No soccer in *our* playing field!
 

I just read this story about a town in Georgia that is forbidding the playing of Soccer in the town park claiming that only Baseball and Football can be played there. The article is really about how Toronto should take a hard look at the success of multiculturalism in what was once a very white city.

Perhaps it's because I am a product of Toronto but if this story is as true as reported I am dumbfounded. How, in this day and age, can people seriously think that taking an action like this is OK?

I can understand the fear of change that can permeate a place that has likely not changed in a long time. I remember the growing pains of Toronto in the 70s. The term Paki was generally tossed about by the ignorant, as in Paki Go Home. But even then, the battle lines would not have sought to punish a group of ball-kicking kids.




LINK

What's really messed up about this, in my opinion, is that Atlanta has some outstanding soccer clubs. I remember playing the Silver Concorde when I was younger; they were always a pretty tough match. However, I guess one doesn't have to go to far outside the city to hit this type of thing. How can people think this is ok? Well, I really love the South - but we definitely do some things to deserve our reputation. I can see this happening in other parts of SC as well.

edit: putting all the words in a sentence helps.

maybe they should enact a law that states there shouldn't be any stupid people in the position of Mayor.

So these people come from war-torn countries and probably have a hard time finding a place to live and a decent job. They play soccer to have a bit of a release and now they can't even do that. If the fields aren't made for soccer then fucking build a field.

it isn't like the mayor is appointed...

there's plenty of precedent where voters know that someone is stupid or a criminal yet vote for them anyways... Marion Barry is one, and there's another that is being used by Alan Hevesi since he was voted by the people after reelection even after it was announced he was misusing state resources.

the only thing that I can contribute as far as soccer is concerned, I have seen parks destroyed by people playing soccer, where once it was a grassy park, but then the soccer players came and it became a dirt field. At first I thought it coincidence until I saw it happen time and time again. Maybe there is some truth to the
Those fields weren’t made for soccer.” Obviously there are grassy soccer fields...

I understand how soccer can ruin fields.. but if there is a demand for it then one should be built in order to preserve the others. I don't think banning the most popular sport in the world is a great idea...

How does a mayor in a small ass town like this get the attention of Canadians? Who cares about it? If the people don't like it he won't be around next election cycle, if there is enough pro-soccer support there will be a soccer field erected.

Anyone want to road-trip to Atlanta to play a little soccer?

I'm down.

Where I live, EVERYONE plays soccer. I played when I was young, my SO played, the kids I sit for now play. At the kids' soccer practices, 90% of the kids are white and middle-class.

This mayor needs to pull his head out of his ass and realize that soccer is an international sport for a reason: everyone can play, and everyone can enjoy it. Here they certainly do.

Would he be banning soccer there if the players were locals? I doubt it.

Much ado about nothing. It is quite common (in LA) for soccer AND golf to be banned in our limited park facilities. Even dogs are banned in many of our parks too. Soccer is very destructive on the grass. Not sure why golf is banned but there it is.

There is no racial bogeyman here, as someone pointed out most of the players are white middle class. It's a facilities issue.

The Mayor is fine, if his constituents have a problem with him, then they can vote him out.

What he said.

I'm cracked up that many of the arguments in this thread go something like this: "Intolerance is bad and it must be stopped. Therefore, all towns must behave the way our towns do. Period."

I don't really know to what extent race/nationality has to do with any of this - I guess its a mitigating factor, but I can see this happening in small towns here in SC just because soccer is for faggots and pussies, and we don't have none of that shit 'round here. It's always irked me, because I grew up playing soccer, and hold that its the most bestest sport in the world.

you know what fucks up fields? playing on them. fucks them up in a hurry, every time. football will mess up a field. baseball *would* mess up a field, if you actually did anything when playing baseball. I guess the diamond might get a little messed up. I can sort of see banning golf on some fields - the divots can leave holes which make sprained ankles a real probability. if our mayor had passed this redneck horseshit this-is-small-town-merica-love-it-or-leave-it-you-pinko-commie-punk shit, we would have made a point of playing on the field as much as possible, and probably rolling his house a few times. its a park, its for the kids to play, let them play.

After a little further research (which I should have done the first time I read the thread), I've started to wonder if this actually ever happened. First, it's odd that news of a scandal of this sort would reach Toronto before it made news in the US. First, Clarkston is a suburb of Atlanta that's close enough to almost be considered a part of the city (if it were in Fulton County).

Second, if you read the mayor's page on the city website:

http://www.cityofclarkston.com/Conte...entCT.asp?P=20

you'll see a specific mention of the soccer program, and he seems to take a small measure of pride in it. Granted, he does look like the type to yell at kids to get off his lawn, but I have a feeling that there's a lot more to this story than the Canadians reported (no offense to any Cannucks out there). There also doesn't seem to be any mention of it in the Atlanta press, and they'd usually jump all over something like this.

Just some food for thought.

I'm coming to.

So basically the entire article is incorrect? Huh...well I do enjoy soccer more than "American" football...ah well

There was an article on it in the New York Times this last weekend.

The article is long, so I won't repost it here, but here is a permanent link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/us...prod=permalink

What is quoted above in italics in Charlatan's original post is the beginning of the article in the New York Times.

The article tells the whole story, of which only part is told above: the Fugees were eventually allowed to play soccer at Milam Park in Clarkston, but only given a period of six months to do so, and they had to make a deal with the city council to do so. Two months after being given six months, the team was informed that they would have to stop practice at Milam Park immediately as the field was being turned over to a youth sports coordinator for baseball and football programs. The mayor had evidently forgotten the deal; he now says they have until March at Milam Park. Their coach, meanwhile, is trying to find them a permanent home.

