The philosophy of football
The beautiful game also captures much of what practical philosophy is about
The football (i.e., soccer, for Americans) World Cup is in full swing. Setting aside the more than justified controversies about FIFA, the organizing body, and Qatar, the hosting country, I’ve had some time to reflect on the game itself from a bit of a detached perspective. After all, Italy didn’t make it to the tournament this year, so I’ll have to wait until the 2026 edition in North America (a joint US-Mexico-Canada effort) to see the Azzurri in action again. Fate permitting.
I’d like to analyze the idea of football—seen from the point of view of a player—in Stoic terms, because I think football embodies many of the lessons of Stoicism itself. Which is a bit ironic, given that the ancient Stoics taught us not to give a damn about games, and especially not to care about which team may or may not win. Epictetus admonishes:
“When the occasion demands, do speak, but not about any of the usual topics, not about gladiators, not about horse-races, not about athletes, not about food and drink, the subjects of everyday talk.” (Encheiridion, 33.3)
And here is Marcus Aurelius:
“From my tutor [I learned] not to side with the Green Jacket or the Blue at the races, or to back the Light-Shield Champion or the Heavy-Shield in the lists.” (Meditations, I.5)
The first quote tells us that we shouldn’t concern ourselves with trivial topics of conversations, like sports. Instead, we should try to raise the level of discourse among our companions. The second one that we should not pick sides in a context, but simply wish for the team that wins to be the winner, because that is the outcome the cosmic web of cause-effect has determined.
But let’s face it, most of us are not Stoic sages. And I’m still not entirely convinced that we would be better off if we were. It is human to pick sides, and it is pleasant, occasionally, to shoot the breeze about something unimportant. So long as we are conscious of the fact that the two sides stem from an arbitrary distinction, and we understand that there are times when we ought to talk about more important things with our friends.
The reason I’m going to look at football from the point of view of a player on the field and not that of a spectator is that insofar the latter is concerned the Stoic recommendation is pretty straightforward. According to Epictetus, we should always apply what he calls the fundamental rule of life: some things are up to us, other things are not up to us; consequently, our focus should be on the first class of things, while at the same time developing an attitude of acceptance and equanimity concerning the second class.
During the World Cup, nothing is up to the spectator, which means there is nothing to focus on. Everything belongs to the class of things not up to us, so we should train ourselves to accept the verdict on the field without recriminations, anger, or regret. Let the best team win, you don’t have a choice anyway.
The real philosophical lessons, by contrast, are for the players (and the coaches, and other supporting staff). In order to fix our ideas, let’s pick a specific player from the current World Cup: Robert Lewandowski, who normally competes on behalf of the Barcelona football club, but in international competitions plays as a striker for the Poland national team.
[Lewandowski scores a goal against Saudi Arabia.]
Lewandowski presumably began the tournament with two objectives in mind: first, to contribute to advance his team to the second stage (and, perhaps, eventually, to win the competition); second, to score his first goal in a World Cup, a mark of high distinction for any player, but especially for one of the caliber of the Polish striker.
Let’s apply Epictetus’s rule: what, with respect to these two objectives, is up to Lewandowski and what isn’t? To actually accomplish either objective is not up to him, because outcomes depend on a number of external factors he cannot control, including, of course, the opposing teams, and specifically the defense players and goal keepers of those teams—Argentina, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia—during the preliminary group phase of the tournament.
Instead, what was definitely up to Lewandowski was to play in the most excellent fashion possible given his capacities, his training, and his physical form. “Excellence” is the proper translation of the Greek word arete, which is often rendered as virtue. Virtues are instances of moral excellence, but all sorts of things can have arete, including, say, a knife (if it cuts properly), a musical instrument (if it plays properly), and a footballer (if he plays football properly).
Lewandowski—from a Stoic perspective—also has to keep in mind that his arete will be in contrast with whatever Fortune decide. He needs to remind himself going into the World Cup that despite doing his utmost he may very well not be able to score a goal in the three games of the group phase. Or he may score and still his team may not advance to the direct elimination rounds, because other teams have outscored Poland. And so forth. Something like this is what Seneca meant when he wrote:
“No man has ever been so far advanced by Fortune that she did not threaten him as greatly as she had previously indulged him. Do not trust her seeming calm; in a moment the sea is moved to its depths. The very day the ships have made a brave show in the games, they are engulfed.” (Letters to Lucilius, IV.7)
In fact, this is almost what did happen to Lewandowski and his squad! During their first game at the World Cup, against Mexico, Poland tied 0-0, which meant that Lewandowski did not achieve his objective of scoring a goal, and did not contribute much to the advancement of the team, despite playing an excellent game (I know, I watched it).
Things went better during the second game. Not only Lewandowski scored a personal goal, but the team beat Saudi Arabia 2-0, thus putting forth a strong claim for qualification to the next round.
But the crucial game was the third one, against Argentina, a world powerhouse and one of the favorites to win the Cup. Simultaneously, Saudi Arabia was playing Mexico, and the overall situation in that group was such that a number of final outcomes was possible, including the elimination of Argentina (which would have been big news!).
