Why do you care? I thought you "could care a fig leaf" what people like me thought (post #250)
Rubert Murdoch tried to buy Manchester United for a billion US dollars, and failed. Failed, do you hear me?
Yes, I hear you. One multimillionaire "failed" to buy the paper ownership of a soccer team from some other multimillionaire (or group of multimillionaires). What does this mean? Is this good? Bad? What? More to the point, I fail to see the significance of this as to whether I should like or watch soccer (you know, the sport, the thing happening on the field, not in lawyers' offices?), or how it helps explain the phenomenon of leftist PBS poseur soccer fans.
Or, maybe it does. A "capitalist" like Murdoch can buy the baseball LA Dodgers, but he "failed" to buy the most popular English soccer team, and of course this is a cause for celebration amongst leftists! The rich guy got his! It's all about class warfare, and soccer allows for expression of rich-hating class warfare (even though this is kinda silly because like I said, Manchester United is presumably still owned by someone, just not Murdoch...)
Beckham of Man United has two separate contracts, one for himself, and one for his marketing arm. Tell me, why doesn't Brett Favre have the same?
I have no idea. I don't even know what you're talking about. What is a "marketing arm"?
What does any of this have to do with how entertaining the sport is?
[why Brett Favre doesn't have a Separate Contract For His "Marketing Arm"] Because he's a poseur working for a bunch of owners who have done everything in their power to stifle competition, erect barriers to their market, and leech off their fans.
I'll have to take your word for it. I still don't know what you're talking about.
I'll ask again: What does this have to do with how entertaining the sport is?
Anyway, to try to partially respond to your point: Are you under the impression that soccer team's owners do not try to make money off their clubs? Do British kids buy Manchester United T-shirts, hmmmmm? Do tabloids make money selling stories about which Spice Girls their stars are dating?
You want free market competition?
Huh? Did I say this is what I "wanted" out of a sport? Actually, you're the one who brought it up. Personally I don't care much, because I'm talking about what these sports are like on the field and trying to evaluate them as such. You seem very preoccupied with who owns what team and how rich they are and ancillary things like that, which (obviously) have no connection to how entertaining the sport actually is on the field. But at least now I understand, that if I cared more about class warfare and rich-hating (as leftists do) than I did about the actual on the field sport, maybe soccer would be more satisfying for me in some way.
Then have the BoSox relegate themselves to triple-A if they have a crappy season. It's what soccer teams in the Bundesliege, Serie A, and the Premier League face every darn season.
I know that's how it is done, but I don't see why this is a good thing. So you throw out history and rivalries (BoSox vs. Yankees) and you end up with Pedro Martinez pitching in front of 4000 fans instead of 40000 fans, in places like Columbus and Shreveport. What exactly is so great about any of this?
The idea that someone is trying to force a sport down your throat is bull++++ and you know it . . .
No, I don't know it. I'll grant that the people trying to force soccer down America's throat aren't being very successful at it. But they're trying, and you know it.
One never hears laments about how Americans don't embrace cricket or rugby or jai-alai, and how provincial this makes us. These things are only said about soccer, by soccer lovers or at least by PBS watchers momentarily pretending to be soccer lovers for some weird vaguely political reason. Why is that? I still haven't received a satisfactory explanation.
Face it, you're not interested in hearing any arguments for or against anything.
What? Is this even directed to me? What have I said to indicate that I didn't want to hear arguments? In fact in my previous post I asked you directly for your explanation of the phenomenon of the PBS soccer "fan" who likes soccer in theory whether or not he likes sports. You began your post by telling me this would be an explanation, but it's not. It's coming out more and more like a logically disconnected rant. I guess you're pretty worked up about the subject :)
You simply wish to remain smug in your understanding that your sport (whatever that might be), with its multiple substitutions, commercial breaks, and oxygen tanks on the sideline is superior to whatever anyone else might think.
Again, who are you talking to? I've already explained that my favorite sport is baseball. Oxygen tanks???
The fact of the matter is, when our boys put on the US uniform and take the field, they are defending our honor in the only sport that the rest of the world plays.
I guess.
Put that in a "conservative" pipe and smoke it . . . .
The truly conservative response to this is simply to observe that, evidently, in this country there is no tradition of liking soccer and thus no reason to try to artificially induce an interest in the sport. We like what we like and are distrustful of attempts to alter our tastes for one theoretical reason or another.
That's conservative.
By the way, we are playing South Korea tomorrow and could use your support.
Hey, all other things being equal I'd rather have the US win than not win.
I still don't care all that much and won't lose any sleep over it if the US team loses (which, if it happens, I probably won't find out about it till much later anyway, since I'm more interested in finding out things like how the Giants did yesterday and whether Bonds homered...).
The fact of the matter is, by the same standard that the "heavy-thinkers" are using, soccer is less "socialist" than football, baseball, and basketball. That is what I've been attempting to refute by citing to various financial matters. (Incidentally, David Beckham's second contract is between the team he plays for, and the corporation he created for marketing himself to his sponsors). By pointing this out, I am trying to make you wonder why other "athletes" (loosely defined) such as Jordan, Favre, Woods, and Earnhardt haven't done the same. In other words, these American athletes are behind the curve.
I have no difficulty with your observation that soccer is a boring sport. To each his own. But to hold the sport accountable for trying to marketing itself to you is myopic. Every sport does the same, period.