order hcg nolvadex nolvadex buy buy nolvadex nolvadex buy order nolvadex buying nolvadex purchase nolvadex order hcg nolvadex buy nolvadex estrogen blocker buy nolvadex online nolvadex 20 mg dose nolvadex without prescription nolvadex 20 mg scored nolvadex guarantee delivery nolvadex no prescription how many mg are nolvadex tabs nolvadex guarantee delivery nolvadex 30 day supply price how many mg are nolvadex tabs nolvadex without prescription buy nolvadex estrogen blocker where to buy nolvadex and clomid research and buy nolvadex online nolvadex proviron no prescription do i need a prescription for nolvadex

Archive for category Premiership

HOW MUCH WILL HDTV AFFECT SOCCER IN AMERICA?

The image “http://www.crabrace.com/news_1.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.Bill Simmons, one of the most beloved messiahs of American sportswriting, is getting into soccer. I wish him the best, although I have a feeling he has no idea how big of a plunge he is about to take. His new attraction to the sport should make for an interesting experiment with fans of mainstream American sports. How many will he convert? How many will he betray? Also, choose your words carefully, Bill, because the already-converted American soccer fans are a tenacious bunch, like some territorial species of barnacle clinging to the charging hull of the American sports scene. We stick together, and a lot of us are corrosive bastards

Anyways, I’m intrigued by one of the reasons Simmons has repeated as responsible for his warming to the sport: HDTV. Really? Is it possible that HDTV will aid the breakthrough of the sport into the mainstream? That better definition flatters soccer more than other sports? HDTV makes anything better as far as I can tell, kind of like pot but without the neuroticism. I’m pretty sure I could watch crab races or tiddlywinks and be riveted. The subtle movements of joints, the colors, the grotesque detail. Antennae! Knuckles! ESPN looks poised to cash in on its HDTV capabilities. The Chelsea-Hull City game received a modest .2 rating, or over 150,000 viewers, on Saturday morning as a last minute addition to the TV schedule and without any advertising.

Maybe soccer does stand to gain more from this godly invention. It’s a game of subtleties. Stats tell you next to nothing. To appreciate the game you need to watch and watch closely. Only then will you be able to decide if a Drogba chip more delicate than a Phil Mickelson pitching wedge was intended as a shot or a cross. You’ll see if that grimacing player really got whacked on the ankle or if he’s just another player to add to your Pansy Hit List. I’ve always watched soccer games more like movies than sports. The game’s fluidity invites, even demands, attention. It’s a drama that unfolds in a coherent narrative, not piecemeal. This is why I’ve always liked watching soccer alone better than with friends – at least, if I actually want to watch a game. Maybe serious fans of any sport can relate. Sometimes you just want to be alone with your team or your idols. But soccer affects me this way regardless of who’s playing, regardless of who I’m with. It sucks me into its vortex. My eyes glaze over and I tune out my surroundings. My favorite people to watch games with all understand this. I don’t necessarily even call them my friends. I have “soccer friends” like one might have “drug friends”. And during a good game we’ll all slip into a gone-to-the-world daze like a group of junkies who just scored some grade A smack. We’ll talk when we regain consciousness at half-time.

As the late Stephen Wells often pointed out, American sports are built for distraction and excess, like some twisted metaphors for the country’s sensibility as a whole. On TV, their constant breaks – time outs, quarters, innings, two-minute warnings – exist as ideal vehicles for commercials. Live, they provide gaps that need cream-puff fillers – fired objects, giveaways, shaking tits and furry butts. This is something foreign friends always notice when they attend any American sporting event. “They spend so much time not playing the game,” a Hungarian friend once said at a basketball game. “I get it. You just come to baseball games to eat,” a kiwi said. I don’t mean all this to diss American sports. Actually, I guess I do, but I still like them, just for very different reasons than I like soccer. They are different forms of narrative. In most American sports, for example, excitement usually builds in segments, ratcheted up between commercial breaks like cliff-hangers on prime time television. I like that about them. You can get ragingly drunk and still know exactly what’s going on. Pay attention now! the TV or the jumbotron tells me. This is why they’re so sociable. I like going to baseball games so because they provide a chance to talk. At any given game, you’ll have over two hours of bull-shitting time. At any half decent soccer game, I’ll pee in my beer cup before I venture to the bathroom to miss ten minutes of a half.

