What if Soccer defined the United States government? Considering how crazy and odd this topic sounds, it requires explanation. First of all, world politics are immensely complex, ranging from arguments to huge laws, but what if all problems could be solved with a game of soccer? As usual, we'll start of by defining the rules of the story, and then get to the theorizing.
Rule #1: The best players from each state would be chosen to represent each state, as a sort of sports army. These teams would be used for any quarrel between two states. For example, the states of Massachusetts and New Hampshire are both interested in building a major harbor in their individual which would require major funds, but the states cannot raise all the money on their own. The Federal Government can give one state a grant, only one, that will help pay for expenditure. The two teams play a nationally televised game, playing for the wealth of their home states, and let's say that Massachusetts wins and gets the harbor. However, this leads to Rule #2.
Rule #2: If/Once a team wins a conflict resolution game, if it's a major decision, like a dispute over big funding projects (like the example), then their team cannot partake in any decisive games for a year. If it's minor scale, such as a small, insignificant decrease in minimum wage, then the team cannot participate in games for 2-4 months, depending on the severity. This decision will be within the jurisdiction of a neutral party. This rule would ensure that one state would not be all powerful due to a strong team. Without it, a strong state could use their team to win all arguments and reap the benefits for themselves.
Rule #3: Aside from being a part of the governmental debates, these state representative teams will participate in a country wide League with 50 teams against all the other state team. The winning states, say the top 3, will earn some sort of prize. For example, if California wins the league, they would be rewarded with a monetary gift to the state, a statewide tax rebate, and an increase in salary for the team itself, as the government would have gained more money through winning the league.
Rule #4:
a) An insurance policy that must be set into place to prevent dominant states is that a team must cycle a completely new team every 3 years. A team could have a really good or bad team for 3 years, but they can't change it. However, after 3 years, they must bring in a new team, of youths, to represent the state. This serves a similar purpose as Rule 2, and it is to make sure there are no superstar-teams who dominate a whole decade, but also to make sure a state isn't ruined by a poor performing team. All teams would have to comply and reset their teams at the same time.
b) At the beginning of each season, teams will have to draft new players, but these players must be from that state. However as Rule 5 will explain, they can later trade with other states for other players.
Rule #5: The fourth rule is an intermediary between the games that determine fights. Trade. Instead of going to "war" (A Game) over a dispute, a team can trade a good player to the other team in order to get their way. Teams can also “purchase” players by giving a state a sum of money for a talented player. Going back to the example from Rule 1, let's say New Hampshire knows they are probably going to lose. Therefore they propose a trade. Mr. ABCD goes to Massachusetts, and in return New Hampshire gets the harbor grant. Massachusetts loses long term, but for the next couple years (until they must reset) they have a strong player than can help them win future battles. Although this example is basic, a team can do just about anything. For example they could trade 2 players for one player plus them winning the argument.
Rule #6:
a) To ensure fairness throughout the country, each team is given an equal amount of money to start each 3-year-cycle. The state gets to keep all of its money earned from the previous cycle, but money allocated from the government must be equal to make sure worse teams are at a lesser disadvantage at the start of each cycle.
b) However, each team can earn more money through good performances throughout the season. Let’s say Colorado for example, is on a 13 game win streak, their team would gain extra money for scouting and buying players from other teams. On the flip side, if Ohio is on a 16 game losing streak, the fans will be unhappy with the team, and won’t support them as much. This will lead to consequences, and teams could be stripped of some money and funding.
Now that we’ve laid out all the ground rules, may the predictions begin. Despite seeming like a completely negative proposal, there are some benefits alongside this crazy idea. Let’s prophesize by walking through the effects
Starting with the base idea, which talks about each state having a team, and these soccer teams playing to determine the fates of any conflict between states. This would definitely help quicken the process of debating and fighting that is all too evident in the government. It will help take away Democratic and Republican divergence. On the flip side, it prevents the most glaring problem of the whole question. Decisions will not be made based on benefits and negatives, and will not be for the good of the society. Instead, decisions will be made by winning games, which is a neutral, sometimes bad, sometimes good. You could argue, Why not add another rule, such as a judge who could decide in major conflicts which way it goes instead of teams. However, some might argue that this would take away from the whole point of the teams.
The second rule is a good failsafe to prevent this “league” to become Serie A with one dominant team that was winning literally everything (Despite Juventus’s single trophy). It will make sure that all teams win their fair share of arguments. On the other hand, stronger teams will always participate in the bigger arguments for greater rewards and the weak teams will always be left with the tiny rewards.
Rule 3 helps ensure that everyone living in a state wins if the team is good and wins the league. Some people may not benefit from the state winning an infrastructure grant specializing with subways and trains. However, a good team will help its state citizens earn benefits such as tax rebates and as a result, in the end, everyone wins.
Rules 4, 5 , and 6 go back to the idea of fairness. They are just counterweights put into place to ensure that there are no giant teams that crush the competition. Although this idea is absurd, and unthinkable, there is one major plus to it that may be underrated. Soccer. The U.S.A. is not known for its soccer, and has never had a Lionel Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo who has rocked the world. Such a competition, but not at such high stakes, may be just what America needs to emerge into the soccer empire.
Comments