CRACOW. I usually find the quadrennial FIFA World Cup aggravating for the five reasons enumerated below, plus one other: my students here in the Tertio Millennio Seminar on the Free Society are sometimes so obsessed with the competition that it becomes challenging to keep our community of learners focused on the seminar’s deep dive into Catholic social doctrine.
But as we have few students this year whose countries even made it to the tourney’s knockout stage, interest is somewhat more muted than in the past. And I’ll admit that it’s been a Good Thing that World Cup tourists at the American-based matches are getting a taste of American friendliness and hospitality that (despite presidential interventions) nicely contradicts the country’s image in much of the world press and on social media.
Nonetheless, duty requires me to note what’s wrong with soccer (a.k.a. “football”) in general and the FIFA World Cup in particular:
1) Soccer seems not to understand that God gave us opposable thumbs for a reason. Opposable thumbs allow us to throw, catch, and hold a bat or hockey stick. These abilities are not accidental. They are woven into the fabric of creation, which the Creator knew to be good (cf. Genesis 1:25, 31). To treat the abilities that opposable thumbs make possible as if they were somehow nefarious is to reject a gift of God. One might even say that it’s a violation of the natural moral law: the truths embedded in the world and in us.
2) Soccer is not infrequently bereft of scoring. It’s as if running back and forth to no discernible effect is a properly calibrated human act. Afficionados of the game will tell you that it’s not so much about goals as it is about the beauty of all that to-and-fro: hence their term, “the beautiful game.” Sorry, folks. Sports with little scoring—excepting that rarest of athletic feats, baseball’s “perfect game,” in which a pitcher allows neither a hit nor a walk across twenty-seven batters—are doses of Sominex. Think of last February’s Super Bowl, a defensive struggle that was gripping for a while before devolving into a colossal bore. The last World Cup final played in the United States, in 1994, ended in a 0-0 tie. My appreciation of its alleged beauty may have been diminished by the fact that I watched it on a small black-and-white TV in an un-airconditioned Polish hotel room while recovering from a bout of food poisoning that had sent my temperature into the red zone. But then consider this….
3) That 1994 World Cup, like the finals in 2006 and 2022, was ultimately decided by penalty kicks: when the score is tied after regulation time and two overtimes have expired, the game is decided by penalty kicks—by one player after another taking gimme shots at the opposing goalkeeper from point-blank range, rather than by playing until someone wins on a properly scored goal. Settling what imagines itself the world’s greatest sports event this way is ridiculous. Do we end the World Series by playing Home Run Derby? Do we determine the Super Bowl winner by a field goal kicking contest? Is Wimbledon decided by seeing who can hit a tennis ball the farthest? A sport that doesn’t know how to finish its most important game has got issues.
4) Histrionics in soccer are out of control. With little provocation, players writhe on the turf, trying to draw yellow warning cards or red ejection cards for their opponents. If they don’t get their way, they sometimes carry on like two-year-olds deprived of their lollipops. I intensely dislike the self-indulgent, gyrating idiocies that now attend most NFL touchdowns and the unsportsmanlike glowering and bat-tossing that sometimes follow a home run in baseball. Soccer histrionics are an order of magnitude worse, however. Tell me this play-acting is a “cultural thing”, and I’ll happily explain why some cultures are superior to others.
5) FIFA, the World Cup’s governing body, is arguably the most corrupt, avaricious cabal of sports honchos on Earth, the International Olympic Committee being the only competition. (I was once on a Lake Geneva sidewheeler with a friend when we passed a large building in Lausanne. Me: “Is that the IOC headquarters?” Friend: “Yes.” Me: “I thought I smelled something nasty.”) FIFA’s money-grubbing would make Gilded Age robber barons blush. Cheap seats at the group stage of World Cup 2026 cost anywhere from $140.00 to $1,410.00. You can (if you’re mad) pay anywhere from $25,000.00 to $2 million for a premium seat at the finals. Plutocrats of the world unite!
And now, back to our regular summer baseball programming….
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
I have never read a more snobby article
It’s funny watching the comments fill up with indignant responses because people don’t get George or the idea of rage bait.
I have never read a snobbier comment.
Just scanned so far.
With you on #3 and #5. Also the plus re discovery of American friendliness and hospitality (says this Canadian).
