Football, a Substitute for Armed Warfare

There was no joy in Baltimore on Saturday night. The Ravens lost their game against the Colts.

Football is often said to be a substitute for armed warfare. It has its strategies, its heroes, and its casualties. The city of Baltimore – or most of it – would probably have preferred a win against the colts to a win in Afghanistan or Iraq.

War is a game played for mortal stakes. But there is less difference between war and football than is generally realized. There is nothing at stake in most wars – just like football games. Still both sides are so keen to win they make fools of themselves. Supporters wave flags and sing victory songs. And if their team wins, THEY feel like winners, even though they played no role whatsoever in the victory.

Nor are all wars bloody affairs. Many societies conducted stylized warfare…often with very few battlefield casualties. The West was able to dominate the world, say some military historians, because the Greeks…and later the Romans…and later the Europeans…were more ready to die.


Bill Bonner
for Markets and Money

Bill Bonner

Bill Bonner

Best-selling investment author Bill Bonner is the founder and president of Agora Publishing, one of the world's most successful consumer newsletter companies. Owner of both Fleet Street Publications and MoneyWeek magazine in the UK, he is also author of the free daily e-mail Markets and Money.
Bill Bonner

Latest posts by Bill Bonner (see all)

Leave a Reply

1 Comment on "Football, a Substitute for Armed Warfare"

Notify of
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Jon Bain

Now we just need a substitute for the football supporters.

Letters will be edited for clarity, punctuation, spelling and length. Abusive or off-topic comments will not be posted. We will not post all comments.
If you would prefer to email the editor, you can do so by sending an email to