[remarkEon]

>It's the coming together / tribalism part that unnerves me.

Why? Is community bad? I need that argument to be unpacked a bit more, because for me my experience living in several different cities as their teams make a playoff run has been a fun, electrifying experience. Neighbors are hanging out. Kids are having sleep overs watching games. There's a (usually very) healthy bump to the local economy. For all the room-for-improvement there truly is with managing the sport, the sense of community is what's actually valuable to me.

[SapphireSun]

I think those effects are good, but I also recognize that because these effects are unmoored from anything real we're dealing with nearly pure social signaling amongst a mass responding to tribal tendencies.

Of course, having something that serves as a community focal point that crosses faith boundaries is invaluable - nearly any time new people meet powerful things happen.

However, I take issue with your point about the economy: A local bump means that there was a withdrawal from somewhere else in the economy. If it came mostly from savings rather than from shifting consumption from other locales, then it generated increased consumption, which depending on the macroeconomic condition, could be good or bad (though during the latest recession, inducing an overall increase in consumption sounds like the right thing to do). It's not clear whether this is a good thing or not. Why should I prefer the shop owners in your town versus some other town to temporarily enjoy increased profits? There might be a good reason, but for a disinterested third party, odds are it's a wash.

[lovemenot]

Your argument is cogent and expresses my own thoughts well.

>> having something that serves as a community focal point that crosses faith boundaries is invaluable

This is true up to the point that team allegiance is weaker tribalism than faith. Growing up in Manchester and not swearing fealty to red/blue, admittedly less so than orange/green in Belfast, was still more troublesome than it needed to be.

Yet all this seems a matter of identity development. My younger brother felt the opposite pressure of having to grow up in a family uninterested in sports. Each of us were yin surrounded by yang (or vice versa). I feel the article's writer may have given up something more valuable when he arbitrarily adopted another identity for the sake of broader communication. Unless he had a latent need to belong to a group more deeply and is merely rationalising it in the article.

>> There might be a good reason, but for a disinterested third party, odds are it's a wash.

That's the nub of it. Tribalism in any form wants adherents to reinforce that there are no disinterested parties. You are either with us or against us. Depending on your starting assumptions, that's either valid or completely spurious.

[remarkEon]

I think that's a very sad and depressive way to look at sports fans, and indeed I think the argument that they're part of some fascist tribal conspiracy is silly and immature. I guess my experience growing up as a baseball fan was less "tribal" than football fans in Europe, but I don't think that's reason to decide that the whole experience is without value...which I think is what's being implied here and elsewhere on this thread: that if you haven't experienced this terrible tribal nature of sports fanatics then you've been duped and don't know it yet.

On the whole, I think everyone is reading into this wayyyy to deeply. If anyone wants to enjoy a beer and a hotdog at the ballpark of their choosing, let's do it. 20 days until pitchers and catchers report.

[lovemenot]

I deliberately delimited my position to mitigate counter-arguments like this. We do agree that, to the extent following sports is low or completely non-tribal it is innocuous. Presumably, baseball was/is like this for you. I also allowed that for some people such as my brother and, perhaps for the article's writer too, belonging is a deep need which can be satisfied by some form of tribalism.

My next point might be a bit of a stretch, but I would invite you to consider the possibility that your comment is itself a weak exemplar of the tendencies I disliked growing up in Manchester.

"othering" the others :

>> I think that's a very sad and depressive

Appealing to the in-group for emotional support :

>> If anyone wants to enjoy a beer and a hotdog at the ballpark of their choosing, let's do it. 20 days until pitchers and catchers report.

deliberately misrepresenting outsiders and making a loud noise doing it :

>> the argument that they're part of some fascist tribal conspiracy is silly and immature

[mgkimsal]

re: "less tribal"

Baseball is... much slower than european football. I grew up as an american baseball fan, but could never understand the fascination with american football. Ever. It's just a weird game, but it tends to be faster than baseball, and certainly more physically intense (tackles, etc). And soccer, basketball and hockey are even faster. The speed tends to hype people up, I think.

It feels easier to watch a baseball game from the stands without getting "worked up". I can easily watch a bb game and be relaxed. I never felt able to relax at a basketball game (by comparison). I imagine it's easier to relax at a cricket match vs a soccer/football match too.

[remarkEon]

I guess I grew up always thinking about the math aspects of the game (dad was a bond trader), so even hockey for me, which is probably the least deterministic of the professional sports, is fun to watch. American Football has always been my least favorite...but probably because that sport's been immune to the kind of deep-level analysis (at least until recently) that a sport like baseball (and even basketball) are subjected to. So, I guess I agree with your perspective insomuch as it involves how "deep" someone can get emotionally involved with a game. Soccer though to me is just mind-numbingly boring - so the "tribal" nature and violence associated with European soccer fans is a complete mystery to me.