Understanding Common Law Through Football
Let’s face it, we football fans are a little obsessed. Every weekend we find ourselves gathering at a supporter’s club location to watch the latest match. We share our thoughts and opinions about the chosen players, argue about our favourite strategies and formations, and cheer for each goal scored… all while wearing matching kits. It’s a sea of red, as we are loyal supporters of Manchester United. While this love for football may be viewed as an overreaction by non-fans, it’s a great example of how treaties, agreements and backing community systems can work. We all have a partnership when it comes to the game and we all are rooting for the same team. We are even willing to argue about it.
Lawyers have been arguing about one aspect of legal community for centuries: Precedent. Precedents are similar to strategies used by footballers on a pitch. In this article, we’re going to discuss common law, precedent, and how you can apply it to the world of football, and some of its similarities to the legal world in New Mexico. It might seem like too much effort to understand something so complex, but really it pertains to every country that has ever used law to govern the people.
The term ‘common law’ refers to a foundational concept in the realm of law. In simple terms, it refers to the basic idea by which everyone is subject to the same set of laws and legal norms. It can be thought of as the glue that holds communities together. It has been said that this idea of common law is what sets American, English, and other western cultures from those of eastern nations. Countries such as England, Canada, and the United States all follow rules that are part of the larger common law family. Without it, people would be completely unable to progress together or govern their collective affairs.
In the days of feudalism, common law filled a very necessary role, because these groups needed a way to bring different people with different norms and rules together-the foundation of common law provided both a solution and a foundation. Common law legal systems, such as the one in the state of New Mexico, may be contrasted with civil law systems and those of customary law, primarily in their treatment of legal precedent in judicial decision making. Precedent practice relates to the use of previous rulings to guide those in the court. The idea is that you should treat like cases alike and there should be no individual interpretation by the judges. In this respect, it seems like needless labor, but the idea is that everyone is treated precisely the same way.
New Mexico is a common law state. Common law is a system of law where decisions made by the courts are in line with previous decisions made by the courts in the area of law. It was originally a British concept that was developed along with the British legal system and transported to America. From one angle, this may seem logical, but there are times when following precedent can be a controversy. The British Colonies adopted the British system of law. Over time, those who had custom and treaty laws started to amend things as best they could, but these rules still maintained most of the basic tenets of England’s common law.
To this day, 49 states in America follow the common law tradition, with Louisiana being the only state that does not. As a supporter of Manchester United, you likely share an experience akin to a tribal ceremony, bonding with others through physical means, a.k.a. wearing the right colours, playing a specific song, and choosing the right chant your group of fans will repeat throughout the game. Essentially, you are creating a sort of “tribal law” that all of the fans must follow. While most people will agree with the laws set by one tribe (or club, in this instance), there may be some that choose to play by their own rules. This is where the concept of common law kicks in.
In the wider world of law, we have 50 states and each creates its own laws in addition to federal law. Without commonly established norms, things could quickly get out of hand. It leads to a sort of level playing field for everyone involved. Whether you agree with the rules of the state or federal law, everyone is playing by the same guidelines. In your supporter club, everyone agrees upon the rules for wear and what types of songs and chants are acceptable. This is a great example of the idea that jurors and judges are equidistant from the actions presented before them. It makes it easier to create a case when everyone knows the rules and how to interpret them fairly.
If you were to take someone who didn’t know the rules of soccer and put them in a prominent position at the supporter club, they may not create the best house practice for all. It’s irrelevant in this case how the local game players feel about the rules and regulations of the member’s football club, Manchester United. Everyone involved has a handle on how things go and if that person doesn’t know how things work, then they could easily be outranked. It isn’t enough to say we all root for the same team. Without the cohesion of common law, everyone would be free to choose to cheer for whatever team they liked. Not every group of friendly rival fans has a mutually beneficial approach, which is why it is so important for someone to be the decision maker.
In this case, common law functions much like referees and umpires. Referees and umpires are those that make the final call on whether or not a foul occurred, if the play is valid, and what the end result should be. When you consider precedents and voters selecting their local leaders, it’s easy to see how some people simply follow the rules, while others make the decisions.