L3ggy
Special Operations FOX-HOUND
:lame:
A FIFA spokesman wouldn't refer to Football as 'soccer'
Indeed, this is a hoax! Football is not gay.
Can the United States win the World Cup?
- Thread starter arwor
- Start date
Indeed, this is a hoax! Football is not gay.
Guys, The Onion is a satire publication. Come on you Europeans, get with the program.
I know what The Onion is & find it quite funny but my comment still stands, a FIFA spokesman would never refer to Football as soccer. They should have done a bit of research first, even for a satirical sketch. The Onion should have got with the program as you put it.Guys, The Onion is a satire publication. Come on you Europeans, get with the program.
Hasn't anyone else see how shitty all the so-called favorites to win it have been playing!?!?! If you have a horse in the race, you've got a shot to win regardless.
Yes. The U.S. can win the 2010 World Cup.
Yes. The U.S. can win the 2010 World Cup.
I know what The Onion is & find it quite funny but my comment still stands, a FIFA spokesman would never refer to Football as soccer. They should have done a bit of research first, even for a satirical sketch. The Onion should have got with the program as you put it.
Being that the lampoon is MEANT to take place from a stereotyped American "soccer is for pussies" standpoint, it makes perfect sense. FIFA calling it "soccer" is of course part of the parody. If you think this was an unintentional lapse on the Onion's part, I really can't help you.
Why would you think I need your "help"? In regards to this or any other issue?!?
Isn't the Onion strictly an American audience? If so, then the use of "soccer" was entirely appropriate.
I guess if it was a British satirical sketch about Baseball being gay the King of Baseball Federation or whatever he is would have called it Rounders? :dunno:
I dunno. The only European team I know that plays baseball (and are international factors) are the Netherlands.
Why would you think I need your "help"? In regards to this or any other issue?!?
You're clearly having issues understanding the concept that this was an American caricature of a FIFA spokesman.
No, they can not.
I guess this is satire too, referring to us as Brits/British, the two-hour game, En-go-land?!? & I assume it was the St George's Cross not the Union Jack (in fact the Union Jack only exists when on a boat, otherwise it is the Union flag) fans were draped in, unless they were idiots?
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/it_cheeri_yo_ZnXMvwkaisNdboMtCjxy1J
:lame:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/it_cheeri_yo_ZnXMvwkaisNdboMtCjxy1J
:lame:
roronoa3000
Banned
What is God's name is Mrtrebus talking about today?
Did you mother forget to give you your meds or are you still upset about the "soccer" match the other day?
Did you mother forget to give you your meds or are you still upset about the "soccer" match the other day?
Er, I'm talking about the stoopid inaccuracies in that piece of so-called 'journalism' in the New York Post. . .obviously.
The Americans that claim they don't care about soccer would be the first ones to start talkin shit if the U.S were to win the World Cup. Just like the Gold medal game. Americans were running their mouth the entire Olympics, but when Crosby scored, all of a sudden they didn't care about hockey anymore. It's hilarious.
Despite the people in the US liking hockey slightly less than American football, baseball, or basketball they still like it about 100 billion times more than soccer. That isn't a very good example. Soccer probably isn't even in the top 20 most liked sports here.
Plus, I could add that Americans would talk smack if they won just because they themselves would find it hilarious they won despite not caring about it more than any other reason. It's not because they would care about the win itself as much as it would be more because they could rub it in to the places that really do care a lot about it and still lost.
It could also show how a lot of us also think of it as such a flawed sport it is when, due to it's very low scoring among other things, dramatically more skilled teams can so easily tie (that's another thing, I don't even want to get into a sport where ties happen so much) or lose to ones that are aren't nearly as good, especially in a small sample size of a few games. I think half of winning the World Cup is pretty much a crapshoot and getting lucky at the right time. It sort of tarnishes the competition in my eyes. Compare that to basketball or hockey where once in a while there will be a rare upset, but the significantly better team usually crushes the other one.
I agree with Diva. I thought that was embarrassing. I suspect the bandwagon smack talkers couldn't name a single player on the ice for Team USA; they just saw (or probably heard) that the game was close and just went into ugly American mode...
Hockey was legitimately the 4th sport in the U.S. until it left ESPN here in the States. Even though hockey snobs may despise ESPN's coverage of the sport, the hype and dedication that ESPN puts forth for a sport it broadcasts is immeasurable.
Hockey also struggles from the fact that it is primarily a New England/Michigan/Minnesota sport here in the U.S. No kid in San Diego, LA, Dallas or Miami ever laces up a pair of skates growing up.
I think the typical American sports fan could never understand the idea of a penalty kick/dive. Americans HATE pro athletes who fake anything, so someone like Ronaldo who is a big star and a huge diver would irk the American fan more than other nations' fans I think. If Ronaldo dived and won a penalty kick against the U.S. (and that sealed the game), the American sports fan would swear off soccer and never watch again ("can you believe that shit!" would be the response on talk radio)...
Similar threads
- Locked
