Alan Shearer as Manager? NOT an April Fool.

If I was a betting man, and I might just be, I'd call his move desperate and expect him not to be in charge next season. As Newcastle bring in their 4th manager of the 2008/09 season, and arguably their most folkloric hero and footballing icon, one wonders just how long the novelty and magic will lock in place.

With Shearer, an uninteresting, media-friendly pundit with no managerial experience, now in charge, the "New Manager Effect" faces its strongest challenge to date.

First, to lay out the terms:

- He's back for 8 games aka until the end of the season
- His wage? 100k per game
- 2m incentive bonus should Newcastle United avoid the drop

Not a bad deal really, although if Joe Kinnear was taking a gamble on his reputation when he turned up, Alan certainly is now.

The hero factor is unquestionable; he's their prolific scorer, an England hero, an all-round likeable guy, and now he's being asked to rescue his club from the grim reality of relegation. Dennis Wise, their rather awful Director of Football, has left the club, and Shearer has no plans of bringing in another middleman to replace him. If this ship is going down, Alan wants no buffer between him and the skittish Mike Ashley.

He did bring in Iain Dowie, who presumably brings all the managerial experience that Shearer will need to do his job. It looks, at face value, as a savvy move; Shearer is the good luck charm, the talisman, the fountain of positivity, whereas Dowie will do the bulk of the dirty work considering he knows that side of the game.

And, like Bryan Gunn at Norwich, the same situation exists: if he succeeds, it's another feather in the cap of his already-epic image with the fans. If he fails, then at least they did it the right way with their hometown boy in charge.

Being cynical, I'd say that Ashley doesn't exactly feel optimistic about their chances, and sought to buffer himself from the pitchforked masses in the summertime by pulling a glorious PR move right before the Grim Reaper turns up with Colaship parachute money.

Let's hope Alan is aware of how quickly idol worship can fade when the results don't come.

So... the big question: will it succeed? Will Newcastle avoid the plunge with their Golden Boy in charge, or is this another PR disaster for a club in dire straits?

[Already, Michael Owen has said he'll re-sign with the Magpies if Shearer stays on. I'll leave that as a separate discussion topic.]

Read more on "Alan Shearer as Manager? NOT an April Fool."...

We Don't Want to Rule the World. We Just Want to Piss Off the Brits.

Bernard Laporte contemplates his master plan.

As we all know, the French and the Brits enjoy tweaking each other (why, Bigus and I engaged in a slap-fight just this morning), particularly when it comes to sports. Lately, much of the invective coming from the French side has been from the increasingly clueless Michel Platini. Although he is supportive of this latest agitation, he is not the main architect. For that, we must look to Bernard Laporte, the sports minister of France.



So it seems that the French have a plan (we do?) to deal with the effects of global financial instability on sports by putting European sports leagues under the purview of a European "super-sport" administrator. Theoretically, by removing the influence of the domestic government bodies on financial regulation of sports leagues, this new European administrator would: (1) prevent clubs from being damaged by the financial failures of their backers; and (2) increase parity by preventing clubs from profiting on the pitch (in terms of results) while maintaining an increasingly burdensome debt (a la Chelsea; yes, we can argue that Chelsea's debt is owed to Abramovich - cut me some slack here, it's not my plan).

Bascially, many see this as a power-grab by UEFA (and by Platini, of course; Michel, arret-toi, enfin!) which would effectively gain control over financial regulation, player transfers, and youth development. Obviously, the FA and the EPL (suck it, Barclay's!) are opposed to such a move, and British sports minister Gerry Sutcliffe has indicated that he is not amenable to many of the details of the plan, including the provision for allowing sports leagues an "opt-out" for European law (seriously? the plan is to just allow sports leagues to ignore international law? how was that considered a good idea?).

The most interesting note comes at the end of the article, and provides some juicy food for thought:

If the French proposals are accepted next week they will be included on the agenda for the Council of Ministers meeting at the end of the year, raising the prospect that sport's regulation could become a bargaining chip in horse-trading over weightier issues among heads of state.

Ah, yes, the old bargaining chip. I can see it now: "We'll let you keep the FA in control, but you have to fully join the EU by dropping your stupid British pounds!"

Read more on "We Don't Want to Rule the World. We Just Want to Piss Off the Brits."...

Tales of Travel Endurance

Suppose you are a Manchester United or Chelsea fan. What would you expect to play for travel from England to Moscow? Would you be willing to fork over the equivalent of $4000 just for travel? Or would you try to do it a bit cheaper?

There are some fans out there now, possibly still traveling, who made the trip for considerably less money. Inside, a quick look at the lunacy of trying to travel thousands of miles on a strict budget.

Martin Sheehan is a Manchester United supporter. He is also rather cheap, it would seem. Instead of plunking down the bug bucks to get to Moscow, he is being a bit more creative. His estimated travel cost is $170, round trip. Of course, his entire trip will take five days, and will involve two 28-hour long train trips, but dammit, he's thrifty.

Others are making the same low-cost effort. This involves planning plane trips that criss-cross Europe in a manner which, if filmed, would look like an Indiana Jones parody. Others are taking a week and a half to drive both ways. No thanks.

You know what? I can watch the game on my TV in the comfort of my own home. If I need a little camaraderie, I would go to a friendly pub to watch the match. Of course, I'm old, so that may have a lot to do with it, but still. That's a lot of money to spend or time to spend on a trip to somewhere where the weather isn't even nice. Me, I'd rather be on a beach in the Caribbean. Or at Wayne Rooney's bachelor party.

Read more on "Tales of Travel Endurance"...

From Backpass to Post: The LA Galaxy Are Morons

Okay, what the fuck is going on with the Galaxy? Really, Alexi Lalas can talk about being the marquee franchise all he wants but: A) That's in a tenth rate league and B) As a GM he has won exactly two things: nothing and dick.

Then there's the coach, former two-time World Player of the Year Ruud Gullit, letting this little bit fly in the English press, as he told the Sunday Times:

“I’m sure that when people think of LA Galaxy, the picture that comes to mind is not of our staff making phone calls to friends on Friday to see if they can play in a reserve game on Sunday, but, strange as it may seem, this is the reality,” reveals Gullit, sitting in the sun near the VIP area of an empty stadium. “Two weeks ago we had a game at home [against San Jose] and I had two of my office staff from the commercial department playing, two people whose job is to sit in the office all day doing their work."

Gullit goes on to explain the reality of the situation in that there are 26 players on the roster. Five were injured and there is a rule in MLS that prevents reserve team players from playing more than 120 minutes in 48 hours.

Then he adds of the reserves, which are usually scheduled for the day after the first team games, "If they have played the day before in the first team for 90 minutes you can do the maths."

"Maths." Awesome.

But there is more. So much more Gullity goodness.

“In the first reserve game of the season at Colorado I had a few players who could play for only 70 minutes and another who only could play for half an hour. So what did we do? We started with 10 men because we had to. You can say that it’s only a reserve game, but you can’t operate like this because the reserve game is important... If I have a reserve game and come up two men short, what happens? We have to call people from their job, maybe a carpenter, and they just come to play with our reserve team. If we play in Toronto, we have to call people in Toronto because no one will travel on their own all that way.