The claim is that the soccer cleats tear up the fields, and that adult teams will want to use the fields too. That argument seems rather dumb to me as football and baseball cleats tear up fields equally well, as I seem to recall from playing and watching those sports. Doesn't everyone in Clarkston pay for the fields one way or another, and shouldn't they all have equal access? Certainly, some activities tear up the field more than others, but it's rather idiotic to ban one sport that involves cleats versus all of them.

OK so...the article was right? Awesome, that means we can go on the road trip and ruin that damn field.

Yeah because ruining the field will help solve the problem?

No, soccer is infinitely worse on the field although football is not far behind. Still, soccer is much more harmful. I witness the effects daily at my local parks. When I plat football on the field compared with when I play soccer, soccer tears up the grass much more. At the park where I play, there are signs clearly forbidding soccer and golf.

Baseball is relegated to baseball fields (diamonds) so baseball is not under scrutiny here.

The point here is that if neighborhood kids want to play soccer, there should be a place for them to do that. After all, isn't that better than them getting bored and getting into trouble?

Ah, now golf I can see being a major problem because its not just cleats that are causing problems, entire chunks of turf are being removed from the ground. But cleats are used in football as well as soccer, so while soccer is worse, football is still bad. Anyways, I was joking about merely destroying the field for fun...ah well

Joke taken :)

I always thought the golf thing was because of the danger from errant balls hitting people/things (I obviously don't know much about golf).

As demand for soccer grows in a given area, usually the community will work to provide for that need. In LA, they have committed to building new soccer fields (no football allowed on those fields by the way) which is perfectly fine. This is incredible because budgets are so tight for parks and recreation (not even money to put up new nets on bball rims), but they are spending millions to put in 4 new soccer fields. So in time, maybe they will construct or put aside space for a soccer field in that community. This type of "problem" is quite common in many places. Just got to work through it.

Ah...never thought of the danger of golf...maybe I'm the one with no knowledge? But yes, I have to agree with the whole demand thing. Hopefully something will come up that allows these poor people to play soccer. Heck where I live there is more soccer fields than football. Woo Canada.

Article # 12,540 that exaggerates the problem and only explains the real story in minute detail. The fields aren't made for Soccer, and I imagine that if a game of Soccer was played, it would screw up the layout and not allow 2 other games to be played. More people play the other two games than Soccer. Oh, not to mention half the people who read the article think it's saying Soccer is banned in the town, when it's really Soccer banned in THAT part of THAT park. Should there be a Soccer field somewhere else in the town? Most likely, but asking people not to fuck up the playing fields of other, more popular sports is rude, but not unreasonable/unlawful. There may be an issue of the citizens not wanting change, but that's not the whole issue.

In my experience, those who play soccer at parks are dead serious about soccer and not the casual player. These people demand the permanent playing field with the big obstructive field goals. I can see how that would be a pain in the posterior and make people want to do away with the sport entirely in that part of the park reserved for more casual games of pass the ball and hit with a stick.

Ah, now see I am merely a casual player, as are most of the people I play with. However I may be biased on this anyways, because the first big ugly goals to go up there were soccer ones...alas I don't really know.

Soccer is much more popular around here than baseball or football. There are separate fields for the sports.

It seems likely that it's a little bit of both the immigrant issue and the damage that would be done to the fields.

Let's see...

Take a small town, with a small town tax base and dump a ton of refugees into it, thereby straining schools, public facilities and the like (how long before teachers are required to speak the language of the immigrants?).

Assumption #1: the refugees have very little money, and

Assumption #2: the locals, who prefer sports other than soccer, are required to provide the funding for soccer. Toss in one other factor: those funds need to come from a pool of workers' taxes, and some of the workers' jobs are threatened by the influx.

People who live in small towns tend to be protective of their chosen lifestyle. That's why they live there. Now, they are being told that the newcomers, who are on the government dole when they arrive, are going to tell them when they can and can not use the same fields they've had for generations. A degree of resentment is less than "dumbfounding."

No wonder they don't display the same legendary tolerance we've observed from the citizens of Quebec.

I think that soccer is destructive, especially right where the goals are - there is a lot of concentrated traffic right in that area - I don't think either football or baseball will have the same effect.

Baseballers (rightly so) want the infield to be as flat as possible, and the most "followed" path (around the diamond) is usually not grass anyway.

Most sports locally share oval space - generally if baseball is played, then the soccer field will be marked in such a way that it does not overlap with the diamond of the baseball field. There is not a lot of American football played here, but would think if it is a shared field, this would also happen (i.e. the football field and the baseball diamond would not overlap).

yeah, soccer can tear up inside the 18 yard box. if these are american football fields, they might not have actual goals sets up. therefore, you're playing between shoes or bags, maybe cones if you've got a little organizer type playing. i'd rather play pick up games without nets...but a lot of people want to imagine themselves being in the premiership highlights reel. it really depends on how they're playing the matches.

they could also make people pay rent for the fields, and use the $$$ to pay for upkeep. there are a lot of ways around this sort of thing, but i've never had a problem playing pick up matches on neighborhood park fields, unless its a local highschool field or something.

regardless, these guys will find somewhere to play.

Wow, someone has lost the plot on this one .. and I'm not sure who!