Please respond to this classmate from chapter 5 in Kretchmar, R. S., Dyreson, M., Liewellyn, M., & Gleaves, J. (2018). History and philosophy of sport and physical activity. Human Kinetics.this is what he wrote Gabrielle Lorico One idea that caught my attention in chapter 5 is the globalization of food versus sport. I thought it was very interesting to see these concepts compared because it showcased how different they actually were. The textbook describes both of these globalizations to be completely different. Specifically, the textbook states, “You might easily conclude that fútbol fused Mesoamerican and European sporting pastimes, much like pizza and pasta fused Old World and New World food. It did not” (Kretchmar et al, 2017, p. 203). The main difference between their globalization is that for food, it involved the mixing of many cultures to curate a certain food. For sport, or specifically for fútbol, it originated in one place and simply became popular and spread to other cultures. Other cultures did not have a major impact or influence on the game of fútbol unlike how pizza or pasta was impacted by other cultures due to their ingredients. According to the textbook, “The roots of fútbol reside in 19th-century Western civilization, specifically in Great Britain in the midst of the Industrial Revolution. From its birth in modern Britain in the 1860s, association football spread fairly quickly around the globe” (Kretchmar et al, 2017, p. 204). My question rises from this text. As the textbook said, fútbol originated in western civilization or Britain specifically. If fútbol originated in another part of the world that such as Asia or South America, would it still be as popular as it was back then and today? On the other hand, if basketball was created instead of fútbol at the time, would it still have spread as much as fútbol did? In other words, is location, Western civilization, or the actual sport itself more important when globalized during that time?
