Seeing Red

No other sport reveals a country’s soul as well as soccer does (yeah, we said it, Don Cherry). So what does our neglect of the beautiful game say about us? A patriot explains why it should be Canada’s national sport
Photograph by Paul Giamou

The inaugural game of the opening FIFA World Cup final qualifying round unfolds before me, in air thick with a late-summer storm. In the stands, more than 11,000 spectators: families, couples, men draped in scarves. The most ardent, shirtless and drunk, gather on the terrace’s southeastern corner. They call themselves the Voyageurs, and they are singing songs — not singing, but roaring. They use expletives as verbs, adverbs, conjunctions, past participles; they rhythmically thump the stands underfoot. Nowhere else in this country will you hear “O Canada” sung with such blood lust. When the anthem is over, I follow along from a lyric sheet, handed to me in a bar by a man wearing a red cape:
We’re going to Brazil,
we’re going to Brazil
And now you’re gonna believe us
And now you’re gonna believe us
And now you’re gonna believe us
We’re going to Brazil.

From my vantage point, high in the press box at Toronto’s BMO Field, the soccer pitch looks as bright as an aquarium. The blue fish represent St. Lucia. The red fish are the Canadian Men’s National Team, known as the Reds, or Les Rouges. They have been pressing since the first whistle, circulating the ball through the midfield, bouncing it off confused attackers within St. Lucia’s penalty area. The score should be 10–0 in favour of Canada. Instead, it is 1–0. I am told that coach Stephen Hart, a rumpled figure on the field below, likes his players to have good ideas. Goals would be nice, too.

A cross to a striker; a whiff. “Finish,” hisses a reporter beside me. For there is something unmistakable in the air, along with the stench of fry grease and cotton candy: expectation. To win this first round, Canada must also dispatch Puerto Rico and St. Kitts. The Reds will need to top at least one more round to earn a berth at the greatest show on earth: Brazil 2014. (Canada has qualified for the World Cup just once, in Mexico in 1986, losing three games and faring about as well as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq did.) Tiny St. Lucia should not pose a problem; it is a trifle bestowed on Canada by the Confederation of North, Central American, and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF). In later rounds, the issues become Honduran and Mexican and American in nature. Up to four teams from the federation will secure World Cup spots. St. Lucia, as far as the official narrative goes, is chum.

On this occasion, the chum is nibbling back. The Canadians seem febrile, unsettled; every pass lands as a surprise. I watch a St. Lucian fullback boot a long, fatalistic kick from his goal line. Les Rouges stop to ponder the implications. A dreadlocked St. Lucian midfielder picks up the pass, moving fast along the left wing, and makes a hopeful strike, the thunk of which takes a long second to reach the press box. Canadian keeper Lars Hirschfeld doesn’t dive so much as topple. The ball rolls past him: tie game. The Voyageurs shriek obscenities into the muggy night.

While the players reorganize on the field, I recall a line by Uruguayan dissident Eduardo Galeano. “Show me how you play,” he once wrote, “and I’ll tell you who you are.” When he wasn’t covering the beautiful game, he wrote about a disappearing continent. South America, during the 1960s and ’70s, specialized in erasing people and histories. One of the few ways to understand, or to commemorate, the soul of a place was through football. The Brazilians were Canarinho, or “the little canary”; their samba style was as much a dance as it was football. The Argentines were La Albiceleste, or “white and sky blue”; their teams served as the framework for feats of astounding individual achievement. In their style of play, the South Americans safeguarded their national characters for better times.

The quote has a different resonance for a new country on the cusp of maturity. Galeano would argue that hockey and lacrosse, respectively Canada’s unofficial and official sports, offer no satisfying explications of national self. While this might earn him a late headshot from Don Cherry, it’s worth noting that over the course of the twentieth century soccer has defined the local ethos. When it wasn’t retreading history by pitting France against Germany, or Bolivia against Spain, football was satirizing it: Argentina beating England with the Hand of God in ‘86, shortly after the Falklands War; or everyone thumping the Americans.

Soccer — 6,000 square yards, ninety minutes, twenty-two players, and a ball — is generous enough to articulate dozens of styles and sensibilities. As the world flattens, so has the game evolved: it is globalized, multi-ethnic, corporate, postmodern. Brazilian football has changed because Brazil has: less joy and more discipline, the game of a suit and tie rather than a favela urchin. No other sport allows for such a narrative arc, such a range of expression. While hockey is a comic book, football is Proust’s Remembrance of Things Past (and I say this as a fan of both hockey and comic books, and as someone who has only read the first volume of Remembrance). Thus, for those of us who love the game, Canada remains unarticulated.

