Philosophy is the quest for the truth.
Philosophy and football generally have very little to do with each other (with a few notable exceptions).
This does not mean that football is not without its own truth.
What would that truth be?
The truth would need to be indisputable. Universal. Beyond doubt.
It might be considered that the laws of the game are a form of truth. Philosophically law and the nature of law is a branch of study. Yet, the laws can be changed are changed far more often than we might think. If they are changeable, they represent only a temporal truth.
Aside from one law, law 10. Law 10 is the determining of the match and simply states that the team scoring the greater number of goals is the winner. If both teams score no goals or an equal number of goals the match is drawn.
Herein is the one constant truth of football. It is the element from which all others spiral out of. Without the need to outscore the opposition the principles of play do not exist. If a team does not need to score, there is no need to penetrate (go forward), if a team is not trying to go forward there is no need to delay them by blocking the middle, if the middle is not blocked there is no need to use width; and so on, until we have an unrecognisable game.
All else is not necessary. It may be desirable depending on personal ideals but it is likely that what are held as ideals can be managed without. Within a certain game model dominating possession may be placed as of critical important, yet it is clearly possible to win football matches with minimal possession. It may be that high pressing is considered of vital importance, but it is clearly possible to win by deploying a low block and not apply pressure until the opponent is within your territory.
Similarly, with passing one and two touch passing being a team strategy or encouraging players to dribble as much as possible being a strategy, it is possible to win by doing both, by doing neither or by doing a combination of the two.
This all assumes that the truth is that the game is played solely for the purpose of winning. Thus removing areas of nuance and shades of grey, distilling the game to only one factor of importance.
This is not a debate about results being placed above development in youth football, this is to consider whether football at all ages and levels is played solely for the purpose of winning.
Aesthetics is another branch of philosophical study. It considers what happens in our minds as we come into contact and experience objects and actions that trigger responses.
Undoubtedly football triggers responses and not just at the moment of victory or defeat. Responses are stirred through the actions of the player, moments of brilliance and beauty that live long in the memory. Here is where game models and playing philosophies become of huge importance, not merely as a way to penetrate and achieve the truth of outscoring the opponent, but also to achieve aesthetic and emotional resonance.
Perhaps it is these conflicting truisms that spark so much of the debate football? Does the game exist with the sole purpose of winning in any way possible? A sport through which people compete for pride and prizes. Or is it also a means of entertainment? A platform through which moments of magnificent creativity and imagination can be performed. The beauty of the moment outliving whether a trophy was garnered of or not.
For some victory will be more important than the art.
For some victory without art is of no value.
The truth of football is to outscore the opposition.
The truth of football is the fascination and intrigue emerges through how this is achieved, how this problem is solved and what wonder this can deliver.