The first weekend of the Premier League reminded me of all this – mostly in the way I remembered how much I liked watching uninterrupted soccer. Good soccer. I watched the Liverpool-Tottenham match at my dingy local Irish pub, where I sometimes brave the smell of piss-and-vinegar-soaked-wood on Sunday mornings to have breakfast and crank the volume of the flatscreen in the backroom. I was so consumed by the game that I didn’t want to look down to size up a bite of my egg-piled English muffin. I could manage only the coordination necessary to take intermittent sips of stale coffee. This is just right, I thought. Sharp angles and deft turns stitched my heart to my mind. My coffee tasted better than it should have. An ocean of green swelled and contracted with the quiet heaves of my chest.

And I’m pretty sure that this game, on Fox Soccer Channel, wasn’t even in HD (as Fox has yet to roll out their HD option). If it was, I might have cried. OK, that’s an exaggeration. But, in such a harmonious moment, I might have at least sworn off American football.◊

, , , , , , , ,

2 Comments

HOLY CRAP, HAS ANYONE ELSE NOTICED WHAT MANCHESTER CITY IS DOING?

Manchester City is like a black hole that has opened up in the fabric of the Premier League. Sucking mass, masses of expensive players and media attention, it leaves many fans unsure about how to approach the club’s awakening and limitless powers. Some laugh. Some wince. Most shake their heads, confused and afraid, especially those millions of fans of any of the now comparatively-less-rich Big Four, which constitute most of the Premier League fans here in America and elsewhere outside England. This is understandable. Manchester City’s profligate spending has driven up transfer prices, undermined other teams’ prized resources, and presented a serious threat to the Big Four’s establishment and their lock on Champions League places.

http://www.thespoiler.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cityaway.jpg

However grotesque City’s expenditures seem, I say come with them! Pour on the gravy and turn up the heat! Or something like that. Modern soccer welcomes lavish spending to create a better and more attractive product. And City is relishing the chance to revolutionize a club overnight. Whatever their history, teams that spend more succeed more, with very few exceptions. This gets truer and grosser every year. Although soccer is a team sport, it is also as pure a “players’ sport” as exists. Put the best players on the field, you win. At least, I’ve always thought so.

City is gleefully testing this “theory”, as Chelsea did a few years ago, before a few years of success ingratiated that club into the Established Order. Unlike Chelsea, however, City’s is playing with capital as liquid as oil – a very real Arabian cave of treasure that isn’t tied up in business ventures or stocks. And City’s owners are making a messier and more offensive storm than Chelsea ever did. They even had the gall to try to buy-out the Blues’ loyal captain, John Terry. They offered apparently blank checks to Kaka and Ronaldo amongst others. And I don’t blame the Al-Nahyan royal family or the club for doing so. The owners are taking full advantage of the league’s (or more generally European soccer’s) lax and negligent financial policing.

City’s unchecked injection of play money should continue a few of the league’s trends. It should continue to increase the quality of the league at its highest stratosphere, amassing talent that will ensure high-level competition and entertainment that will pay off via its worldwide popularity and increasing value. At the same time, however, it should continue to bloat the already warped financial structure of the league, further separating rich and successful clubs from the bottom feeders, the poorer clubs whose best resources get pillaged and ransacked to feed towering predators.

While it’s easy to ignore the dangers of such a naturally competitive marketplace, as long as angelic billionaires or conglomerates of millionaires continue to foot the bill for their creations, the league has seen increasing concern with teams’ financial instability. Because so many clubs need to operate at losses to succeed or even compete, not living within their means but requiring what Arsene Wenger calls “financial doping”, their financial footing appears increasingly suspect. What happens when the “doping-agent” dries up, or when the club can’t find another sugar daddy to buy, to continue to push the absurd cycle? These have become very real concerns for a few clubs while others remain naive in thinking that insolvency can’t happen to them.

So how long can this last? I don’t know, and that’s for brighter economic minds than mine to figure out. I’m just hoping that City’s absurd spending, which clearly functions as the most effective and easy path to success, will prompt more debates about the league’s financial stability vs. its competitive stability. And hopefully financial reform will follow. It promises to be a complex and painful process, but it is a necessary one if we truly want more than the same richest few teams to have a shot at winning anything.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Football/Pix/pictures/2009/8/15/1250349675618/Emmanuel-Adebayor-scores--001.jpg

