Social(ism)izing our children through sports

The twisted path from FFPS to DEI to the USSA

Fun, Fair, Positive Soccer (FFPS), or Communist Kick-ball as I like to call it, was founded in 1986 in Katy, Texas. According to their website, the vision for FFPS was “to establish a positive environment for youth soccer players,” because they had concerns about “parents who put too much pressure on the kids to perform and the programs that emphasized winning as the main focus.”

In order to overcome the perceived issues and accomplish their goal, they developed new rules and guidelines for their “sport”:

• No tryouts (everyone gets to play)

• Everyone gets equal time

• Everyone gets to play every position

• There is no official scorekeeping (children may keep score for themselves)

• Only positive coaching allowed

• Only encouraging comments allowed from parents

• Everyone gets a trophy

I understand along the way not wanting parents shouting obscenities, or being overly negative or verbally abusive (yes, there are some of those out there), but why throw the baby out with the bathwater? The changes that FFPS foists upon “football” are fraught with pitfalls. First the obvious: in sports, winning is the main focus. That is the primary aim - to win. Along the way, there are other concepts to comprehend, but winning is the point of competition. Some parents are extremely competitive, and at times they can turn things negative for the children, but that is no reason to reject the life lessons inherent to participating in organized sports. Let’s address how the tenets of FFPS undermine the life lessons taught by engaging in athletic contests.

Contrary to socialist sensibility, keeping score matters. While antipodal to the anxieties of the FFPS founders, scoring is how we determine the winners and losers in sporting contests. Losing is a chance for reflection on what can be done better, as well as to commend the victor. Winning is an opportunity to cultivate thankfulness and suppress the urge to gloat. Winners and losers shaking hands at the end and congratulating one another on a good game ingrains the idea that people can get along regardless of competition or being on opposing teams. How is such a message inculcated if there is no winner or loser? Thus, winning and losing are both important aspects of sports, and with winning as the ultimate goal, who gets to play, when they get to play, and which position they get to play also matters.

Foregoing tryouts is problematic. Tryouts are intended to gauge skill level and determine in what position the potential player would best fit. One kid may be a great goalie. Another may do well playing a forward position. Some are better at mid-field. Then others may not do well at any of these positions, or may not do well at soccer at all. How can the lesson that not every one is a fit for every job be ingrained if rejection is never experienced? This is the same as telling a child that “you can be whatever you want when you grow up,” which is patently false. A child cannot grow up to be a horse; a boy cannot grow up to be a girl; and not everyone can grow up to be president (though the standards for that seem to have been lowered). It is good to encourage hard work as the basis for potentially having any career one wants (there are no guarantees), but how does one learn the value of hard work if the privilege of playing a particular position is not based on ability? If such a child is put in a position for which another is better suited, and the rest of the team is forced to play with that child in that position for which he is ill-equipped, to whom is that fair? Is it fair to the child put in a position at which he is sure to fail? Is it fair to the kid who is better at that position but is displaced by the sub-par player? Is it fair to the rest of the team to have their overall performance hindered by a less-than-adequate teammate? Of course not. These failures to help children grasp what it truly means to be fair creates other issues, such as inability to accept criticism.

Positivity is a good thing, but not at the expense of truth. Sometimes, criticism is necessary. When training a child, constructive criticism is critical. How can a youth correct what he or she is doing wrong if never confronted with truth? How can he or she improve if never given guidance? Children are not so obtuse as to miss the fact that what follows, “that was good, but…” is not “positive.” That’s ok. Children are resilient, and they learn from correction. We all learn from mistakes, and that often comes in the form of someone else chastening or penalizing us. How will a person grow to be able to receive such discipline, or to cope with criticism, if never faced with anything but affirmation? Negative words can grow wearisome when overused, but they are as necessary for progression as positive words or trophies. Speaking of which…

Plenty has been said by others of the participation trophy-environment in which so many kids are now being raised. FFPS may have been patient zero when it comes to this calamitous contagion. Offering a trophy to someone just for showing up may seem kind, but it benefits no one. Again, this is unfair to those who work hard and are worthy; it is not fair because it results in an equitable outcome. Such an approach also fails to teach life lessons. From where does the motivation to improve arise if a trophy is endowed regardless of winning or losing, regardless of effort or ability? In what way is a child who plays goalie, yet stands still and fails to make a single save, worthy of an award? He is not. Just as a player who consistently scores goals against his own team would not be deserving of a trophy. What message is sent by rewarding failure? What lesson is taught by commending lack of effort? The practice of presenting trophies to tots simply for existing robs them of the desire to excel.

That children are being primed with these precepts is pernicious. These ideas carry over into schools (and are now being embraced by the educational system) and enforced to the students’ detriment. When a child enters school, he or she is (or used to be) encouraged to master several subjects that at one time included reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic. Instead of being challenged to meet objective standards, the bar is lowered to accommodate the least common denominator - little Johnny (or Jenny, or Ignatious…pick a name) who can’t quite comprehend calculations or who is failing remedial reading. Rather than providing the tutoring necessary for Johnny to surmount his stumbling blocks, he is praised for being him, told that being correct is racist, and passed on to the next grade. Does it come any surprise then to hear that there have been attempts to do away with grades in school (like FFPS not keeping score) to avoid hurt feelings? Such practices result in illiteracy and inability to think critically. What happens when a subpar student matriculates to an institute of higher learning? Does the situation improve? How does it affect their entry into the workforce and their perspective on life?

It is from such programs as FFPS that ideologies like DEI emerge. FFPS is basically DEI for minors. This is eminently evident when we read, “FFPS believes in including all kids which is why we are a 100% inclusion program.” Bring up a kid in FFPS, and she will believe that she should be offered a job for which she interviews regardless of skill or aptitude, despite any candidates who may be better suited for the role. Raise a child playing FFPS, and he will insist that he should be paid the same as someone with greater proficiency just because he exists. These are the people who fall prey to the precept that they should be rewarded simply because they occupy space. These are today’s diversity hires in positions like White House Press Secretary, Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Transportation, and Supreme Court Justice. There are so many examples, it is difficult to limit the list to these few.

Once in positions of power, FFPS disciples make decisions based not on what is best for business, or what will benefit those they represent, but on their farcical notion of fairness. They have no qualms taking from one to give to another, which is theft. It is from such thinking that originate ideas about workers receiving the bulk of a company’s profits because they do the work, ignoring the one(s) from whom the capital comes or those who guide the business to a lucrative bottom line. These are the people who want to force others to hire people unequipped for the job, because diversity and inclusion. These are people who want to cancel anyone who says something that they find insulting or in opposition to what they believe. These are the people who call for equity instead of equality. FFPS graduates are individuals who, while decrying oppressors, believe theft and oppression are noble if they serve to advance equity. These are communists through and through, the likes of who are now turning the USA into the United Socialist States of America. If we wish to turn the tide and avoid becoming the USSA, programs like FFPS need to perish.