"Of course, we laugh about it a little bit, but in the end it’s not a laughing matter and it’s not good... this is an example of the things I am trying to adapt to. I’m not trying to change it yet, I’m trying to adapt to it, but in the end I’ll say, ‘You need to do things in a certain way because otherwise it’s not serious’. Really, it’s ridiculous.”

Those are the bits—or edited portions of them—that have made the rounds in the L.A. Times and The Spoiler where we first were made hip to it. But there is also this little bit of tid from the story (originally reported in the L.A. Times) that is equally as priceless:

Last weekend [Gullit] was compelled to introduce in the second half against Houston Dynamo a player, Joe Franchino, whom he had watched only on videotape.

"Yes, Galaxy fans, the same Joe Franchino . . . who, along with former [New England] Revolution teammate Gary Flood, was tossed out of a recent Boston Red Sox-New York Yankees game at Fenway Park after fans complained of their obnoxious behaviour,” Grahame Jones reported last week in the LA Times.

“He is also the same Joe Franchino slugged by then teammate [and current Fulham striker] Clint Dempsey at training camp a few years back. He is also the same Joe Franchino who played only 57 minutes of soccer last season because of injuries. So the questions here are: just who made this trade? Did Galaxy coach Ruud Gullit know anything about it? . . . '

It appears that Gullit is not totally in the loop on the transaction front. Last week he was asked about the acquisition of defenders Scott Bolkan and Vardan Adzemian and their subsequent loan to the Portland Timbers. Gullit looked blank. He had never heard of either player.

This is beyond ridiculous, particularly for an organization trying to brand itself as the Gold Standard of MLS. Right? People hip to the designated player rules and the MLS salary cap are aware that the Galaxy's paying off of Landycakes and Beckham has left little money to round out the squad (never mind that somehow they have a third designated player in Carlos Ruiz—each team is allowed a max of two and you have to trade for a second designated player slot to accomplish that, which apparently the Galaxy haven't done), but did anyone think it was this bad?

I'd like to be sympathetic to Lalas, but I can't. And is his fault for talking a big game. That and the league seems to make it up as they go to accommodate the Galaxy (and other players and teams at times).

But isn't this the same organization that had half of Santa Monica come tryout for an open slot on the team (publicity stunt) and play with Becks? You really can't find a couplathree people from that pool that are passable footballers that are willing to be fill-ins on the reserves if necessary?

As little as Americans generally care about soccer, I don't think you could even measure how little they care about MLS reserve squad soccer. Whatever the unit of that caring is, it's magnitude is probably in angstroms, but it's indicative of a fairly unprofessional organization, or just a very, very under-qualified general manager.

Really, can any failed rocker get a front office job with AEG? Because I was in a pretty cool band in college.

Read more on "From Backpass to Post: The LA Galaxy Are Morons"...

Nobody does it lamer. Amirite?

Landycakes, preparing to suck

It has become fashionable, to a point, in US soccer circles to bash Landon Donovan. So much so that some bloggers feel the need to take up Donovan's cause and tell those haters, Chris Crocker style, to Leave Landon alone! Yeah, that's not what I am looking to do here. Instead, I am going to take a look at a recent blog post that whines that we Americans don't appreciate what a treasure we have in him. Join me as we take a paragraph by paragraph look at the inanity of being a Landon Donovan apologist.

Last month's friendly in Krakow against Poland, was exactly that: a friendly which should not be considered some sort of great conquering victory of the US National Team. Sure you’d rather win than lose these sorts of matches, but realistically I still saw some of the same issues that have worried me about the United States since the end World Cup 2006 in this performance.
For those that do not recall the match that well, last month the US defeated Poland 3-0 on the strength of a pretty disastrous performance by Artur Boruc in the Polish net. I saw plenty of worrying things too. The central defense, though responsible for the first two goals, consistently fails at shutting down attacks, leaving the keeper exposed. Perhaps this writer and I are on the same wavelength.

One thing I was overly pleased with was the outstanding play of Landon Donovan. For all the criticisms of Donovan from some quarters of the American soccer community, he continues to be hands down the best player the United States has produced in this particular generation. Those who criticize him and make up silly nicknames do not understand soccer in this country and the types of quality Donovan brings to the field.
Never mind. There were exactly two things I was pleased about with Landon in this game. One, the match was on European soil, and he still played. Two, his free kicks did not fail at the first hurdle. Usually in Europe, Landon hides behind his opponents so he cannot be delivered the ball, which he would invariably give away if he got it. And his free kicks over the last two years either hit the wall or go twenty yards over target. In Krakow, neither of these happened and it led to two goals. Newsflash--that's what is supposed to happen with an attacking midfielder who takes the free kicks. Don't laud him for doing his job. As for whether or not he is the best player in this generation, quite simply, no. Of course, it depends on how you define the generation. Keller and Friedel are both much better, but they are old. I'd still stake my team on Howard before Donovan, because at least I know the Tourette's guy knows how to play in Europe. Field player-wise, I concede that Donovan is the most dangerous within 5 years either way, but I do note that he has shown a disturbing pattern of being bullied out of games against European competition. I believe that there are a few young guys coming through the US ranks who will make Landon a Eric Wynalda like memory on the US team--a good player for the time, but one who could not hold a candle to the players now. Oh, and apparently I am an idiot and do not understand the game.

Donovan’s set piece taking in the Poland match was reminiscent of his early days on the national team. Even better was to watch Donovan’s breakaway. While he didn’t finish the goal off, my point to so many critics of Donovan and of MLS in general has been consistent: Landon Donovan is more fit and has greater pace than almost any player on the planet. While many of these same fans are obsessed with speed and feel MLS is somehow inferior to leagues in Europe simply because it is slower paced (by that logic the Mexican league which is hands down better than MLS would be in an even lower tier because it is even slower than MLS) and by extension Donovan is inferior to any player in Europe need to watch the Poland match. Having been returned to midfield along side Clint Dempsey, the two played well off one another and linked together well with a rather inept striker tandem.
Ooh, that's a long 'graph. Once again, please do not laud Donovan for missing the wall with his free kicks, it's what he is supposed to do. As for the breakaway, he didn't fucking finish it, end of story. You can talk about his pace, his nose for the game, whatever; but you have to note that, when five yards clear of the last defender and only the keeper to beat, he bottled the ball well wide of the mark. At the very least he has to force a save. Don't let the other team off the hook because you missed. Then there's an aside about the MLS being faster than Mexico's league, then he talks about the inept forward tandem and how Landon and Dempsey saved them. Yes, the Johnson-Ching attack is horrible. Let us never have to say those names togather again with respect to the US National Team.

On his day nobody does it better than Donovan. The loudmouth critics can climb under a rock for now, as Landon Donovan has once again fired a statement across the bow as to his quality and pedigree. Thank goodness the US National Team, deficient in so many other areas has his services whenever needed. Donovan has also matured from a young hot head to a grown veteran leader whose skill level and quality is unmatched in the modern history of soccer in the U.S.
When is his day exactly? Does he get one every couple of years or so? I remember the one he had in 2002 against Mexico, that was awesome. When will we get another of those in competition that counts? Yes, Landon can be good to great, he just prefers to do so against teams that can charitably be called "lesser". That's what I have always had against Donovan. For a man with all of the talent in the world for the sport I love, he decided long ago it was not worth it to challenge himself. He would prefer to let his enormous talent stagnate so he could live at the beach with his underworked actress wife rather than try to make it in Europe. That is an opportunity I and others would kill for, and he just said, "Nope. I'm homesick." and sulked off home. He could have had unmatched quality, but instead will be eclipsed before he stops losing hair.

