How was it a shit show? I’m genuinely curious. I attended 5 games (Atlanta, LA and Dallas) and was a fantastic experience minus the process to get tickets.
Also the treatment of the Iranian team was comically awful.
Ahhhh, you're American!
It's very weird for one type of football to try to claim the name all for itself globally.
BTW I am not American.
Yeah, but most of them go without president calling Infantino to change the referee verdict. All the while the president says "I dont even know the game".
> It was really well run. Not something you can call a “shit show”
I can. Oh and not allowing referee in due to his race and mistreating teams due to politics.
The US itself is far and away the world's biggest sporting nation, and many there see football's informality and cynicism as antiquated and, honestly, embarrassing. The world outside of the US wants to protect "their" game, though it's not theirs to begin with, ignoring the existing, systematic issues with it, even making contrived arguments about the word "soccer" itself.
FIFA's shenanigans off-the-field were a problem, but they're not unique to the World Cup nor its location. I'd argue the last Copa America and Cup of Nations had worse issues with officiating/corruption.
There are many other nations with just as much influence in sports outside of the US. The only difference being that the US doesn’t care about them.
Football is a global game, everyone’s, not another thing for the US to dictate and ruin.
Football (or basketball, if you're Lithuanian) is a massive cultural institution in many parts of the world. The difference is that sports—just sports—are the institution in America. We could look at revenues, but that's far too easy. Look at the whole picture. Look at youth participation, women's sports, college sports. It's not comparable anywhere else.
For football specifically, the current situation is that a handful of European countries control the best leagues and consistently have the best international squads. This isn't changing anytime soon. The game is already owned by a group of elite countries—almost exclusively in Europe, benefitting from geography, mutual competition, and visa gatekeeping—and one confederation (UEFA).
The fact that the game shouldn't be "ruined" (or latent anti-Americanism) suggests you're okay with this situation. You didn't comment on rule enforcement or cynical play either, but I assume you're okay with those things or take them for granted.
Americans see football through the lens of other sports, because we are a sporting culture, and football is one of many. All the "American" sports have their problems too, but we don't pretend they don't for phony reasons. But we also have choices and exercise those choices. Footballing nations, I get the impression, see all sports through the lens of football. I often wonder whether fans in footballing countries genuinely like their sport for what it is or whether it's just a narcissistic cultural inheritance.
And it's awkward to defend because, as I've already stated, the status quo is: colonial powers controlling the game at the pro/international level, bad and inconsistent officiating, normalization of cynical/unsportsmanlike play, and massive corruption. As an American, these are easy to see because we have the advantage of a massive sporting culture. We have salary caps to enforce parity and scrutinize our own leagues' rules. There is a competitive marketplace for sports. If things are broken, people stop watching.
What about the US's influence in improving soccer would ruin it further? Moreover, do you understand your own sport well enough to make the judgment?
Your point about salary caps is interesting. It is good that we have these because otherwise you’d see something crazy, like the Dodgers simply buying a winning team with heretofore unseen amounts of money
What does this mean?
I'm really trying to understand what you're saying but I don't get it. Are you saying that other countries don't have a sport culture like the US? What makes you think that?
CONCACAF, OFC, etc. all of thesr got something in common: the F stands for Football in their names.
Other than those awful hydration breaks, they didn't ruin it much. I didn't love the extended half time in the final, but I was only hate watching Argentina anyway so didn't care much. Better to have the standard interval but not egregious to extend in the final. Overall it was a good tournament, a proper "feast of football" as we used to say. Some fine-tuning to do with the VAR but even then there weren't as many egregiously unfair calls as in years past. (Croatia's disallowed goal being a memorable example because it was so rare.) Many, many good games and some memorable moments - Cape Verde!
besides a significantly more common 4-3-3, I can't think of anything I particularly found entertaining - the waterworks, the extra VARs, the super special offside line. That's no feast. (and I can continue)
Finals are boring more often than not. You just have to accept that. And when one of the team’s key skill is suffocating the other side, a game like that was to be expected. Only my mighty compatriots were able to crack the code… once.
- The extraordinary pricing of the tickets
- "Hydration breaks" to cater for TV advertising
- The US red card being rescinded after a phone call from an interested party
- Argentina's free pass throughout
FIFA has been corrupt since the days of João Havelange, although his stance was broadly to bring football to more countries and just needed a way to finance that (enter stage left, Coca-Cola, and stage right, Adidas and ISL), but it started getting really wild after him.
It's gone unchecked. There was talk of the English FA pulling out of UEFA and FIFA some years ago, as there was a perception the soul of the game had been tarnished by both orgs.
This is a good first step, and I hope FIFA gets itself sorted. I hope UEFA also gets its house in order.