But I’m not sure this subject (World Cup) is worth the brow-beating.
George is free to write a frivolous column, I suppose. But what’s with the cheap shot at President Trump – “…World Cup tourists at the American-based matches are getting a taste of American friendliness and hospitality that (DESPITE PRESIDENTIAL INTERVENTIONS)…?
Notwithstanding the fact that President Trump secured during his first term the 2026 World Cup taking place in the USA to begin with, EVERY soccer follower in the world, regardless of nationality, knew that the red card George is alluding to without stating was abominable and deserved what it ended up getting.
George is well known as a President Bush man who supported him while opposing our Pope JP II on the invasion of Iraq and the multi-trillion dollar quagmire that resulted in for absolute nothing!!! And everyone knows how Candidate Trump in 2016 exposed the entire Bush family for what they really are. So George with those loyalties being one who holds President Trump in distain is a given.
But George needs to be clued in to the fact that President Trump set the entire stage for this 2026 opportunity for all of the USA to show the entire world our true selves in the first place (a point which George himself promotes here and is not bashful about praising).
So, you don’t want to thank President Trump, fine. But please edit this piece and take out the cheap shot. Thanks.
“But what’s with the cheap shot at President Trump?”
Weigel can’t help himself. He’s just a neo-con has-been who’s bitter because there’s no place at the table for him anymore. We’ve all moved on.
I am shocked — shocked — that anyone would disparage any form of sports ball. Don’t you know the three things you mustn’t touch in Italy (for example) are Catholicism, Clothing, and Calcio . . . not necessarily in that order? Of course, I have to admit the only game I’ve ever seen is the fictional one in Sylvester Stallone’s film “(Escape to) Victory.”
That being said, and thereby establishing my credentials as an expert on non-American football, I think it’s possible to use the game as a metaphor for the implementation of Catholic social teaching . . . sort of.
What is the point? Is the point of soccer to dance around the field, trying to pin something on someone on the other side and score a moral victory? Is the point of CST to argue endlessly about tactics and short-term goals to establish who is better than the other guy who has everything wrong if he or she disagrees with you?
Is it politics? Why should a head of state weigh in on a game decision? And what does CST have to do with party politics?
You might think from what is seen in the media, Catholic and otherwise, the idea of CST is to support the platform or program of whatever politician or party most agrees with your present preferences (sorry about that p-p-p-p-p-p). Christian nationalism seems to be an example of this, although it’s something against which Alexis de Tocqueville explicitly warned in “Democracy in America.”
Any religion that links itself to the political power may flourish for a time, but will ultimately degenerate as a religion and become a de facto branch of government as well as partisan and exclusive. (The same goes for a theocracy, in which religious doctrine becomes subordinate to the role of government.) The socialist-modernist-New Age “Kingdom of God on Earth” is wholly of this world; the “Reign of Christ the King” is wholly of the next.
Soccer doesn’t allow you to use your hands, with their opposable thumbs a significant attribute of human dexterity and thus adaptability. That unnecessarily limits the “resources” you can bring to the sport. CST as many interpret it is not supposed to include anything other than someone’s personal interpretation of selected passages in what they consider “authentic” CST without regard to its objective truth or coherence.
Variously called “fideism”, “ultrasupernaturalism,” “enthusiasm,” “modernism,” and so on, this approach to CST may be faith-based, but it is not reason-based. It is cultish and — in common with all such “enthusiastic” (in the Msgr. Knox sense) methodologies — is extraordinarily divisive, an “excess of charity” that causes disunity. It almost inevitably leads to the implicit belief that “might makes right,” whether the might is wealth, political power, or facility in backbiting or calumny. Anyone who disagrees with the enthusiast becomes perceived as less than human and, worse, “ungodly” . . . and the ungodly, as Knox notes, have no rights. They can be treated as things or ignored or dismissed altogether when they are not liquidated or herded into camps.
I could go on, but to conclude, the point of soccer is (or should be) to score against the other team in good sportsmanship, not to score off against them; to make your team win, not to get the other team to lose.