Those who don't like Donovan make up clever nicknames and attack him for his lifestyle choices. The Poland game and the first month of the MLS season should give these critics pause. I will go a step further: Without Donovan it is highly likely the US would not have improved its status in world football and in CONCACAF since hosting the 1994 World Cup. It is also conceivable to see the US miss the world cup if Donovan were to be injured or as some critics suggest, dropped from the national team.
Uh, you already used that nicknames bit-it's up in the second 'graph. And yes, I do attack him for lifestyle choices, see above. It's an American thing to do, dammit. See someone who could make more for themselves and feel disgusted when they decide to settle. Horatio Alger would agree. As for the MLS--see argument above about lesser teams. Landon is a sub-World Class player in the prime of his career playing in a league that does not match his quality. I would hope that he is doing well.

Holy shit, what the fuck? The US would not have gotten any better if Landon had not been born? You have got to be kidding me. You want to speak about generations, let's talk generations. Let's talk about all of the kids playing from the time they can figure out which goal to run towards. That did not happen two generations ago. And what a disservice to all of the other players on the NT. Do you really think that Oguchi Onyewu, even with his current form woes, is a lesser player than Alexi Lalas? That Clint Dempsey is no Joe-Max Moore? Please, get some perspective. And that goes for the World Cup qualis as well. Landon could amputate his head tomorrow and the US would still qualify without problem. Just because you have a Landon Donovan wallbanger you pray to does not make him a god. He's not going to get dropped, either. All we, the US fan base, ask is that Landon Donovan do his job for the team. Create chances, finish them when appropriate, don't hit the wall with free kicks, and actually show for a pass when in Europe. Then, maybe, we may stop talking shit about Kartik's man-crush.

Oh, and stay off Cribs, too. It's just embarrassing when your girl leads you around the house like that.

Read more on "Nobody does it lamer. Amirite?"...

It's like you just cannot trust anything you read in the blogosphere!

This is the Bleacher Report bio for Andrew McNair. I point it out not because I want to make fun of him, his tastes, his hobbies, his haircut, or anything like that, I point to it because of two things. First, his given bio states that he recently graduated with a journalism diploma. Second, three out of the four articles linked on his frontpage have titles that end with exclamation points. Both points will be made relevant shortly as I dissect one of his recent articles, Another Day, Another Chelsea Scandal, and Poor Old Sven!.

Inside, I'll break down his article (very short) paragraph by (extremely short) paragraph, complete with running exclamation count!

I thought I'd got everything off my chest in my last English football article, but it appears that players and owners are just as bad as the fans.
First of all, I'm not too familiar with Bleacher Report, so I snooped a bit before I laid into Mr. McNair for not using a link to his previous article. Unless every article I looked at was posted by dolts, BR is not user friendly enough to allow in-article links. So, boo on BR for not providing HTML for its users, and lesser boo to Mr. McNair for affiliating himself with a site that is not user friendly. As for the paragraph itself, I can't wait to see just how bad EPL players and owners are.

I woke up to read Tal Ben Haim's amazing newspaper rant aimed at his current boss, Avram Grant.
Don't just leave us hanging, get there already. Jew on Jew violence is always the best.

The Chelsea center back claimed, "I knew that nothing good would come with Grant as Chelsea coach." He went on to lament his lack of opportunities under Grant, and basically said he's Mourinho's player!(1)
Ooh, juicy. Once again, this could do with a link, but for now, I'm willing to take what the author says at face value. It's nice to know that this middling former Bolton defender thinks he should, presumably, be played ahead of John Terry, Alex, and Ricardo Carvalho among others.

So what? Shit happens Tal, and you're not contracted to a manager, but to Chelsea FC.
Oh, McNair's going another way with this. Um, yeah, he's right. Mourinho's gone, get over it Tal. But really, who does Ben Haim want to bench? That's my question.

Have footballers also lost the plot?
Excuse me? Where did this come from? We were talking about one disgruntled guy. Where is this blanket statement coming from?

In any normal profession such an outburst would undoubtedly get you the sack! What makes footballers so special?(2)
What's so weird about this? I talk shit about my boss all the time to the press. If by press, you mean co-workers, of course. What is a normal profession anyway, and why would the press ask them about working conditions? I don't think my local rag is going interviewing bank tellers after the shift to ask them is they like the teller window the manager gave them that day. Point being, if the public didn't, on some level, want to know footballer's opinions, they would not be asked or published.

I fully expect Ben Haim to pick up the maximum fine of two weeks wages for his outburst, and he 100 percent completely deserves it!(3)
Yeah, I think Ben Haim will have a little hell to pay over this, but it's not really a scandal as stated in the headline, is it? If it is, Mr. McNair must be easily shocked. "Oh God! They bagged my bread and my eggs together! If I don't fix it, I'll have a wonky-shaped loaf! Alert the press!" (as an aside, though I have never written or said it before, I really like the term "wonky-shaped loaf".)

It all comes back to the issue of respect amongst footballers. Apparently, they have none!(4)
As on Wikipedia--citation, please. Once again, a blanket statement that seems to be based on the single Ben Haim-Grant situation. I agree that footballers may not be the nicest guys on earth, but how about another couple of examples?

Not for each other, not for the referee, and not even for their managers!(5)
ibid.

Having said that how do we expect players to respect their managers, when even the chairman doesn't?
Transition alert. It would be easier to ferret out if the author used longer paragraphs. By the way, I hope I don't have to use (sic) every time McNair makes a grammar mistake. I'm just copying and pasting here.

I was just as appalled to hear that Manchester City owner Thaksin Shinawatra is refusing to publicly back Sven Goran Eriksson after City's recent run of results.
Alright, Shinawatra is a new owner to the EPL. He is also of a different culture than the English. He may have different ways of dealing with personnel issues than what the author expects. You may have to give it some time before you try to read anything into Shinawatra's actions. Besides, as we have pointed out before, the dreaded vote of confidence is not something that SGE should be courting anyway.

I'm quite honestly shocked and appalled by this!(6)
What did I write above? Oh yeah. "Mr. McNair must be easily shocked." He must also be easily appalled. If Shinawatra dtermines that SGE is underperforming, he may replace him. Given that turnover in the EPL for managers is at 30% just since the season began, it's not that odd, is it?

He is reportedly lining up Portuguese boss Luiz Filipe Scolari as a replacement for Sven. What good is that ever going to do?
Big Phil is lined up for every job in the world above my local youth team. I don't think he's going to leave a Portugal squad with C. Ronaldo either before the Euros or after unless he is forced out. National Team coaching gigs are pretty cushy. You get paid the same or better to do less training, less matches and get free admission to any game in the country you want to see. Oh, and--citation, please. That guy you sat next to in the pub is not good enough.

You can't just throw another high profile manager at the job every season when things don't go your way.
Because that's what Shinawatra has done so far, is it? Oh, it's still his first season as owner, so we have no track record to go on. If Shinawatra does establish this pattern, then you can excoriate him for it. Until then, quit jumping the gun based on pub talk.

I believe Sven has done a fantastic job this season. His young squad held their own for a large part of the season near the top of the league, but sadly injuries and fatigue have led to a dip in form of late.
The most even handed lines in the article. Shame they are about to be tainted.

