Soccer, Magic, and Critics

I don’t need to waste my precious time responding extensively to soccer critics, because frankly these guys are probably obese bloggers who are struggling at this moment to get up out of their computer chairs. Some of them say soccer is pointless since scoring is minimal (1×0, 1×1), others say it is a pathetic sport because of the many difficulties players have to score (as opposed to the simplicity of making a basket), and recently one wrote that soccer would never become popular in the US because it opposes the American Capitalist dream (I wonder what one would say about the little kid in the slums of Rio de Janeiro who barely could get a bus ticket to make it to practice and now is the one of the wealthiest athletes alive; speaking of the phenomenon Ronaldo). Who would’ve imagined the English had that in mind when soccer was invented? The truth is soccer is an aesthetic success. As Shakespeare’s plays engage the mind so does every move in soccer fascinate the mind; ask any American in the 70’s who saw Pele dribble 5 players in a row when he played for the New York Cosmos. South Americans love soccer because it reflects their passion; Africans love soccer because it enhances their dance, and Europeans love soccer because it reflects their art. What other sport in the world uses the hands (goalie), the head, the chest, the foot, the knee, and the legs in pursuit of a goal? Only soccer. It is a complete sport where a goalie defending a penalty makes gymnasts jealous, where the kickers’ precision make the painter watch. This is what soccer offers: but magic. 1×0 or 5×2, it’s all magic. Beat that critics!

I am so confident of this that I will give you one sample to prove my point.
There was Maxi Rodríguez’s ridiculous chest-and-strike bomb against Mexico, the goal of the tournament, captured perfectly by the incomparable Argentine broadcaster Victor Hugo Morales.