The point of CST is not to sniff out heresy or dissent in others to make yourself look more orthodox, holy, or godly (and cover up flaws in your argument or program), but to bring people together in solidarity to study the situation, organize, and carry out acts of social justice. The goal is to restructure the institutions of the social order to provide the optimal environment within which every child, woman, and man has the opportunity and access to the means to acquire and develop virtue, thereby becoming more fully human and fitting him- or herself for his or her proper end.
In both soccer and social justice, it’s not merely how you play the game and winning is not the only thing. It’s both.
You are on a roll. Whether t’is baked or bleached remains in tomorrow’s pudding.
I particularly enjoyed revising your recipe, exploring expurgation.
…consider “authentic” CST….
Variously called “fideism”, “ultrasupernaturalism,” “enthusiasm,” “modernism,” and so on, this approach… may be faith-based, but it is not reason-based. It is cultish and — in common with all such “enthusiastic” (in the Msgr. Knox sense) methodologies — is extraordinarily divisive, an “excess of charity” that causes disunity.
For shame! For humor’s sake I have spoken.
What is it with Americans’ need to attack football/soccer? Every four years comes a flood of commentary about how the world’s most popular game shouldn’t be and is actually un-American. That’s the ugly side of nationalism. By all means praise what you love but that doesn’t mean you have to run down everything else. So now football/soccer is not Catholic?
I don’t like baseball, football, or basketball. Every time there’s an article on one of I don’t feel the need to explain why.
“the world’s most popular game” is inherently, argumentum as populum. The counter to your complaint about the quadrennial negative commentary is the quadrennial fervor.
So you feel the need to respond with a defensive fallacy while telling us you don’t feel the need to explain your antipathy to the native games?
Sometimes a majority is right. With football/soccer it is. As for quadrennial fervor, well, yes: it’s the world’s biggest sporting event. Why shouldn’t some people be excited about it? The point is not that some people love it but that there are so many Americans that feel the need to attack it.
No, I don’t need to explain my dislike of “native” games (that’s a bit of a nativist giveaway), because I’m not popping up criticizing baseball and football every time there’s a World Series or Superbowl. Why can’t we just let different people enjoy different things?
I don’t care what other people are interested in, as long as they don’t tell me that the extent of the interest makes it intrinsically interesting.
“yes: it’s the world’s biggest sporting event. ”
That’s a bit of a globalist giveaway.
Is golf or cricket your thing?
Bowling?, tennis, polo on a horse–in the water?
If you don’t like watching or actually participating (as in attending an NO Mass and clapping for the choir’s ending), maybe you’d be happy reading?
For humor, try the PG Wodehouse anthology, “Above Average at Games” ed. Richard Kelly.
“What earthly good is golf? Life is stern and life is earnest. We live in a practical age. All around us we see foreign competition making itself unpleasant. And we spend our time playing golf? What do we get out of it? Is golf any use? That’s what I’m asking you. Can you name me a single case where devotion to this pestilential pastime has done a man any practical good?”
“‘After all, golf is only a game’, said Millicent. Women say these things without thinking. It does not mean that there is any kink in their character. They simply don’t realise what they are saying.”
“The only way of really finding out a man’s true character is to play golf with him. In no other walk of life does the cloven hoof so quickly display itself.”
Let me know, ok?
Golf holds no appeal, but of course I enjoy Wodehouse’s writing about it. I grew up poor so polo was out. I’ve never played cricket, although I once had the good fortune to sit next to an experienced player as we watched a match, and he talked me through everything. That was interesting. I exercise (hike, run, ride, etc.), I don’t play sports.
But I love watching soccer/football and rugby. I think both are far superior to American football, baseball, and basketball.
My point was simply that too many Americans veer into ugly nationalism when the World Cup comes around or even the subject of soccer comes up. One can enjoy one thing without denigrating other things that aren’t it. I don’t feel the need to criticize football or baseball every Superbowl or World Series.
Having played recreational soccer as an adult for well over a decade, I really enjoy watching World Cup games. Yes, the oh poor me bs when a player gets fouled is irritating. Other than that, though, it’s a pleasure to watch the game played at a high level. The ruling body is corrupt? How shocking. Offhand, I can’t think of one that isn’t. Games are made up of rules, so if you don’t like the rules, you don’t like the game. Spare yourself the agony and don’t watch soccer. [Incidentally, I also enjoy American football, college and professional.]