Everyone knows they will be a stronger side next season, with a few signings to boost the current squad. We are saying the same about Arsenal!(7)
Because no one else in the league will be making signings, Man City will rocket to the top. Seriously, until the summer arrives, you cannot talk about signings and their impact. I believe Man City will be outspent significantly by some teams, and will come out much the same next season. I have no proof, but the internet doesn't need proof, does it?

It's not rocket science!(8)
No, it's not, sadly. Of course, I don't know what we are comparing to rocket science, but I can assure you, nothing in the article so far has been rocket science.

It's funny how the clubs with foreign owners are the ones who seem to be constantly in the daily papers for the wrong reasons.
Uh, what? This is the one that really set me off. The following list of EPL clubs are foreign-owned:

• Aston Villa
• Bolton
• Chelsea
• Derby County
• Fulham
• Liverpool
• Manchester City
• Manchester United
• Portsmouth
• Sunderland
• West Ham

I don't think the author realizes that the majority of EPL clubs are now foreign owned. I guarantee you that he was thinking of Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea and, now, Manchester City. In other words, the clubs that get most of the press anyway. Can you really say anything about how Randy Lerner has run Aston Villa? What about Björgólfur Guðmundsson at West Ham? Can you even name the guy who owns Portsmouth (Alexandre Gaydamak)? No. Many of these people stay out of the spotlight. As an author, though, McNair seems to forget them because they don't make headlines and instead takes the easy targets that everyone else goes after. This is the state of modern journalist graduates, I fear (just like Scott Templeton).

The beautiful game has been truly tainted!(9)
Whew. The end of the article. Nine exclamatory statements. Blanket statements not backed up by anything. English-style pseudo-xenophobia in an article written by a South African. I sure do wish that Mr. McNair deigns to take a more even-handed approach in his future articles. It's not rocket science!

Read more on "It's like you just cannot trust anything you read in the blogosphere!"...

This Hurt Me More Than It Will Hurt You

Before you read any further, let me apologize in advance.

There are two reasons for this.

First, it is a blatant ripoff homage to the work of the fine folks over at Fire Joe Morgan. However, having received an email from Ken Tremendous himself over the weekend, I feel that if ever there were a time to steal and get away with it, that time would be today.

Second, I apologize for forcing you to sit though the original article entitled "Why Americans Have Not Embraced Soccer", which will probably leave you dumber than you were before you read it. But because we are powerless to help even ourselves, we give it the FJM treatment:

Soccer is the most popular sport in the world.

Okay, we're off to a good start. No problems here.

The World Cup is the largest sporting event each year it is held. The 2006 finals averaged 260 million viewers. For comparison, the Super Bowl that year only averaged 90.7 million.

Let me nitpick. First off, who the fuck is teaching people to type these days? Unless you are using grandpa's IBM Selectric typewriter, you don't put two spaces after a period. That is a relic from days before word processors were able to automatically kern between characters. So, stop it. It's irritating. Read the MLA of CMS. And not to put you off, but it will be time better spent than reading the rest of this piece. [Note: Blogger is apparently smarter than Braden Moore and has automatically corrected his penchant for double-spacing after periods. Click on the link provided above if you would like to be irritated by the original.]

Second, this is not really apples-to-apples. Technically the 32 teams that qualify for "World Cup" held every four years are actually in the World Cup Finals. Now there is a final match, which determines the winner of the World Cup (Italy in 2006), but the 32-team tournament itself is the World Cup Finals.

This is not a meaningless distinction for our purposes, because that average number of 260 million viewers includes matches like Iran v. Angola and Paraguay v. Sweden. And, quality side they may be, Sweden plays some boring ass soccer that nobody should be subjected to, not even the fucking Paraguayans.

The proper comparison for the Super Bowl then should be the rating for the Grand Final, which was not 260 million viewers, but 715.1 million, meaning we go from a multiple of about 3 to one of about 8. Not a trivial difference.

But whatevs.

In Europe, fans live and die with their favorite teams. In fact, they get so fanatical the crowds frequently turn violent. They even have a name for these unruly people: hooligans.

What is frequently? Yesterday, Sunday April 13, 2007, there were over 100 soccer matches across the top European and South American leagues. That was just Sunday so you can probably double it to get a decent guestimate for the total number of matches over the weekend. Even then you're lowballing it because it was just the top leagues (no Championship, no Ligue 2, or Serie B) and it was just two continents (no J League, no Africa, not even MLS).

By comparison—and let's go back to the NFL here—there are, what, 16 games in an NFL week. So when you see violence at a soccer match, say, once every 3 months on ESPN highlights, there have been the equivalent of about 9-and-a-half NFL season's worth of matches in that time span. Granted, there's a decent amount of wiggle room in those numbers but would anyone ever suggest that there was frequent violence in the NFL if there was an unruly fan outburst once every ten years or so?

Also, the etymology of the word 'hooligan' has little to do with soccer. But, hey, why let such trivialities get in the way of such a riveting analysis?

Despite its outrageous popularity across the globe, soccer has failed to grab a foothold here in the United States. This has to be attributed to what our society values in its athletes.

Did you hear that? That was the sound of the life force literally being sucked out of me as I read that. Values? Is that like a "culture of life" sort of thing?

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but in a world where Leonard Little can get behind the wheel of a car drunk, kill a woman, then 6 years later get arrested for DWI again and never lose his job as a Defensive End for the St. Louis Rams because he is large, fast, and strong, it's probably safe to say that the primary thing we 'value' when it comes to sports is winning (the reason Michael Vick is in jail is because apparently we value puppies more than winning).

The three most popular sports in the US are football, basketball and baseball. All these sports rely on extreme hand-eye coordination and precision.

Among other things (speed, strength, fitness, etc.), sure.

We ask our pitchers to throw a ball into a tiny strike zone, and our batters are given an equally difficult task of hitting it square with a small bat.

Not sure who "we" are, but really of all the problems to explore here, the vague use of the first-person plural here is probably low on the list.

Basketball players are expected to throw a ball through a hoop much higher than they are. Often, if they cannot do this 50 percent of the time, we see it as a failure.

Oh, "we" is you. You see that as failure. If I had someone 6'6" with a 42" vertical leap coming after me every time I jacked up a shot, I'd be pretty jazzed about making it 50% of the time. Defense has a lot to do with shooting percentages. Don't think so? Then why do 'bad' free throw shooters in the NBA (Shaq excepted) still shoot around 70%.

If you shoot .500 from the floor, you are the 33rd best shooter in the league by percentage (currently a spot held by Nick Collison of the Sonics). In a 30-team league where rosters go 15 deep, that puts you in the top 7.33% of shooters in the NBA. Hardly failure.

And they aren't "throwing" a ball through a hoop. They are shooting it (that probably artificially inflates the percentages, huh?) Also, when someone is 6'6" with a 70" wingspan, the hoop ain't that much higher than they are, but this isn't a math paper.

Football teams execute choreographed plays with extreme precision. Passes are expected to hit players in stride, and wide-outs are expected to have perfect timing.

Suddenly this became a love letter to the Joffrey that is the NFL, but there is nothing outlandish here. Passing plays in football require timing.

Meanwhile, soccer is completely free-flowing. Possession changes quickly and often. Players are not able to keep control of the ball for much more than a few seconds at a time.

