Centerfield

Who cares whether or not any of our major sports gets "globalized?" I don't give a squirt whether MLB, the NFL, or the NBA grows outside our borders. And if other folks want to play or watch soccer, fine by me, as long as I don't have to watch, and as long as towns aren't plowing under baseball fields to make soccer fields.

Inevitably this leads to silly arguments about which sport is better. Boooooooring. Let's face it, folks like what they like, and when it comes to sports, it has a lot to do with culture, which may or may not evolve. American's don't seem especially interested in developing the purist's aesthetic required to appreciate the low-scoring game that soccer usually is at its highest levels. And we're quite unlikely to see the best soccer talent play in America when it's valued so much more highly overseas. So soccer may make some inroads, but its bound to be something of an also-ran for at least the next 2 or 3 decades, maybe always.

The obvious virtue of soccer is that it's inexpensive, speaking comparatively. And it also appears to be generally less dangerous than football (all those collisions) or baseball(beanballs and batted balls). Which moms sure like. But will scholastic inroads be followed by serious professional inroads on the popularity of the traditionally popular American sports? Perhaps to some extent, but I think there are serious bounds on it.

We've basically got 3 major sports in the US. Basketball has been successfully exported across much of the globe, and so has baseball. [Will American football follow? Well, I think there's a global audience for violent collisions. Say no more.] But sports globalization so far hasn't been a blip on American consciousness outside of the occasional Olympic or tournament moment. Sports is a popular diversion, navel-gazing at its best, so we pay attention to our leagues and our sports, and other nations do the same. Is there really any reason to look for global leagues? Or multi-stage tournamnets to determine true world champions? The player's union says, thanks but no thanks. I don't see it happening any time soon.

Can anyone imagine a team in any of our major sports leagues going to distance to win the American championship and then going on to play several more rounds of gamkes to establish a true "world" champion. Could this even be considered without substantially shortening the American season and thus the American revenue stream? Don't even get me started on how a "world" champion" system would diminish the relative importance of a given league champinship.

Globalized football helps me two ways.

o It provides a supply of offseason games. That's decidedly noticeable for many.

o It provides extra slots for maturing players (notably at least one Soup Bowl winning QB).

> Can anyone imagine a team in any of our major sports leagues going to distance to win the American championship and then going on to play several more rounds of games ...

Imagination is cheap, so, yes, I can. I don't expect it to happen too soon. But notice we already have the Baseball Classic.

I guess there is the fundamental problem that different leagues represent different numbers of people per team. And the Caribbean League plays in a different period than the American leagues. But there are plenty of great baseball players playing all over the world.

Jon, if the Baseball Classic is offered in support of the idea that this stuff is coming soon, you've got a pretty thin gruel of "supporting" evidence.

I expect sports to continue to spread as long as more nations modernize. But I have serious doubts that we'll have international leagues or confederations that span continents. I'm not even sure it would be that desirable even if it were practical. For example, the antipathy between red sox and yankees fans is for the most part in pretty good fun.

But in an international league, you toss in nationalism and you get all that undesirable xenophobic stuff.