The details are not important, nor interesting (unless you are a serious football fan). What matters is that the decision came down to the last few minutes of both games, which were played simultaneously. Poland lost against Argentina, 0-2. But they still had a chance to advance, depending entirely on the outcome of the Saudi Arabia vs Mexico game. Mexico had to win by a large margin to make it. It did win, but not by enough of a margin, so Poland squeezed through in the nick of time.
Nerve wracking for both players and fans, I should think. But if Lewandowski is a Stoic (I have no idea), then he spent those minutes between the end of his game and the moment he learned about the fate of his team in serene knowledge that he had done all he could to achieve his objectives, and the rest was in the hands of Fate (in the form of the feet of the Saudi and Mexican players).
There are a number of other virtue ethical aspects to football that we can appreciate as life lessons. First and foremost, it’s a game that participants strive to be play fairly. Not all footballers do, and certainly not all the time. But even one’s opposing fans are won over by acts of gallantry, like kicking the ball off on purpose if a player is down, to allow for the game to pause and for the referee to see whether medics need to be called in. Or, simply, when a player extends his hand to an opponent on the ground to help him get up.
Conversely, fans (and, depending on the specifics, the referee) punish unvirtuous acts. As when a player pretends to be injured to waste time if his team is winning. Or when someone perpetrates a particularly egregious foul in order to stop an opponent running toward the goal.
In every game, then, we witness virtue, both in the specific sense of fair play and in the broader one of excellence at play. And we also experience vice, in the form of indecorous or downright vicious behavior. (In one infamous game during the 2014 World Cup the Uruguayan Luis Suarez bit Italian defender Giorgio Chiellini. He was given a nine games suspension as punishment and had to watch the rest of the tournament from home.)
As I mentioned above, we also see the constant application of Epictetus’s rule, as well as the effects of the web of Fortune. And there is one more interesting aspect to a World Cup, from a philosophical perspective: it is, in a sense, an example of (limited) cosmopolitanism. All nations on earth come together every four years to contend the title. Yes, it is a competition, with winners and losers. But it is a friendly competition that does not allow violence or unfairness.
This year one of the crucial games featured the United States against Iran. Notoriously, the politicians of the two countries are not on speaking terms, and there are constant threats from both sides about the dire military consequences of this or that “unacceptable” behavior. But on the pitch, the players acted properly, doing their best to achieve their objectives, but respecting the rules and each other. (In the end, the US won 1-0, which was enough for their team to move forward, while the Iranians ended their run there.)
Football is not just the beautiful game, as it is known. It is a game that presents players with a microcosm of philosophical issues that reflect the broader issues that both the players and the rest of us have to face daily in real life. Ultimately, as Epictetus reminds us, outcomes are not really the point, what matters is how we play ball:
“Socrates knew how to play ball. How so? He knew how to play in the law-court. … In speaking [at his trial] he was like a man playing ball. And at that place and time what was the ball that he was playing with? Imprisonment, exile, drinking poison, being deprived of wife, leaving children orphans. These were the things with which he was playing, but none the less he played and handled the ball in good form. So ought we also to act, exhibiting the ball-player’s carefulness about the game, but the same indifference about the object played with, as being a mere ball.” (Discourses, II.5)
Understanding how life really works is in itself -- it’s own reward. Seeing through just how attached we are to outcomes and how the “Goddess Fortuna” has us in her grip — regardless of whether we are the victor or the victim -- to her precariousness and the circumstances that follow.
The true superpower lies in forgetting about the results and asking what can I give to the process where I gain the maximum benefit by how much practice, effort and resolve I contribute -- rather than the “win” itself. This “View from above” taken as a collective experience that gives expression to the “nobility” of it all i.e.; human beings coming together on a global scale putting away their pettiness and squabbles -- does in it’s own way by “osmosis” heal the world by expressing the grand view from above in -- Live Real Time.
A Quote by Zhuangzi captures this perfectly while also giving us a chance to play with the forces the “Goddess Fortuna” unleashes when we cling to our preferences...but as it turns out the real benefit lies in the “dance” itself and not the “dancer”.
“Life, death, preservation, loss, failure, success, poverty, riches, worthiness, unworthiness, slander, fame, hunger, thirst, cold, heat — these are the alternations of the world, the workings of fate. Day and night, they change place before us, and wisdom cannot spy out their source.
Therefore, they should not be enough to destroy your harmony; they should not be allowed to enter the storehouse of the spirit. If you can harmonize and delight in them, master them and never be at a loss for joy; if you can do this day and night without break and make it be spring with everything, mingling with all and creating the moment within your own mind — this is what I call being whole in power.”
—Zhuangzi
I'm curious as to your thoughts on what the moral implications are for a player who commits a foul to prevent a 1 on 1 against the goal keeper. Should I act fairly as a defender who has been beaten and allow the goalkeeper to deal with it or should I foul( Which is technically legal and will result in a free kick)?