Yeah? And? So?

Those three statements could just as easily be used to describe basketball, which people in the US apparently love.

Also, kicking a ball is so much more inaccurate than what we as Americans have come to expect in sports.

Right about here, I am praying this was written by a high schooler. Somebody please tell me Braden Moore does not have a college degree as I feel that would devalue everyone else who has ever earned one.

What's your measure of accuracy, Braden? Soccer teams that like to control the midfield actually have decent passing accuracy rates (i.e. passes intended for teammates, make it to teammates). For example, in the first leg of its Champions League match up with AC Milan in March, Arsenal had a passing efficiency of 78%. Compare that to, say, a completion percentage for an NFL quarterback. Last year Drew Brees had the highest completion percentage in the league at 67.5%.

Now, again, this might not be the right comparison but that's kind of the point. Well, it's one of two points. First, you can't compare any two stats that you fucking feel like comparing. And second, your non-quantitative "stat" about inaccurate passing in soccer is wrong.

When an American stumbles across a soccer game on television, they are not able to see the greater grace and skill involved. They see people who nine times out of 10 are failing.

Ugh... I must be a masochist.

I am an American. When I stumble across a game on television or even when I deliberately turn one on, I am indeed able to see the grace and skill involved. As for those people who can't, exactly what "failure" are they seeing nine times out of 10? And are you intimating that this is somehow unacceptable for the purposes of enjoying a sport?

I'm going to take a guess at the answers to my questions and say they are respectively: "A failure to score" and "yes."

Let's take baseball for a comparison, where the goal is also to score. A major league team averages about 750 runs a season and does so over about 6000 plate appearances. That means that a baseball player is failing to score seven of every eight times they come to plate. Are you suggesting that nine of 10 is unacceptable but seven of eight is fine?

I think you are.

By the way, ever seen a save percentage in hockey? Hockey players "fail" at a rate as higher than nine times out of 10. Yet, it is still more popular than soccer in America. How can that be? Is failure somehow more acceptable when ice and skates add to the degree of difficulty?

This of course only applies to uneducated fans. There are soccer enthusiasts here in this country. The sport simply holds more of a cult following instead of mass-market appeal.

If I had any of that life force left, I might argue with the "only applies." Soccer is such a stupidly simple game that almost anyone should be able to see the skill involved. If not, they could pick up something round and after about 2 minutes of trying to juggle it with just their feet, easily have that appreciation. But I'm digressing.

A cult? Should I put on my Nike's and wait for the spaceship to emerge from behind the comet? MLS games average around 14,000 for attendance. So, maybe you could tell me at what number this stops being a cult. Really, as someone raised Catholic, I'd like to know at what point I'm no longer violating the first Commandment by enjoying soccer.

Because of this, I do not see soccer in this country catching up in popularity with the other major sports. Our values are too ingrained into us to change.

Because of what? Because of every point you made that was inaccurate, grossly misleading, or simply stupid?

Oh, because it currently just has a cult status. That's right, nothing which doesn't currently have "mass-market appeal" will ever have that appeal. Not even when the demographic make-up of this country shifts and the already sizable Hispanic-American population, which loves soccer, becomes an even larger percentage of the US population.

The skill needed to succeed in soccer just does not compare to the skills we admire in athletes.

Oh, maybe I should have saved the bit about picking up something round and trying to juggle it for here.

Yes, because we like passing from a quarterback's hands to a receiver's hands, we could never admire the skill in passing from a midfielder's feet to a forward's feet. Or because we like people who fail to get a hit about 70% of the time they step to the plate, we can't enjoy a sport in which teams get off, oh 13 or 14 shots on goal and maybe make 2.

What about NASCAR? It has been one of (if not the) fastest growing sports in America over the last decade. Have we suddenly started to change our "values" with respect to the ability to make left turns for hours on end more than other skills? And if we changed those values, why couldn't we change whatever values are preventing us from liking soccer? Why, Braden why?

Maybe the reason Americans haven't taken to soccer is because they are fucking stupid. I would never make such a brutal and unsophisticated argument. But if forced to, I might offer up this bit of writing as my first piece of evidence.

Read more on "This Hurt Me More Than It Will Hurt You"...

TWAG: Too Old Not to Know Better

I was 11 when US Reed hit that shot.

I know because I was there.



"Was" being the operative word. I was indeed in the arena that afternoon. That was an NCAA regional in Austin, TX. My dad was a professor at UT, so he dropped my older brother and me off at the arena (the tourney wasn't near the big deal that it is now, and you could just walk up and get tickets at the box office) then he went to his office and did some work.

With less than a couple of minutes left, Arkansas was up maybe eight points, maybe double digits. And Louisville hadn't played well all game. So with time on the clock, my brother and decided it was over and and started to walk back towards my dad's office (the arena is just on the edge of the University of Texas campus).

Like I said, I was in the arena that afternoon, but I left before the final seconds ticked off. So I have no memory of that shot. None.

When we got back to my dad's office, my old man greeted us with something like, "Oh my Gosh, that must have been exciting."

Uh, what was, dad?

He had been listening on the radio. He knew what had happened. We had no idea.

I pretty much vowed then and there never to leave another sporting event early again. If there was any silver lining to that day it was that lesson, oh, and that I was pulling for Louisville and, despite the comeback, they lost anyway.

Saturday wasn't so kind to me.

Okay, technically, I didn't break my vow. I didn't leave a sporting event, I left a bar.

But still... a man down, and after another dude named "M. Taylor" was about to fuck the Gunners' season (this time with a first half brace), what the hell was I supposed to do?

Answer: have some semblance of faith or patience or at least continue to make friends commiserating with the other Arsenal fans at the bar. Nope, technically, I didn't even make it to half. After the 43rd minute deflection off Gallas and passed Almunia I just up an left. I screamed "fuck" as I stepped outside, then drove home listening to 'Wait, Wait. Don't Tell Me" on the radio not because I'm a pretentious dick, but because I was too pissed to care what I was listening to (Note to NPR: Paul Provenza and Paula Poundstone are not funny).

It wasn't just that game that had pushed me to leaving, it was everything leading up to it. Save the CL tilt against Milan, the Gunners have been shit since getting their asses kicked in the FA Cup by United. In fact, even in the Emirates round of the Milan home-and-home, Arsenal blew all kinds of chances to draw at nil. Basically, for every minute of soccer played on English soil since about mid-February, Arsenal was either deliberately torturing its fans or simply sucking for reasons unknown.

Dropped points against Wigan, Birmingham, Villa, and I can't even remember who else anymore. So, sure, drop more points against Bolton.

Never mind that Bolton are fucking useless. Never mind that Bolton hadn't scored in its last seven-plus hours of play but somehow not only managed to net one on their first chance of the match but also get another on a deflection before half.

What sane person wouldn't leave? It's just football. I've got other shit to do with my day.

The worst part of leaving though, is that I get nothing from Saturday. By that I don't mean that the win doesn't even really "save" Arsenal's season. The Prem is gone. United looks unbeatable. Sure 2nd place would be nice for automatic CL qualification, but, if it doesn't happen, eh... big deal.

I mean I get nothing. Like with US Reed, I have no memory to go with the comeback.