But what exactly, one wonders, is being said here on BMO Field, on this Labour Day weekend? Les Rouges’s game remains unreadable. They will go on to win the match, beating St. Lucia 4–1, largely because the visitors spend the bulk of the contest writhing around on the turf as if they’ve been napalmed. Come full time, the Reds will stroll the length of the pitch, applauding the Voyageurs applauding them in turn. Victory aside, the wonks in the press box are dismissive; Brazil 2014 might as well exist in another dimension. Les Rouges are a punchline that masks an existential anxiety: somehow, we are diminished by not belonging to the international family of pronking, faux-hawked soccer gods. That anxiety, reassembled as a question, becomes: who are we, and how should we play?
My garden shed
My garden shed
Is bigger than
Is bigger than
My garden shed is bigger
Than your country.

To know how we should play, we must know how we have played — badly, as it turns out. But we have played for a long time, longer than anyone other than the British, and perhaps even longer than they have. North American soccer, or a species of it, predates Columbus: the Pilgrims recorded a Native American game called pasuckquakkohowog, or “they gather to play football.” But no serious historian, of course, attributes the game as we know it to anyone other than the British. The Midlands’ foundries churned out football clubs as they did the locomotive and other emblems of the industrial age; the clubhouse was the only place an itinerant workingman could call home. Selfhood was bequeathed by the team, and sensibility by how that team played.
Home · Page 1 of 6 · Next

13 comment(s)

VebaJanuary 30, 2012 15:38 EST

\"Everything I know about morality and the obligations of men, I owe it to football.\"
— Albert Camus

Soccer is already here... http://footballists.wordpress.com/

Drew ShawJanuary 30, 2012 21:51 EST

Outstanding. Thank you for such a great read.

JohnsonJanuary 31, 2012 12:05 EST

Incredible read. On to 2014!

AnonymousFebruary 02, 2012 00:28 EST

Thank you for publishing this excellent article. It is a fantastic analysis of not just where we are but how we got here. Congratulations to Mr. Poplak on this fine work.

AnonymousFebruary 02, 2012 15:00 EST

It's an interesting article but I'm wary of the romanticism of soccer, soccer fanaticism, and the prodigies that come from the great soccer nations. I agree that soccer is over-organized in Canada and I wish kids could just get together and play, like we did when I was a kid But I get the sense that the author would prefer that Canadian kids have nothing to do except play soccer in a bomb crater for 5 hours a day. That as a nation, we “must” produce these soccer-obsessed children that do nothing but play and improve, so we can take on the world... at a game. And there seems to be a strange kind of idealization of the dysfunction of these other countries where the great players come from. Their societies are a wreck, the vast majority live miserable, maladjusted lives, but they have wonderful, well organized youth soccer academies - it all balances out! It makes no sense to me. I’d rather have mediocre national teams that do their best and happy and secure citizens, than a national team that regularly wins, but social strife, sacrificing a balanced life for soccer supremacy.

AlexFebruary 03, 2012 10:38 EST

We already have a national sport, a beautiful sport that we gave to the world, one that represents our culture, identity and aesthetic brilliance better and more accurately than anything else imaginable. It still unites us from coast to coast, as it always has, from the early days of Foster Hewitt's voice serenading the ears of Canadian families right up to Sid the Kid's Golden Goal sending 35 million+ people into simultaneous jubilation.

To suggest eschewing this tradition in favour of a more widely acknowledged and popular sport ("everybody else is doing it, why not us?") will finally "tell us who we are" is pretty damn conformist and reeks of insecurity. We don't need to be all things to all people. That's not what being Canadian is about, nor should it ever be.

NorbertFebruary 03, 2012 11:54 EST

Through the ups and (mostly) downs, since 1924 Les Rouges boast an official 57-39-43 record, which means they are lousy, if not disastrously so. Interpreted properly, those numbers tell a story: the team simply hasn’t played that much


Iam I going crazy or is that a typo, cause a record of 57-39-43 is prertty good. Can someome correct me and give me the right stats for Canada\\\'s all all time record, thanks!!!

