Out in Left Field

After last week's tie with the Russian National Team, one of the World Hockey Association players triumphantly told the press, "They have to know that we're going to get better. We're just starting to get into shape."

This feeling among WHA All-Stars that they can top the Russians without really extending themselves is not unusual among Westerners. Bob Goodenow, last year's Harvard hockey captain, told me that when he went with the U.S. National Team to compete in a European tournament, the players only practiced together twice before they departed.

The issue here is that Americans and Canadians always seem to have an excuse when they lose at their national games. Neither people can stomach the fact that foreigners work harder or that a different system of encouraging athletes to excel could be more conducive to player development.

It is nauseating to recall the charges that were bandied about before the Little League World Series in Williamsport, Pa. The favorite was a team from Taiwan and its players were subjected to accusations ranging from questions about the participants' ages to how the team was chosen (supposedly Taiwan sent all-stars instead of its one best team). American parents refused to acknowledge that Taiwan's strength was legitimate. In fact, baseball has become Taiwan's national game, and Little Leaguers are lionized, while baseball has certainly lost its preeminent position on the American sports scene.

The 1972 Olympics championship contest in basketball is a further example of our unwillingness to recognize the progress of a competing country. Granted, the officiating at the conclusion of the game left much to be desired, but the Russians played us evenly throughout the contest. Interspersed with complaints about the officiating were proud boasts that "If we'd only had our good players like Walton there, we would have creamed them." My question is why people fail to notice and object to the ugly incentives the players qualified to participate in such a contest face. It is only a matter of pride for America to win the Olympic championship, but a lot of money is involved for UCLA if it wins its conference and then the NCAA titles.

The issue is that Americans and Canadians tend to rationalize losses to what they consider inferior peoples. Either the players are not in shape or the country's best players did not show up--or, as in Bobby Hull's case, were not allowed to play because of NHL-WHA politics. We collectively have to face up to the fact that if a foreign country emphasizes a sport, either by subsidizing the construction of facilities or by exalting its participants in the press and public rallies, we cannot expect to remain superior forever.

As other countries continue to improve in sports we once considered our preserve, like basketball and track, we as a nation are going to have to make choices about our priorities. Should we disguise Federal grants to athletes who participate in the less popular sports like swimming and track in order to avoid the "pro" tag which eliminates any chance of Olympic competition? The Russians do it by having their athletes live in comparatively plush quarters, eating the best food. Only our pros in popular sports can afford that type of life style. Mark Spitz had to capitalize quickly on his fame to get any money from his swimming. The question is how badly we want to be the best; we must expect professional responsibilities to take precedence over patriotism unless we change the incentive system. If we don't put up, we should shut up.