Well, I do, but it totally sucks. My memory is seeing the gamecast tick by on Soccernet. And, about the 4th from the last comment, the person describing the action wrote something like, "Oh, that's a bit unlucky" as Bolton scored an own goal in the 90th to hand the minor miracle to Arsenal.

That's a pretty shitty memory for such an unreal comeback. I'm sure I deserve it.

Yes, it is just football, but that's why we watch. Or at least part of the reason—because the improbable might happen; because it is possible to be a man down on the road and outscore an opponent by three in the second half, including the last one on a bad-luck-evening-out own-goal deflection; and because those moments can be celebrated with near strangers like they are brothers.

Instead I was staring at some pixels on a screen. I wasn't there. I didn't even see it (except on highlights). And, although the comeback is nice, I robbed myself of all the emotional euphoria that makes being a fan worth dropping points against Avram Fucking Grant, makes it worth the suffering (or "suffering" rather... I do still have perspective).

But, in the name of US Reed, I vow I'm not leaving Ginger's early again.

Ever.

Read more on "TWAG: Too Old Not to Know Better"...

Gandhi and Gary Lineker: mortal enemies

Has anyone here ever been to Leicester? It's a cracking place to go watch rugby [my dad has season tickets there], the Indian food is phenomenal, and once upon a time, they had a pretty good EPL football team under now-Aston Villa savior Martin O'Neill.

Well, football is still very much a part of the local consciousness, and it's come to a head this week regarding plans for a new statue of Mahatma Gandhi in the city center.

It appears not everyone's behind the idea, and the alternate proposal for the statue? The whitest man alive, Mr. Nice Guy, and the man whose face sold a million packets of crisps: Gary Lineker.

This is going to be awesome.

Local charity Samanwaya Parivar put forth the application for the Gandhi statue, citing the vibrant multicultural element that Leicester has developed over the last decade. Leicester has a high Asian population, and is predicted to be Britain's first white-minority city in over 12 years.

Said Leicester local politician Keith Vaz:

"Gandhi's philosophy of brotherhood among those of different religions and ethnicity should be honoured and celebrated. A statue of Gandhi will be an excellent symbol of Leicester's commitment to diversity."

Can't argue with that, right?

Unless your name is Lee Ingram, a local who doesn't like the idea of segregating his town with the proposed statue and started the "No Gandhi Statue" online petition.

Ingram is pissed, and wants something different for Leicester:

"Gandhi is a historical figure connected to India. He has no connection to English culture or the English, therefore a statue of him would be more suitably erected in India. This would be yet another symbol of segregation in Leicester and it would be something else for the Asian community. We have local heroes here, Lineker or the writer, Joe Orton."

I've never heard of Joe Orton, but I do know quite a bit about Lineker.

He was England's most beloved footballer for over 15 years, putting in time at Leicester [95 goals in 194 games], Everton [30 in 41], Barcelona [43 in 103], Spurs [67 in 105], and finally, for J-League club Nagoya Grampus Eight [9 goals in 23 games].

Lineker was capped 80 times for England, scoring in more than half of the games he played, and he was known for being a nice guy: in 17 years of football service, he was never shown a yellow or red card.

Since then, he's made quite the name for himself as a pundit and smiling idiot in a plethora of commercials, including putting his name on Walkers Crisps [the salt and vinegar flavour was renamed "Salt and Lineker" for quite some time] for most of the 90s.

Of course Lineker is not involved in any of this, but honestly, this is a fucking hilarious story.

What will prevail: peace and harmony, or an amazing football player? A middle-aged white man, or the figurehead of non-violent protest? The most English footballer ever, or the man who helped drive the English out of India?

I cannot wait to see how this plays out. I'm sure, given the neutered state of political battles these days, that a plan to make two statues will be set in motion, probably side-by-side. Heck, they might even try to have the two statues posing with arms around one another, maybe even a thumbs-up.

So, I put the question to you.

Gandhi, or Gary Lineker: who would you pick, and why?

Read more on "Gandhi and Gary Lineker: mortal enemies"...

Premier League Will *Not* Be Welcomed as Liberators

So about that Game 39, the plan to have each Premiership club play a 39th match abroad that was a subject of our point-counterpoint earlier. The supporter outrage was expected and understandable, but turns out, it's also getting chilly receptions in the United States, Asia, and Australia, presumably the three most desirable destinations for the 39th Round.

Oops. You figure when you propose something as explosively touchy as taking matches abroad, the least the Premier League honchos could have done is send out feelers and see how willing the potential hosts were. But the rejection by the Asian Football Confederation should pretty much kill this misguided adventure before it has even left the gate.

The more I think about it, the more I see how ridiculous this idea was from the start. Did PL owners seriously think that Asian leagues, who have a tough enough time fighting for attention with European leagues as it is, would roll out the red carpet? That was about as likely as Michael Dell setting aside space for MacBooks at Dell's mall kiosks because Steve Jobs told him that would sell more Inspirons.
/nerd

You see, the problem in America isn't turning sports fans into soccer fans. No, the challenge now is turning Eurosnobs (and to a similar extent, Mexisnobs) into Major League Soccer fans. The doubleheaders that EPLtalk envisages will only reinforce the league's second fiddle status. Sure, there is a way to use the European leagues to sell the game and the domestic league, but Game 39 is pure football imperialism.

And now Wigan chairman David Whelan reveals the owners weren't unanimous on the plan as the league claimed, but their reservations were pushed aside. Good lord, the Bush Administration parallels just keep coming.

As with globalization in the marketplace, globalization of the sport is a Good Thing, but it's not without its perils. For one thing, this plan does nothing to stem the growing gap between the wealthy and the middle class (see what I mean about the parallels?). The Lutons and the Leeds and the Sheffield Wednesdays won't in any less of a crunch because the Liverpools and the Chelseas get their millions - trickle down economy is only slightly less bullshit in soccer than it is in real life.

Ultimately, the clubs (not franchises) belong as much to the supporters (not fans) as they do to the owners, and they are part of communities, rather than outposts of a national corporation. No offense to Spectator, but this isn't nostalgia; this is the essence of English football in 2008. And whatever the merits of this plan, pushing a plan without bothering to gauge the reaction from supporters and host countries was a stupid, stupid mistake.

Read more on "Premier League Will *Not* Be Welcomed as Liberators"...

Sam Allardyce Is Your Delusional Ex-Girlfriend

Joining Steve McClaren in his Recently Dumped Delusional Managers Club is Big Sam Allardyce. Oh, just look at Sam babble away to Steve, Carrie and Miranda about how Newcastle wasn't big enough for him. "it didn't live up to my ambitions in the short time that I was there," said Sam as he gestured to the bartender to refill his martini glass, "And because it didn't do that the club missed a chance to realise its own ambitions."

And look, that's my head exploding!

Seriously, I haven't seen this much logical acrobatics since the Japanese justice minister argued that Europeans don't execute criminals because they don't value life.

Wait, there's more! "The more I analyse it, the more I come to the conclusion that it was never about me or results," continued Sam as Steve, Carrie and Miranda tried their awkward best to keep a straight face.

Oh, Sam. He's going to have one hell of a headache when he wakes up.

Image from Kick n Rush

Read more on "Sam Allardyce Is Your Delusional Ex-Girlfriend"...

Those Who Can't Do, Offer Expert Analysis

At least he has his good looks. (photo from the BBC)

Since when did getting fired from a job make you an expert on the very job you failed to perform?