I love the sport – but the whole we can’t use our feet for a sport is ludicrous and against of all things GOD himself is itself a sin to even proffer…penalty kicks are not “gimme shots” I would love for you to try and make one…Yes you will not see a 21-14 match but the fact you even mention this shows your lack of even the most basic understanding of the sport as well as this entire hate piece demonstrates… I will agree with the histrionics are out of control…And matches should never end with a shoot out…they have to find a way for it to end on the field…
If it were better written, it would have been funny. Here’s an example of why it’s poorly written. It’s untrue. Numero Uno: goalies are using their opposable thumbs with nearly every play they make. The other players do so regularly when they throw the ball in. But here’s the forgotten use: shoving a player out of the way. Soccer, aka football, or as George Weigel forgot calcio (he has lived a significant portion of his adult life in Italy, so this was a strange omission from a Roman professor and former papal biographer (out of touch with the local culture much?!?).
The mixing of untruths for a laugh, a vice to be sure, goes alongside the unnecessary roughing aka bashing of POTUS’s remarks to the press. Really? The American culture is so pristine on its own that you need to attack DJT behind his back as though he alone has muddied the waters for political discourse. Let’s add Weigel’s public bashing to the list of American silliness in the press. Lest we forget, GWeigel strongly supported the invasion of Iraq and subsequent war. That, strangely enough, is an area GW and DJT have in common: supporting, ironically, new war in the Middle East.
Soccer is a wonderful game if you have a bunch of sugared up five year old children in desperate need of burning off energy.
Other than that, it has a capacity to bore one to tears.
Agreed. It’s only fun if you are playing it. Have you ever tried to watch bowling? My goodness, it’s like taking sleeping pills. 😂
Has George considered a new career as a sports columnist? As a Vanderbilt fan, any secret negative comments about the University of Tennessee would be welcome. THAT was funny and well said.
Granted this is merely a subjective, prudential opinionated, hit piece on the beautiful game by a man who appears to be predisposed against the game. That such a mentality resides in his soul, I shall be that much more cautions in articles he writes.
Wisely seen and well said (except for the cautions).
You must be fun at parties.
For corruption, I’d suggest a penalty kick shootout between FIFA and any boxing commission
Have now read entire article.
Agree with #4 (in addition to previously stated pro-#3 and -#5 stance).
Can’t take #s 1 and 2 too seriously.
Again, not sure the World Cup is worth so much head-scratching.
BTW, I am under the impression that cricket is the world’s most popular game.
Most sports, in general, today have millionaire players.
In the 80s, I could take my son to a game at Yankee Stadium for $5 to $15,
Today, the cost of a ticket is several hundred. Why the sharp increase? Salaries of millions paid to a hitter with a 250 batting average.
My son must watch the game on TV.
This is not hard to understand.
The end of the “reserve clause” in Flood v. Kuhn (407 U.S. 258) caused this. Once players were granted the right to force teams to compete for their services (which is a bit of a bizarre thing, because teams are not independent businesses competing with each other, they are partners where the athletic competition belies the fact that they are a partnership) they were able to extract princely sums. Attempts to restrain the aggregate payroll in the form of salary caps have been met with strikes and threats of strikes.
As a result, the teams have found that they can use their supposed status to extract money from municipal and state governments to build their modern coliseums, and they have found that ticket, concession and parking prices don’t exhibit the elasticity of demand one might have thought. They auction off stadium naming rights, and broadcast media (and increasing individuals paying for access packages) seem not to have been tapped.
I once attended 40 games at a nearby AAA team. It wasn’t the MLB, but the quality of play was very good and we’d often see soon to be big leaguers or actual ones on rehab stints. Part of the attraction was proximity. My employer at the time was about two miles from the stadium. I paid less than $5 for bleacher seats. My employer gave up that line of business, and when the team managed to wrangle state and other money to move to a more lucrative market, so the county “poached” the Columbus Clippers. Now they are the “Railriders”, except when they are the “Baby Bombers”. Two team names
I’m sure means more merch sales.
I solved the cost problem by learning that affinity for sports teams is an expensive excursion into childish fantasies of becoming a professional athlete.
George, cheap shots at President Trump who championed bringing the tournament to America should be beneath you…Gosh bless!