Allez les rougesFebruary 05, 2012 20:52 EST

Great article - captures the facts and emotions better than most things written by the Canadian press in the past 20 years.

BC KateFebruary 06, 2012 11:47 EST

I was excited to see this article in my new issue of The Walrus yet found myself deeply disappointed by the end of it. Not a single mention about the women's national team which continues to reach new heights. The women's national teams in both soccer and hockey not only provide world class competition but also play a cleaner game that showcases the true sport rather than the posturing and violence found in the men's version of these sports. Professional soccer has a bright future in Canada for both men and women! Show your support!

AlbinFebruary 23, 2012 08:39 EST

I enjoy the odd soccer game but frankly, if hockey rule required it to be less thuggish and more like soccer, it would be the most appropriate game for Canada. What's disturbing about hockey is the idiotic thuggishness. What's disturbing about soccer football is the implicit requirement of decent weather.

SergeMarch 05, 2012 01:36 EST

An excellent article I feel compelled to share with my soccer-loving/playing friends about a sport that is finally taking off in North America. I think soccer (or should we call it by its proper original name - football) is a very democratic, inclusive and inexpensive game to play (& watch too, so far).

Besides, each of us could play it into advanced age (and not just watch and pay exorbitant money for attending games like it's done in some other sports that I feel have become too commercialized). Soccer teaches you that individual skills matter, but teamwork is crucial to success. A truly 'beautiful' & global game that is a joy to experience (that said, I am not idealizing it; it can be corrupted/exploited, like most things we humans touch. :))

I think hockey is important to Canada as a leading heritage sport. I feel it is played primarily by the middle class nowadays (I could be mistaken though). The problem is it can be exclusive (and it's not global: many countries just can't have hockey due to costs involved, hot climates etc), & more seasonal (expensive gear & demanding practice schedules; also the violence & blood can be too excessive to my liking, & celebrated as such in the adult version. My subjective observation: the crowds seem to take particular pleasure in this excessive violence, without giving much thought that the next 10-15 second exchange of punches could be this hockey player's last in his/her career). Sorry if I am being a bit too provocative, but this is how I feel about it.

With Canada having so many poverty around (income inequality is growing), unfortunately these days hockey can no longer be a universally played (or watched live) sport across the country.

Paul Natsuo KishimotoMarch 11, 2012 19:02 EST

My favourite Canadian footballers—Lang and Sinclair—are both women, and both omitted from this article. I can\'t see why. As Poplak admits, half of Canada\'s recreational players are women, and our national women\'s squad has acquitted itself far better than their male counterparts, producing all of our World Cup appearances since 1986.

The women\'s game, admittedly, doesn\'t yet garner as much attention or revenue. But who, watching Japan\'s Saki Kumagai score the winning penalty at the 2011 World Cup, could argue that the reflection of national character and universal appeal in the game only arise when it\'s played by men?

AnonymousMay 07, 2012 11:11 EST

A thoroughly entertaining article, mildly provocative. There is no need for kids playing soccer around the clock in the streets: the Dutch kids don\'t and their nation was World Cup finalist in 2010. Neither do Canadian kids create traffic havoc in the neighbourhoods with their hockey gear in the street, and still we reign the game.
The money in the sport is what\'s missing.
Where soccer loses Canadian kids is at the age where money is considered. Canadians don\'t see the financial incentive in soccer.
Having a large number of registered players means nothing when there\'s barely two or three teams where a player can make a living during the short span of a career in the game.

Add a comment

  
I agree to walrusmagazine.com’s comments policy.

Canada & its place in the world. Published by
the non-profit charitable Walrus Foundation
TwitterFacebookRSS
On newsstands now
New Issue on Sale
June 2012
Subscribe online for as little as $2.49 an issue. Visit The Walrus Store
to buy prints of our covers
The Walrus Foundation National Event Guide

The Walrus HOOPP Pension Debate
Be It Resolved That Canadians Are Incapable
of Saving for Their Retirement Needs Alone

12 pm, Wednesday, May 30 at
Hart House Debate Room, Toronto

The Walrus Glenbow Debate
Calgary’s Cowboy Culture:
Living Legacy or Just History?

6:30 pm, Thursday, June 7 at
Epcor Centre: Max Bell Theatre, Calgary

The Walrus Laughs
The Walrus SoapBox