Steve McClaren is more annoying now than when he actually held a meaningful position. There goes Second Choice Steve, giving a world class coach advice on how to win "the England way" (what exactly does he know about winning, England way or otherwise?). There he goes again, saying Beckham deserves to get his 100th cap, nevermind that Becks would have gotten the century mark under his stewardship if he hadn't insisted on leaving him off his squad until way too late in the Euro qualifying campaign or sucking as a coach.

So when I scour the headlines, just seeing the name "McClaren" causes my eyes to go into a Pavlovian roll. And sure enough, the is spouting crap again:

The MLS is developing but it’s not of the standard required for international football.

That's odd, because less than six months ago, McClaren had this to say about the league's level of play after watching Becks in his first MLS match:

It was a good standard. It was possibly Championship top half, lower Premier... I understand the concerns, but he will be OK. Maybe playing in central midfield, he will get more of the ball, do more running and get more involved and that might help him.

Gosh, someone's a lot more candid now that he doesn't have any bridges to burn, isn't he? And really, the Premiership's just doing a bang up job of developing goalies and strikers.

Read more on "Those Who Can't Do, Offer Expert Analysis"...

Football Parochialism

Much has been written about the situation enveloping Rafa Benitez, Liverpool, and its owners, Tom Hicks and Roger Gillett. The imbroglio is written about nearly every day and it seems only a matter of time before Rafa is sacked. (We here at Unprofessional Foul are just as guilty of over-wrought and over thought opinion pieces on the subject.) The owners have already inquired about replacement managers and had public spats with the manager.

Whether the fault lay with the owners, Rafa or somebody else is truly a matter of opinion. And the likely truth is that everybody is at fault to some degree. But, one sure thing is the view that Liverpool's situation is a result of the American owners' ignorance of "British football" is a stance borne out of fear, insecurity and parochialism.

The Guardian blogger, Lawrence Donegan, apparently is intrigued by these views and subscribes to the newsletter. His latest foray ham-fistedly espouses these theories.

Great Britain and the United States; two nations divided by an ocean and a wildly differing view of the manager's place in the hierarchy of a sports team or, if you prefer, sports franchise.

According to Donegan, the Americans act as though this were baseball and have shown no respect to Benitez who brought a Champions League crown to Anfield in 2005. Baseball, the American sport, shows no respect to managers and this uncouthness is now being imposed on football.

It's different in the world of North American baseball, where the team manager is the guy who picks the team, executes the match-day tactics and, if he has a strong personality or a death wish, isn't scared to challenge the club's general manager or owners - aka. the real bosses - about the club's signing policies. Nothing more. In baseball, the great managers are no longer exalted, they are treated like day workers, to be summarily dismissed at the owner's whim, as Joe Torre, who brought great success to the New York Yankees, discovered to his cost at the end of the 2007 Major League Baseball season.

And, the coup de grace...

Hicks's "reign" at Anfield has been notable mostly for the obfuscations of his slick PR machine so it would be remiss not to congratulate him for his straightforwardness on this occasion. But in his honesty he also reveals his ignorance of how football works in this country and his failure to realise the most successful clubs are those that place the greatest emphasis on continuity and loyalty. Liverpool fans can only hope that the rumours are true and that he and his cohort sell up and leave town before too much damage is done.

So, let me get this straight. Americans don't understand football and this is why Rafa hasn't so much as sniffed a premiership title in the second half of the season during his tenure. A tenure that has been longer than the owners'. Rafa whines about not having enough talent so the Americans help him out and buy wonder-striker Fernando Torres, Ryan Babel, and Andriy Voronin. And Rafa repays this support by whinging about wanting more loot for the winter transfer season, all while he slowly falls behind in the title race and showing very poorly in Champions League play. This is because the Americans don't understand British football.

Yes, Rafa has brought home Champions League glory, but suffice it to say, the Premiership title is what matters to Anfield fans and the owners want a piece of that financial pie as well. Ultimately, I liken this achievement to something akin to an American franchise posting the best record in the league but failing in the post-season. Great performance but where's the beef?

When exactly is it the manager's fault for poor on-field performance and a clear desertion by the squad of its sideline general. When is it his fault and when will Rafa share in the blame, Mr. Donegan?

Why is it that the Glazers have succeeded in spite of their "Americanosity"? Yes, the Glazers have the same American style. They once threw out a highly successful coach, Tony Dungy, to get a bigger name and hopefully a title. Jon Gruden, the name, delivered the title. So, was it wrong? Maybe, maybe not. But, it was successful.

Why exactly does Roman Abramovich not get the same treatment? He has done the same thing. He undermined and ultimately sacked a Champions League winning and consecutive Premiership title winning manager.

Why does Rafa understand British football? He's not British. Is it because he knows how to whine? Lest we not forget that it was Rafa who started the row when he whinged to the public about his dissatisfaction with the transfer budget. It was he who called them to arms and required them to react hostilely to his disregard for their position as owners. Much of this has been brought upon Rafa's shoulders by his own doing whether it be his words or his lackluster results as of late.

Or is it all just pure condescension and narrow-mindedness where none should exist? It's not like English football has been all that great. The country hasn't won a world cup in 40 years. Its league is great because of the many imports. So, why exactly should one care about "British football"? The one thing everybody cares about in sports is winning and Rafa isn't doing enough of it right now given the talent he has.

This is Britain's sporting version of "you're either with us or against us." Quit chasing the hounds and get off your high horses and step into the modern world. Suck it. Rafa has lost his team. They don't perform for him any more and it is time for a change. It's not the American owners fault, although some blame can be assigned to many parties. How about opening your eyes and trying something new? Change isn't always bad, although I'm sure England would like to live in the past where all its glory can be found.

Read more on "Football Parochialism"...

Stupidest Piece About Soccer You'll Read All Year

When I'm on the road, which isn't very often because I don't own a car, I get really peeved at rubberneckers. It's like motherfuckers never seen an accident before. But sometimes, I can't help but slow down and admire the carnage. This essay, titled "US football leagues have a long way to go" by Roberto Carlos Alvarez-Galloso is the internet equivalent of the flaming, 20-car pileup on the George Washington Bridge.

AS A supporter of US football (soccer), the question that is always asked of me involves a comparison of USA with countries in Europe, Africa, and Latin America. Every country is different and to compare US football with that of the FA, La Liga, and the Bundesliga would be similar to comparing a pear with a grape.

Except pears and grapes are completely different fruits. Maybe it's like comparing a red grape with a white grape, or an organic orange with a conventional orange. But that's a minor quibble.

It cannot be denied that US football, is still under-par in comparison with other professional leagues. The reasons are many and need to be organized under certain categories.

Ok!

US folklore tells how the puritans saw the indigenous population play a form of football called "Pasuckquakkohowog" (which means "they gather to play football"), when they arrived in America. The reality points to an inconsistent history of football in America compared to the consistency which has existed in Europe since football was first played in York, England, during the Middle Ages.

Really? York? As they say on Wikipedia, [citation needed]. My knowledge of soccer's origin comes mostly from the History of Soccer DVD set, which clearly points to the establishment of the Football Association in 1863 as the birth of modern football. Until then, the private boys' schools and their old boys played football under different sets of rules for much of the first half of 19th century, and before that, there really wasn't much organized football beyond the semi-organized chaos of folk football.

