Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

10-13-90 . . . Much has been made about the symbolism of football. I’m not the first to see football as a surrogate for war. The players represent soldiers, the coaches generals, and the field the contested terrain. The goal, as in any war, is to capture the field and win the battle. As I watch coaches confer on the sidelines and communicate with assistants by means of headphones and microphones, I can’t help but think of a general during wartime. Strategy is being plotted, tactics implemented. The coach, like a field commander, must make decisions quickly and boldly, hoping to catch the opposition off guard. It’s a macho ritual, this game. The successful coach is one who sees all, formulates a battle plan, and trains his soldiers so that they execute his plans. Spectators, meanwhile, experience the coach’s leadership vicariously. That is why there is so much “Monday-morning quarterbacking”; one argues that the coach formulated an inferior plan or that the players failed to execute it. Little or none of this takes place at the conscious level, of course. There must be some deep need—the macho imperative—to control others both physically and intellectually. Football has evolved as a surrogate of war to fulfill this need.