I see that Sp!ked has seen fit to print my little letter to them re: Beckham (comma) David. However, it its truncated form it lacks the punch of the original.
Maybe my colloquial Ameri-speak was a little much for them. I did try to Brit-ify it a little, such as using the word "shite," which I usually feel sounds a little pretentious coming from an American. But I guess the word "snark" hasn't jumped the pond....that is probably a good thing, but I'm sure it makes more sense to leave it in than replace it with "snaring." They should deduct a pound from the intern whose job it was to tidy up my prose.
In any event I noticed this letter on the same subject, which deserves an out and out fisking:
This bit is fine.
I'm not sure what is meant by this. It is not the children who "opt out" of soccer. It is still the number one youth participation sport in the United States, and has been since the mid-90's. The opting out happens among adults. And too be fair this is where the "opting back in" has to happen for MLS to flourish.
This is simply false. "Soccer Saturday" may be a bit of a hit & miss affair but it was broadcasted on ESPN. And this season they are doing a dedicated Thursday Night Game Of The Week. Additionally, it is incorrect to say ESPN has shown the championship game as that has been broadcasted on ABC. Hard to see how anyone who follows MLS could get all of that wrong. (Conversely, it is easy to see how someone with little knowledge could screw it up.)
Will someone please inform Steve Goff that he doesn't really work for the Washington Post like he thinks he does. Belay that. Obviously someone named "Steve Goff" must not exist. It must be all in my mind. But I sure do have a vivid imagination, because I also invented coverage for teams like the Kansas City Wizards and the New England Revolution. I even thought there was coverage of MLS in a rag like the USA Today. I must need a little electro-shock therapy.
You can complain that Becks is over rated and not worth millions of dollars, but why take shots at the US in general? Back in the 1970s it had been over 20 years since the US had been in a World Cup final field, now they get in routinely (more often than England in fact). In the 1970s all the teams played in stadiums built for baseball or American football on awful astroturf and often they didn't make a dime from things like concessions and parking. Today, team after team are building soccer specific parks and building decent financial foundations.
I really don't get the snaring at the US game in general. Fine, I'll admit it isn't the quality of the top tier in England, Italy, France, Germany or Spain but I don't see UK writers going out of their way to remind folks that comparatively speaking the Greek or Polish leagues are just shite.
Maybe my colloquial Ameri-speak was a little much for them. I did try to Brit-ify it a little, such as using the word "shite," which I usually feel sounds a little pretentious coming from an American. But I guess the word "snark" hasn't jumped the pond....that is probably a good thing, but I'm sure it makes more sense to leave it in than replace it with "snaring." They should deduct a pound from the intern whose job it was to tidy up my prose.
In any event I noticed this letter on the same subject, which deserves an out and out fisking:
On behalf of American fans everywhere, thank you. We get it. We understand. We are getting a near-superstar in decline. This is not Cristiano or Rooney, or even Ronoldo. This is David Beckham, part footballer, part celebrity.
This bit is fine.
On this side of the pond, soccer gets no respect, no attention and no revenues. Our children opt for baseball, basketball, and football, because those games and athletes and stars are on our televisions and advertisements.
I'm not sure what is meant by this. It is not the children who "opt out" of soccer. It is still the number one youth participation sport in the United States, and has been since the mid-90's. The opting out happens among adults. And too be fair this is where the "opting back in" has to happen for MLS to flourish.
Here, soccer is mostly about youth games, recreation and some semi-pro leagues. ESPN has thousands of channels, but not one carries MLS except for the playoffs and championships.
This is simply false. "Soccer Saturday" may be a bit of a hit & miss affair but it was broadcasted on ESPN. And this season they are doing a dedicated Thursday Night Game Of The Week. Additionally, it is incorrect to say ESPN has shown the championship game as that has been broadcasted on ABC. Hard to see how anyone who follows MLS could get all of that wrong. (Conversely, it is easy to see how someone with little knowledge could screw it up.)
Games results do not even make the paper, for any league, and not a single newscast on any station mentions soccer. Us dedicated few pay extra to get Fox Soccer Network – and then watch the EPL.
Will someone please inform Steve Goff that he doesn't really work for the Washington Post like he thinks he does. Belay that. Obviously someone named "Steve Goff" must not exist. It must be all in my mind. But I sure do have a vivid imagination, because I also invented coverage for teams like the Kansas City Wizards and the New England Revolution. I even thought there was coverage of MLS in a rag like the USA Today. I must need a little electro-shock therapy.
Comments