I Googled "York" and "football" and "origin" and no relevant result came up. I don't know about you, but I'll believe a $100 DVD set over a blogger who doesn't use a single outgoing link.

America had football as a fad sport that was fashionable at times until the World Cup of 1994.

By "at times", you of course mean, "once, during the NASL's peak from the late 70s to the early 80s".

It could be said that until 1994, the USA had a bunker mentality when it came to football, which favoured other sports (i.e.: basketball over football.

But not after 1994!

It could also be said that unicorns are flying out of my ass, and it would have just as much basis in fact as this piece.

These men were taken very, very seriously.

Before 1994, sports commentators in the USA derided football (soccer) as a "sport for those who do not like sports".

And it all stopped after 1994. Frank De Ford is a river in Egypt and Jim Rome is a man of great intelligence and eloquence.

And again, as they say on Wikipedia, [attribution needed]. I Googled to see exactly who referred to soccer as "sport for those who do not like sports", and I came up with jack shit, except to the very article I'm writing about, and mirrors of the same article. Holy shit, this thing is everywhere!

It was after the World Cup of 1994 that the USA started to take football seriously.

So seriously that they waited two more years before launching Major League Soccer! So seriously that MLS had to pay ESPN to carry the games! So seriously that they traveled back in time and qualified for the 1990 World Cup! And won the Women's World Cup in 1991!

The reason: the USA hosted the World Cup of 1994 and they did not want to be seen as "ignorant" and "dumb".

I have news for you. Americans do want to be seen as "ignorant" and "dumb". They take pride in their anti-intellectualism. Did you not pay attention to the 2004 election results?

The FA, La Liga, La Liga Mexicana, and the Bundesliga have been playing seriously and the supporters have been vocal and present.

Meanwhile, the A-League played half-jokingly, with a smirk on its face, while its fans silently supported the league from remote locations.

The leagues of other countries either received support from their fans or in some cases [such as Monaco] from the government.

So the FA, La Liga, La Liga Mexicana and the Bundesliga didn't receive support from their fans? Monaco has a league? Also, government interference in leagues is strictly prohibited by FIFA. Shhh! Don't let them find out!

Another aspect has been the timing of the football season. In Europe, the season lasts from August to April.

I'll need to consult my atlas, but last I checked, Scandinavia and the former Soviet republics were still in Europe. And they play from Spring to Fall, on account of the cold, dark winters.

Mid-December match in Rosenborg.

In the USA, it lasts from April to October with practices and friendly games starting in January.

OMG, you got something right! Rejoice!

Within the USA, there has been a decline in physical education classes as mandated by the budget cuts proposed by George Bush II. With this decline, there has been little exercise and practice of US football [soccer].

Because George Bush II (sic) sits on local school boards and controls their budgets and curriculum? And what budget cuts? Under W's first term, federal discretionary spending went up 33%. He is the most spend-happy President since... shit, he's a bigger spender than Lyndon B. fucking Johnson.

But that's neither here nor there. What does decline in phys ed classes have to do with AYSO, interscholastic sports and ODP, where youth soccer is largely played in this country?

America, fuck yeah!

And what's with this "US football (soccer)" business? Either "football" or "soccer" works - just pick one, goddammit. And you don't need to qualify every mention of the sport with "US". We get it. You're talking about the US.

There is also the mentality in America that football does not need that much of practice. The US Football team learned the hard way after the men's team was eliminated in Copa America 2007 and the women's team was almost eliminated in the FIFA Women's World Cup in the same year.

Oh.

So they didn't lose all three matches (though acquitted themselves quite nicely against Argentina) because Bob Bradley took an experimental squad that included three uncapped players? It was because they didn't practice much. Got it. And it wasn't because the women's team played an unimaginative style that relied too heavily on a single player, and the coach made a panic move and pulled a goalkeeper who was playing okay? It was because they didn't practice much. And the women's team was almost eliminated? Like, they're still in contention for the cup, even though Brazil beat the US and Germany won the final?

Bob Bradley and Team USA not practicing at Copa America '07.

A major difference between US football and the other professional leagues is the salary cap. A salary cap (also known as wage cap) limits the amount of money that can be used by a professional team for professional salaries. The Major League Soccer (as well as minor leagues within the USA) uses salary cap.

Minor leagues? You mean USL uses salary caps? Because they're such big spenders?

At present, European leagues are considering the use of salary cap. A report from the BBC revealed that the Football league in England and the Series A of Italy were one of the teams considering a salary cap.

Um, what? [citation needed]. One of the teams in Football league (sic) and the Series A (sic) were (sic) considering a salary cap? What's the point of one team considering a salary cap? That's called a wage budget. Every team has one.

It must be remembered that US football and their leagues, like adolescents, are bound to make mistakes but are willing to learn in order to be on par with other leagues. The USA has to adapt to and rid itself of the bunker mentality. We live in a world of open communication and diversity, which includes sports. Football is gaining converts in America and it is the silent majority who are leading the change. It will take time to destroy the walls of prejudice against football but people are attending in ever increasing numbers.

Bunker mentality? Care to expound... wait, don't. You'll make my head hurt more than it already does after reading this paragraph.

All the same, to compare US football [soccer] to the long and glorious history of European leagues is impossible. The USA has to forge its own history.

The comparison is impossible because you're comparing a sport's place in a country (US football) to organizations (European leagues). Apples and oranges. Now, a comparison between MLS and the top European leagues is possible. For example: "The Big 4 leagues are richer and more established than MLS." There. Impossible is nothing.

US football must change its season since it is almost the only country that plays football off-season.

Almost the only country. The only country except Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Japan, Korea, Russia, Norway, Sweden…

The USA should play at the same time as other professional leagues (August) to April) in order to be on par with them.

You're right, switching to an August-April season is the only hope for MLS to be on par with other professional leagues, like the Coca-Cola Football League Two and Serie C.

While budget cuts by Bush II have hurt football (soccer), there has been a general tendency to form football (soccer) groups.

Yes, like the Black Panther Party! Fight the oppressors!

In fact, the Miami FC has a programme of football for future generations where the practice is gruelling and only a few are chosen.

Isn't that, like, every youth academy?

Yet another Bush budget cut.

The US Football Association has similar programmes for the youth where the practice is on a par with other professional leagues. This includes the under-21 teams.

Is the US Football Association affiliated with the US Soccer Federation in any way? And the youth program includes the Under-21 team? Blimey!

The extensive practice guidelines are a result of the lessons learned in 2007 from underestimating the sport after the Copa America 2007 debacle and the FIFA Women's World Cup debacle of 2007.

So the US youth program didn't practice very hard before the summer of 2007. Landon Donovan, DaMarcus Beasley, Eddie Johnson, Oguchi Onyewu and Freddy Adu were all sitting around in Bradenton, sipping mint julep and playing Guitar Hero? Didn't seem to hurt their development any.

I have faith in the US football team; the 21st century will be a time for the USA and its leagues to leave their imprint on the history of this illustrious sport called football.

For example, in a World Cup in the near future, US will go in as heavy underdogs against a tournament favorite and beat them 3-2, and then advance to the quarter-final round, where they hold their own against an eventual finalist. Now, that's an imprint. That just might happen in the 21st century. Can't wait !

A vision of a distant future - what soccer might look like in the 21st Century.

Read more on "Stupidest Piece About Soccer You'll Read All Year"...