Go ask your mother.
Yeah sure you can do those things but I think you should be allowed to do them only during practice and training, not during a game. You could also be made responsible for training a field captain yo do these things.
If field captains were made responsible for benching themselves then they would quickly learn to do it if they want to win games. Otherwise teams with field captains who could do it would rise to the top.
That should be “equipment and transportation.”
Again, why? What greater good is there by saying that the people on the field are the only one’s who affect the game. With the salary caps, drafting, schemes, and player substitutions in American football there’s no way you can imagine that the personnel on the field has the only impact on the game. It basically boils down to the aesthetic argument; you believe that removing the coaches control makes for a “prettier” game, but all you’re really getting is a different game. It’s not an awful idea for a game, but it’s very far removed from any current American sports.
This is not true:
Professionalism first appeared (illegally) in association football in the 1880s and the last (true) amateur team to win the FA cup won it in 1882. Professionalism was legalized in 1885 and the first national professional league started in 1888. Professionalism appeared in rugby football in 1880s (again illegally) and professionalism was one of the main reasons behind the 1895 schism in rugby that saw it develop into two different codes. Rugby league was (legally) professional from 1895 onwards, though rugby union remained staunchly amateur until it finally allowed professionalism a century later (1995). The first professional american football team didn’t appear until 1897.
Obviously baseball was one of the earliest professional sports, with professionalism appearing in 1869, but in it’s closest English equivalent (apart from arguably rounders)-cricket - the first professional players appeared before the 1720s. From the early 18th century until the mid 20th century first class cricket had a strange status of a combined amateur-professional sport (though by the time they were abolished the true amateurs had disappeared from the 1st class game).
You have not convinced me, so far your argument seems to be “cause I don’t like it”.
Your last line in regards to field captains is possible at a professional level but at junior levels and even low division games this is fraught with danger.
Have you ever played HIGH level sport on a team?
It’s funny how many of my friends played Rugby in the 1970/80s in England who just happened to be employed by one of the board members as a stock broker, yep amateur technically…as they didn’t get paid to play, just not to work too hard 
But to a large degree it was mainly doctors and lawyers who played, they could afford it.
Yep and Will Carling who was the most famous player of the late amateur era, retired just as the pro era started was able to make a huge amount of money entirely on the back of his career as England captain by selling himself as a management consultant. But even right at the end there were a lot of players who had jobs unconnected to their status as first class rugby players.
If the rules allow it, it’s not unsportsmanlike.
Now, there are also unwritten rules, but these are enforced by consensus; if you break them, the other team objects. No one objects to the opposite team’s coach or manager calling plays. There’s nothing unfair about doing it, since you are free to do it yourself.
In soccer the manager usually supervises the training of the team, selects the team and instructs them how to play both strategically and tatically both before and during the game. They’re also responsible for buying and selling players, negotiating new contracts and will have some involvement with the youth and reserve teams.
However a lot of soccer is about open plays and set plays only result in very brief and mostly routine stoppage, also there is a limit of 3 substitutions per tam per game. There’s far, far less opportunity and need for a soccer manager to micromanage his team than an American football coach
Why should it be “sporting” to allow a team to design plays and strategies to achieve their objectives, and allow teams time to organize and call these plays? Maybe instead of American football featuring huddles and quarterbacks calling audibles at the line, it should just be every man for himself. Then we can see who the best athletes really are.
But that’s silly. If calling plays is considered sporting, I can’t see how it matters at all who calls the play. If a pitcher throws a fastball because 50,000 screaming fans are telling him to throw that pitch, that’s fine with me too.
What is “unsporting” is wholly determined by the traditions and common understanding of the sport. There is nothing “unsporting” about it if the participants don’t think it’s unsporting.
I really don’t understand why you considering it “unsporting,” but while you have a right to that opinion, 99.999% of people who participate in football disagree, and so essentially by definition, it’s not unsporting.
As to the comparison to chess, that’s a hopelessly wrong comparison. In chess, figuring out what move to take is the entire game. The person who is deciding what moves to take is the person playing the game; it really doesn’t matter who physically moves the peice. A person with no arms could play a game of chess by simply instructing another person what moves to make; in fact, he could ask his opponent to move his peices for him and it wouldn’t really make it any different a game than if he could move the peices himself. In football, a coach can call a play, but the players must actually execute the play, which is a completely different set of skills.