Second, the hydration (ads!) breaks were clearly used to tweak some tactics, player positionning, etc, making it another half-time. It's a strategic opportunity. Why not introduce a 2 min drill, then ? - yuck- That's not football.
Third, I won't talk about that specific red card or that penalty kick, but the fact that players and staff complained so much about the refereeing issues hurts the trust we can have into the game as a whole.
And that 27 min half-time... Seriously ?!
I’ve followed the sport all my life and referee complains I would say less than usual.
I like having more teams. Might even extend to 64 next time.
These are difference of opinion. Nothing singles out this world cup as a “shit show” as the OP. It was a great experience to me and pretty much anyone I encountered in the stadiums.
It was already introduced in the local women league...
Covert bullshit, like the Moreno care in South Korea, sure, but brazenly ignoring the rules like what happened with Balogun? I cannot remember it.
There was nothing egregious and it was widely attended.
Refusing entry to a Somali referee on the spurious grounds of links to terrorism was a disgrace.
The overturning of Falorin Balogun's ban was a disgrace.
The ticket prices were a disgrace. The transport to the stadiums was a shambles.
I could go on.
This bit was kind of baffling to me. Like, the US has a bunch of large stadiums. Presumably they sometimes get used for stuff. How is it not a constant disaster?
There’s a medium sized (50k capacity) stadium near me, and even _with_ a train station with a train each way every ten minutes right beside it, and within easy walking distance of about five high capacity bus routes, it’s always a bit of a shitshow when a big event finishes. I’ve no idea how it could work _at all_ if you’re just depending on buses and cars, which a bunch of the US stadiums seemed to be.
Now if only it had been a good half-time show...
I ask in earnest. I'm not American. I know there's a huuugggee buzz on who gets to do the Superbowl half-time show. But they all look the same to me: overly-polished extravagant pop performances. That can be an insult or a compliment depending on your mood but I say that as a fact. That description applies to the WC half-time show too so I don't see what makes it bad. Maybe you can accuse it of being even more over-the-top and garishly extravagant but does that make it bad?
Bad Bunny's half-time show seems to be generally considered good. Well, he's a good performer definitely and performed his show well. But what makes that different from the universally-panned WC one?
For the record, Bad Bunny isn't even in my daily playlist. I do have Coldplay but Chris Martin was so peripheral to the WC spectacle I didn't even notice him during the live broadcast.
It feels to me there's something else merited here other than just the performance itself. Bad Bunny, given his background and off-stage activism, was largely seen as a political statement. The WC show just seems too foreign for the core non-Northern American market.
I watched the WC final in a noisy bar. During the halftime the bar had its own entertainment while a muted Justin Bieber playing his guitar emoted on the big screen. I've since watched it in Youtube and I still don't get the universal disdain for it. Maybe they should've called in a bunch of Eurovision performers?
Again, this is my point. WC hosts get to show something of themselves to the world. Half-time or pre-game shows are a part of American sports culture.
My interpretation is it is 15 minutes unless the referee allows something else.
Hydration breaks in air-conditioned stadiums?
A half-time show?
Football is more than just the world cup or the Championship league. It’s also about the local leagues or village clubs.
They all play the dame game and Fantino in his greed is ruining it.
Which fan could afford to watch all the games of his team?
I feel like how I imagine golfers felt once LIV golf was announced.
- 48 teams is too much. 32 is a great sweet spot. 48 is ridiculous, it genuinely felt like too many games. - The completely inconsistent application of VAR was scandalous. I've always been a huge opponent of VAR in soccer, and I really feel vindicated. It felt like it was only used for very pointed decisions. Either you use VAR to make no mistakes at all, or you don't use it. - The "h2o breaks" were stupid as f. They were clearly only implemented to fit in more commercial breaks. - as usual, getting the tickets is always a nightmare, but it's been like that for 20+ years
There was some good football, I'm not even bothered by the pre/mid-game shows. There were a lot of good things, but honestly it did feel like it was in spite of everything that was done to make it unbearable.
I actually loved the 48 teams. It will probably expand to 64 next cup. More people tune in, nice surprises, upsets, cinderella stories.
Access and price of tickets has been a problem for a long time and getting worse for every live event. Not exclusive to the World Cup.
There are obviously things to improve but the game and experience for people watching and attending was pretty amazing. Leaving in the US I ve had fantastic interactions with strangers everywhere for weeks.
If that’s what a “shit show” is I’m looking forward to more ha ha
Coaches get in the face of the officials already anyway. This just gives the action a chance at being productive rather than an opportunity to get a red card.
Yes, this is based on the derided review system of Olympic Taekwondo. It's horrible in a fight sport but football is a ball game; somebody tell Paredes and Paraguay please.