This unfortunate dismissal of soccer, needless to say, would not have been allowed elsewhere. In the third world, and particularly in an Arab world that we are allegedly trying to understand and meet midway, deciding to start a war right before a World Cup qualifying game would not have been tolerated.

Admittedly, America's war against terrorism warrants public awareness and media attention. However, if this is the case, this attention should replace all other pre-scheduled programs, and not just a selective "editing out" of soccer. Given the chronic and intense agenda of this war, would 90 minutes have really made a difference? And, if yes, why was football exempted?

The media's decision to preempt the airing of the game must be scrutinized, especially given that we live in a world whose allegiances are intractably tied to what the media does and does not portray. (Contrast, for a moment, Al Jazeera and FOX News).

Football vs Soccer

Football is "king" in America, and remains the number one spectator sport. Soccer, though, is rapidly becoming the number one participatory sport. (This challenge has not gone unnoticed by the propaganda arm of American capitalism -- the media -- which, besides preempting viewership of the sport, derides "soccer moms," and portrays soccer as a girl's sport not "manly" enough for American boys).

Football is a reflection of a subtle but powerful undercurrent of American values. This popular culture, which reflects and is reflected by football, favors brute strength over individual skill and cunning; wasteful consumption (of time as well as resources) over conservation; and insulation over global outreach.

A viewer of a football game quickly understands that this game is based on bulk and indiscriminate strength. Football is replete with individuals, the majority of whom fulfill inclusion criteria by having the specific "skills" of being over 300 pounds, being able to bench press 400 lbs and not flinching when using their bodies as human battering rams. The "trenches," the narrow space where opposing human behemoths shove each other for territorial position, is where football experts claim the "game is won."

Soccer players, on the other hand, though they do have different positions on the field, all need to be able to perform the fundamental skill of the sport -- passing, trapping, dribbling without using one's hands. These tasks require tremendous athleticism of a classical kind; that which combines stamina and wiry strength, creating a cross between the sprinter and the long distant runner. Soccer is also a sport that the average man or woman can play in its essential form even into the golden years (witness the many "over 40" and "over 50" soccer leagues that exist even in America).

Players in football are not entrusted to act creatively. Six or more coaches stand on the sidelines and dictate plays which the players are committed to execute. There is a head coach, a passing coach, a running coach, a special team coach, a defensive line coach and so on. In other words, learned obedience to a multitude of superiors is prioritized over creativity and spontaneity.

Conversely, soccer depends on individual creativity and split second decision making by each player on the field. It is interesting to note how in the free and democratic society America claims to be, a individually creative, democratic and free spirited sport such as soccer is ignored and such a regimented, lockstep affair as football is embraced.

Further, football is a reflection of American wastefulness and overindulgence (i.e. gas guzzling Sport Utility Vehicles in the face of global warming).Think about it: To start with, football teams need many players, most of whom need to be over 250 pounds. Much food and energy is needed to feed the players in order that they maintain a viable weight. Only in America is there such surplus to feed these athletes. Such athletes are rare in most of the Third World as it would be tasteless to accept these examples of excess as the norm or to be emulated, as scarce resources and widespread hunger are the reality.

In addition to the size of athletes themselves, one must consider the equipment needed to play a game of football: helmets, shoulder pads, rib protectors, knee pads, mouth pieces, to name a few. The coaches also need their high tech gadgetry, such as two-way radios for the sideline generals to communicate with their AWACS in the press boxes. Football players and their coaches, consistent with a popular cliché, seem to be gearing up for war.

The gear needed for a football game costs lots of money by American standards, let alone international ones. Many Division III colleges have been forced to drop football from their extracurricular activities because it is too costly to maintain. No other country in the world can afford to play football as, again, it would be a shame for them to waste precious and finite resources.

In contrast, soccer costs virtually nothing. The equipment needed are shorts, shoes and a soccer ball. For this reason, it would be a lot easier to get a soccer game (versus a football game) going in post-Taliban Kabul right now. (A thought: How poignant would it be for a world audience to watch American marines playing a light hearted soccer match with local Afghanis in the same soccer stadium where the Taliban had previously performed summary executions?)

As can be deduced from the above discussion, football is a warlike game whose excesses prevent it from being played by the rest of the world. Its attributes keep it largely an American sport. By embracing such a sport, Americans are willingly isolating themselves from the world.

Soccer, due to its ability to be played everywhere, in contrast, is all about international competition. When England plays Argentina or Nigeria, the English (and the Argentine and Nigerian) fans will, at the very least, be coaxed into thinking of the far off lands with different languages and cultures where their opponents are from. This thought may lead to another inkling of awareness that there is some commonality and connection between the "Self" and the "Other." By not having the opportunity to play football games against teams from other countries with other cultures, Americans are losing the opportunity of being exposed to a vast world that exists just outside their insular borders.

The internationality of these games also gives fans and players of a given country an outlet to express their identity through a form of benign nationalism. This may, in some cathartic way, be good for conflicted modern humans who, instinctively, are only able to identify with closely aligned groups of no more than a thousand people but who must also accept the fact that they live in a crowded globalized world of billions.

Imagine, for example, a series of soccer games between Palestinians and Israelis (the only caveat being that Pier Luigi Collina, the bald headed referee from Italy, famous for his impeccable fairness, must be the referee for the games). Might not the conflicting views of 1) the geographically based and colonialism spawned nationalistic yearnings of the Palestinians and 2) the tribalistic impulses emanating from an ancient Zionist Diaspora, both be transformed to a benign modern nationalism based on allegiance to soccer teams playing a democratic game governed by universal law? Better yet, imagine a Trans-Jordan Confederation national soccer team, comprising the best players from Jordan, Palestine and Israel, uniting a historically and culturally related people behind one team and one goal.

Conclusion

American insularism and Third World mistrust of the "Empire" can be altered by soccer diplomacy. The result would be a more empathetic and civilized world. After all, sociologists also state, perhaps tongue in cheek, that a family that plays together, stays together.