Anybody else who doesn't care about the World Cup?

Yeah, me. Soccer, yes that's right its soccer, is one of the most boring sports in the world to watch. A bunch of dudes running back and forth kicking a ball. It is about as entertaining as baseball and basketball, or drying paint for that matter.

As for the homeless issue, in the US it is now illegal in some cities to feed the homeless. Go figure.
 
Just on the 'soccer' theme. It's an English name derived from 'Association Football' (apparently) but I'll still never call it that.

I didn't know that, though it makes sense, and no, neither will I.

The World Cup hairdos are quite wonderful. Almost worth having a World Cup for.
 
Always a fan of playing all sports, not watching them though thats the absolute worst. Better to hear about if they win or see highlights somewhere else.

The world cup is my only exception really. But I don't really watch it, I just use it as a commercial break if I even watch tv. The fact that there are ridiculous rivalries is always annoying, but then having this world cup started with bloodshed is pretty sad. Probably not going to bother with it this time.
 
Surely this world cup is worth keeping an eye on for the spectacle if nothing else? Football played in its spiritual home? Brazil v Argentina in the final? Should be a classic.
 
Just to add balance, let's have a look some others ports - especially American sports. Calling your national baseball league World Series is a wank. Admit it. Meanwhile grid iron is almost as fast as golf and lawn bowls. Almost. (sorry Bon lol). But it's at least faster than cricket (sorry Duncan).

In Australia, we either have Aussie Rules and Rugby league, both games thuggish and dangerous. Unlike grid iron, where everyone hugs and chats in a sewing circle most of the time, in thugby league they spend half their time with their heads up each others' (ample) arses. In Aussie Rules there are long passages where the players scrabble around as though they're competing to grab a cake of wet soap from the bottom of the bathtub.

OK, this is funny because we hear the similar things about Euro-sports here. Stuff like: "Soccer is slow and boring" or "Soccer players are soft because they fake injuries all the time" (which even the most diehard fan would admit to be true).

All of these athletes, whether they play American football, rugby or baseball are incredibly gifted and tough. Calling an NFL huddle a sewing circle is hilarious because American Football is possibly the hardest hitting sport there is. So much so that there is a significant movement going on to lessen the head to head impacts because guys are getting their brains scrambled. But I'm not going to say they are tougher than a hockey player or rugby player because they are all tough.

As far as the "World Series". I guess the name is a little pompous but it is generally acknowledged that Major league baseball is the highest level of baseball played in the world.
So much so that the highest level of pro baseball outside of the USA (Japan) is considered to be on a par with the development leagues for major league players.

I think we tend to like those sports we grew up with.

And no, I don't care at all about the world cup.
 
This is an interesting thread. I compare the posts on this thread to those threads where drummers and musicians ask, if it is just and fair that musicians have to play for free, and there is no respect for live music, and the internet has changed the way musicians work.

I personally have no interest in the sports entertainment, and am only affected by it when I pass through a traffic jam that has been caused by a sporting event.

Live music and live sports have many things in common as well as differences.

Here are some similarities that I notice: Both are entertainment industries. Both require an audience, either remote or direct, in order to provide for the entertainers financially.
Both audiences can monitor events remotely live or recorded. The entertainers are willing to perform for their own amusement even without an audience. Jam sessions or baseball games at the company picnic are mostly for the amusement of the players. Both groups of entertainers find personal and non-monetary satisfaction when there is an audience. Remote groups of audiences can view the entertainment. Remote single individuals can view the entertainment. Both industries suffer from an over saturation and free of charge events. Both sporting and music events can have single performer acts.

The differences are harder for me to compile. The sporting industry when radio, and television were introduced as remote viewing technologies, were able to control the viewing so that the technology did not saturate the industry and subtract from the monetary value of the industry.

The introduction of digital music has impacted the music industry in ways where the music industry has not been able to recover from the monetary loss, and is still trying to find a path to provide for the members of the industry.

Bars have televisions playing sporting events all over, and the people as a group, watch the events. There is a group experience, and the events provide a certain unified emotional outburst. Even with opposing teams and fans, there is one subset at the bar that would have a negative emotion and other subset would have a positive emotion. However, in the bar there is still a unified emotional outburst.

It is rare to see a group emotional outburst in a bar where music events are shown. However, you rarely see two sports fans dancing to the World Series or the Super Bowl. Perhaps this is left to a more private event, and not found in the bars.

It appears that the emotional attachment to these events may play a key role in understanding of why and how these two industries have been influenced by the remote technologies, and it may also provide help to solving the musical industry’s problems.
 
I have no interest in this event, I prefer to watch America's Cup.
 
I'm only interested in 3 cups. Whichever one I'm currently drinking from and the two that are holding my girlfriend's boulders.
 
Triggers a philosophical question though:
You enjoy playing sports but not watching it. I'm not saying anyone should, but:
You enjoy playing music and you enjoy listening to it, right?
What's the difference?

Music is artistic and interesting, watching other people play sports on TV is boring as hell. If it helps in the answer, I'd much rather be playing music than watching someone else play it.
 
Yanks call a round black and white ball a soccer ball. Europeans call that a football. What do Europeans call an American style football, you know the brown one with the 2 white stripes?
 
The soccer babes are the only attraction for me.​
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    67.7 KB · Views: 171
Last edited:
Yanks call a round black and white ball a soccer ball. Europeans call that a football. What do Europeans call an American style football, you know the brown one with the 2 white stripes?

An American football, as far as I know.
 
An American Football. It's very simple, really.

Oh OK. You preface it with American.

It is simple.

But do you guys put a condescending inflection to it, like an American pffft football?

Like do you Europeans look at American football in a "less than" light at all? I mean I don't care one way or the other, I'm just interested in how the rest of the world sees the U.S. I'm sure there are plenty of Yanks who look at European football as "less than".

Which is kind of limiting. It's just different cultures. We scream and cry about preserving freedom but at the same time we look down on things different than us. Why is that?

Rodney King said it best.
 
Dont shoot me larryace but from living in the UK and Netherlands there seems to be an overhwhelmingly unanimous feeling on this:

1) Ameicans are dumb for calling it football when its clearly done with hands.
2) Its a pussy sport, try rugby where you dont wear tonnes of protection.

Thats pretty much it? Though we are jealous that a sport gets as much attention as the superbowl, i mean come on thats insane!
 
But do you guys put a condescending inflection to it, like an American pffft football?

No, there's no need. Whenever we say "American", there's an implied "pffft" anyway.

Actually, it's more compassionate than condescending.

StaggerLee, I don't agree with your first point: in Rugby Union (I don't know about League) the game is frequently referred to as "football" - presumably a legacy from the original "Rugby football". I do, however, entirely endorse your second point!
 
Back
Top