Where the Yankees Would Be Loved

I sometimes refer to myself as an anti-conspiracy theorist. I'm not naive enough to think that everything in history went down exactly like the textbooks say, but I have noticed that most conspiracy theories told are self-serving and beneficial to the teller.

Sports are no different. No one thinks the refs or the media is easy on their team, or even fair to them. In fact, the way these woe-is-me echo chambers of paranoia combust so easily is what drives me away from sports message boards these days. Everyone sees the sports world through their own inadequate looking glass.

That said, I really have to wonder about the timing of the media leak that Paul Byrd took Human Growth Hormone. The day of game 7 of the ALCS, with things slipping away from the Indians? That's when someone decided to tip off the San Francisco Chronicle (Byrd maintains that he only took HGH under a doctor's prescription and supervision)? Is it worth noting that the steroid investigation's head, George Mitchell of the George Mitchell Report, sits on the Red Sox board?

So tell me, readers. Am I just being a paranoid Indians fan, or am I right to wonder about the timing of this?

Maybe it's just because the Indians lost, but these days, the Red Sox and their Nation make it harder and harder to be a Yankee hater.

For starters, I do indeed love New York, the city. Haven't been to Boston, but I keep reading about surprising (in this day and age) accounts of ugliness and even racism, such as the saga of Pumpsie Green, the first black player to play for Boston on the very last team in the league to integrate.

Secondly, it's very easy to root against Bill Simmons, Boston's most visible, obnoxious torch-bearer, their fans just somehow seem more contemptible than fans of other teams. I can't put my finger on it. Maybe it's simply the wicked awesome Bahston accent and verbiage. Not a pretty sound.

Thirdly, I never forgave Manny Ramirez for leaving, and I'll never forget the Akron Beacon Journal's account of a conversation between Ramirez and the Tribe's clubhouse manager. Allegedly, Manny wanted to stay in Cleveland, even for less money ... but he's afraid the rest of the league would think he was stupid and make fun of him if he did.

Still, while I count two diehard Yankee fans among my friends, two of the nicest guys you will ever meet (I know no big Red Sox fans), I can't quite bring myself to say I support the Yankees in the legendary rivalry. When someone asks me if I'm behind the Sox or the Yankees, my answer is always, "neither." While that's technically true — I do not have a horse in that race — it's an evasive answer. When the Yankees/Red Sox are on television, you're pulling for one of those teams, even if neither is your steady.

And yet I just cannot bring myself to root for the Yankees, unless a win by them benefits the Indians. It just feels wrong. I am an underdog lover, and no matter how much the Red Sox open their wallet and spend like the Yankees, they will continue to be the underdogs until they win thirty-odd more World Series titles.

The English soccer version of Red Sox/Yankees, at least at the moment if not historically, is Manchester United/Chelsea. I've written before about the fascinating differences between American sports culture and European sports cultures, because not only are they different, but opposites in many cases, and a rebuke of their own political culture (in short, European sports leagues are run much more capitalistically then the revenue-sharing, parity-emphasizing American sports scene).

Man U/Chelsea is another great example. Man U are definitely the Yankees there, the most storied and successful side in the history of english football, if not all of Europe. It's the first and usually the only English soccer team the average American can name.

Chelsea is the new kid on the block. They weren't even in the top league as recently as 1989, and didn't make the top three in the league after that for another 10 years.

Since then, though, Chelsea has battled for the top spot with Man U and other interlopers regularly ... yet in the message boards, press, and pubs, it's very clearly Chelsea that has earned the nation's enmity. They say Chelsea bought their way into competitiveness (true), say they will never be "loved" like Man U is, and frequently refer to them as "Chelski," a derogatory reference to the Russian owner that his seen them through to competitiveness.

The first charge, the one about buying a championship, is curious. If you're a fan of a lesser team, wouldn't you kill for it? Or are you saying, "If we get bought by a fabulously wealthy businessman, I sure hope he passes up on the stars of the world and just concentrates on investment in the youth squads and development!"

Is Man U any better? Perhaps, but by an utterly negligible margin. I count three meaningful contributors to the Man U senior club that came up through their system: Paul Scholes, Wes Brown, and Gary Neville. Chelsea has one, John Terry. The rest of the guys on both teams are the world's best, and didn't come cheap.

So why is it okay for Manchester United to buy guys like Cristiano Ronaldo and Wayne Rooney, and despicable when Chelsea does it? I have no clue. But Yankee fans can take heart that, in jolly old England, it is they, the overdogs and legends, who would be universally loved.