on the games adoption on American context, which he refers as the ‘cleavage’ in
the US. According to him, while the US was getting divided in the Red and Blue, many places 
4STUDENTS LLC 2
across US adopted the game even after strong advocates disfavoring the game. He is also right in
putting the game on cultural perspective to analyze American people.
Foer is right addressing the changing consensus on globalization as countries and
economies have individualistically responded to the call; while this has benefitted many
economies, certain regional arrangement and lack with capitalizing on key competitive
advantages and failure to instant response towards changing policies, have resulted in some
incidental economies. While the globalization as a promise was positive to many, for the US,
apparently appearing more concerned with the failure seems the otherwise result was not
predictable. While it is not Franklin Foer’s failure, but in gross, such failure that has now became
issues to research should have been into the agendas of advocates of globalization because every
plan has a contingency plan within it. The multinational corporate reference in this case, does not
make solid ground because many least developed countries organizations have also grown to
multinational. (Haas)
At the same time, I must mention here that, cultural divulgence was always identified as
suspect to fall victim of globalization. Franklin Foer’s claim on this ground is pure but his
expectation or better to say, his concerns over globalizations impact on localized game are way
too much as an expectation. Multinationals being blessed with globalization concept still faced
the same challenge and they too had to localize their offerings. A Coca-Cola bottle in the US
does not taste the same in Middle East, even though it is the long trusted brand that is believed to
have relayed its recipe across the goal. The reasons that push the companies to meet choice, taste
preference across geographic difference are not only posed by the consumer groups but also by
the company itself to remain profitable. (Herbig and Kaynak)
4STUDENTS LLC 3
On his family involvement Franklin is not wrong to note the happenings in detail. The
way it has been postulated, it was a choice for everyone, not a must option. Basketball grown to
be too much Americanized like the can and tin culture that but it failed to spread across the globe
while the tin and can culture spread throughout the world. Another important issue raised in his
work is that safety concern. It seemed Football induced violence more frequently. Such
perception and exclamatory incidents does not validate any logical point because ‘fair play’ is
also a motto for any game. If violence sparks it sparks for human limitation, not for game and
thus such reservation reflects the collective limitation. (Giulianotti and Robertson)
Regarding opposing Football, it seems the US had very tough opponent than anywhere
else in the world. Jim Rome’s radio commentary or his public remarks on football does not shape
or form the choices American audiences are likely to get helped off. Instead, it must be iterated
here that, comments like “Yes, OK, soccer is the most ‘popular’ game in the world. And rice is
the most ‘popular’ food in the world. So what? May be other countries can’t afford football,
basketball and baseball leagues: maybe if they could afford these other sports, they’d enjoy them
even more”. Allen Barra’s comment on this much appreciable because globalization did not call
for delimiting the differences but it always asked for collective leverages to stay advantageous to
all, not for monopoly, neither for capitalism in