He did champion it so he could profit from it.
Greed is the primary reason for the decline in sportsmanship and fun.
A seat ticket to a Yankees game in the 80s cost between $10 and $15. Fast forward to 2026, where a Yankee shortstop with a 250 batting average makes 10s of thousands a season. No longer can I take my son to a Major League baseball game.
A glaring example is basketball player LeBron James is making more than $52 million per season.
I can’t even take ny son to a Yankee game. A Yankee fan, he must watch the game on TV.
When I used to go to our country doctor in the 1980’s it cost $3.00 per visit including medications. Later on in the ’80s that increased to $5.00.
The most recent doctor visit was $35.
Things change and not always for the better.
Consider what that provider has to do to become a physician. Paying $35 is still seriously underpriced, even for a 15 minute office visit.
I had a doctor quit general practice because he got tired of patients arguing about a $20 co-pay with the line “isn’t it free now”? I’m guessing many of them would gladly hand over hundreds of dollars to heat some performer or see some sporting event.
Medical malpractice insurance is also a reason for higher costs each year, particularly for surgeons and ob-gyn practitioners. In larger US cities, higher rates apply.
“Internal medicine physicians consistently pay far less than their surgical colleagues. In Miami-Dade County, for example, the reported 2025 manual premium for an internal medicine physician was $59,736, whereas ob/gyns and general surgeons faced premiums of $243,988. In Connecticut, the range ran from $22,467 for internal medicine to $159,537 for ob/gyn.” http://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/malpractice-insurance-costs-no-cuts-in-sight
Improvements in technology (and purchase of new improved tech) also contribute to increasing costs of care.
Agreed. I used to know a now retired Catholic hematologist through a mutual endeavor. (Interesting guy, had, as I recall an MS in Electrical Engineering and was bored.) About 20 years ago, we had a discussion where he told me about his malpractice premiums, and I don’t remember the amount, but I remember being astounded. As an aside, the conversation was punctuated by his observation that his specialty did not include surgery-and I remember thinking how hellacious surgeon’s premiums must have been-and they surely aren’t better.
Back when our country doctor charged $3.00 a visit, including medication, people in the community didn’t file suits as they do today.
I’m guessing he must have had a deal with the state or federal government to charge so little. Maybe he received a supplement for serving a rural area.
He was adequate for simple things but nothing complicated. He botched a baby’s delivery in a really unnecessary way and the family of the deceased child never sued. The local hospital did tell him to not attempt anymore deliveries there and he complied.
Yes, I thought $35. was quite fair. It’s not the 1980’s anymore.
MrsC. Your conclusion portrays a “Ho ho hum” attitude. My friend is of that stripe. “Well, that’s the way it happens”.
The analogy of your doctor’s bills increasing over time should be concerning. However, in 2026, you might not even find a doctor. The medical profession is in decline, with fewer candidates, much of which is due to the loss of medical insurance coverage.
It’s also due to the high cost of medical school creating debt that a primary care physician can never repay.
My point was that inflation happens & the cost of malpractice insurance & medical school has increased in 40 years.
$35. for a doctor visit today is still a deal.
The vet charged me more for my dog.
There’s a lot of acting. A soccer player gets a slight bump on the arm and falls to the ground in great agony like he was shot. Often,the players look like they are trying to earn an Oscar.
The referees need to be more cynical about the dramatics.
Often times the referee will look at the downed player who’s writhing in false pain, and shake his head with a frown and a disgusted look on his face. It’s quite comical.
I confess I was reading a ridiculous and Manichaean article, only to find to my great frustration that it was signed by George Weigel. Please, George—you are excellent at theology. Don’t ruin your credibility with comments so utterly lacking in common sense. The reality is that some Americans, trapped in their own bubble and their “World Series,” simply cannot understand the world’s most important sport. As an Argentine, I see this blind spot clearly.
Thanks be to God, the sons of St. John Bosco brought football to Argentina at the end of the nineteenth century. The game has saved countless young people from vice. Of course fanaticism exists—as it does everywhere—but the core of the sport is a force for good. Catholics have common sense, Georgy. Use it. As a priest, seeing such narrow cultural vision from a thinker of your caliber is deeply disappointing