In the meantime, I’m not the only one curious about how messy City’s twisted project will get on the field. Some are already predicting a debacle, laughing at City’s illogical and unsystematic acquisitions. I’m not. I’m impressed that City snatched the caliber of players it did – a few world-class misfits and a few stalwart players who pledged their loyalties elsewhere until … wait, so I could like buy a Bentley and a Burnley? I’m also rooting for the backwards way City built a team, from front to back. This flouts most conservative conventional soccer wisdom, which relies on the tired cliché that defense wins championships. Of course, City’s coach Mark Hughes has admitted that he still wants another world-class central defender like Everton’s Jolian Lescott, and he still might get one. But right now he’s got such a surplus of attacking talent that he’s loaning startlet strikers like Jo and Daniel Sturridge to his competitors, Everton and Chelsea. How the hell is he going to make room for Emmanuel Adebayor, Carlos Tevez, Roque Santa Cruz, Robinho, and Craig Bellamy? Not to mention Martin Petrov and Sean Wright Phillips and Steven Ireland, arguably City’s best player for the last two seasons.

Such a top-heavy team needs streamlining to wield itself effectively against the organized defenses of the top four. But even if applied with childish whimsy, such a swirling mass of talent and goal scoring credentials should damage the best teams in the league. If applied with enough precision and restraint, then City has the firepower to crack the top four. But I’m just as curious to see if the arms race that Manchester City has amplified will prompt the sport’s governing bodies to make a more earnest effort to streamline financial structures and policies. Somehow I think this is less likely. So lets all appreciate the chance we have to watch money burn in all its sparkling and time-searing glory … ◊

The image “http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9zPqMjUdSDY/R5uS5pgFeAI/AAAAAAAAC38/IIJuhNdP82A/s400/back_hole.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

, , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

THE GROWTH OF ^EUROPEAN^ SOCCER IN THE U.S.

And Why It’s Probably OK

Ah, summer soccer in America. When we can finally kick back, crack an ice cold Miller Lite, and take in some of that industrious Major League Soccer all of these scallywags have been talking about … oh you’ve got Stella? Wait, Barca’s playing? Maybe next year….

http://photos2.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/9/a/1/0/highres_8799440.jpeg

In a lot of ways, foreign club tours of America have exposed just how secondary MLS’s secondary status is – even in its home country – compared to foreign soccer. To accommodate big-market European teams, MLS clubs rearrange their schedules and literally roll out lush grass carpets at the feet of foreign royalty. Small tribes of MLS fans stomp their feet and thunder sticks in frustration while fans pack one American stadium after another to drool over the likes of Inter Milan, AC Milan, and Chelsea. While MLS attendance stagnates. While television ratings even drop.

Some MLS fans, like Kartik Krishnaiyer over at MLS Talk, get pretty pissed about all this. Here’s a chunk of a recent diatribe:

Fans of the beautiful game believe anything that happens to have an American flavor is somehow tainted, even though many of them have not given the American game a real opportunity. People claim to support the game but yet turn their backs on their own domestic leagues and national team without really ever really developing knowledge about them.

We hear “fans” bash CONCACAF and the quality of the opposing national teams when they have not taken the time to watch Panama, Honduras or Jamaica play. Their judgments are not independent but reflect a peer pressure from “educated” fans of the game and certain elements of the press as well as American based bloggers who ignore the domestic game.

I do not fault ESPN for showing these games. They have learned through the hard knocks of MLS’ absolutely pitiful TV ratings, as well as a decline in USMNT TV ratings over the past several years (until the Confederations Cup, of course) that European football sells in the US. But I do fault those “fans” that seem oblivious to the game in this country acting as if the next few weeks are the greatest in football for this country. Those “fans” are among what is holding the game back here in the United States.

I want to give Kartik and all like-thinking MLS fans a big hug. I feel their pain. I understand the frustration and even anger Krishnaiyer feels toward Europhile American fans who look down their toffee-smeared noses at American soccer. I understand wanting to shake the glassy-eyed twinkle out of the eyes of casual fans who don’t realize that they could watch MLS or USL teams outside their back door.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/28/56594779_175bcc626c.jpg?v=0

But I don’t really understand the way some hard-core MLS fans have framed a battle between true American soccer fans and pretenders. Can someone explain to me how more exposure to the game, especially such a high quality brand of soccer, is bad? Should we stop importing foreign beer because it’s better and undermines our domestic product? And should we blame those who want to pay to drink it.

Importing a refined foreign product should help American soccer fans, of which MLS fans represent only a small subset, continue to develop a realistic comparison to their domestic product. It should help erode the snobbery and ignorance of American fans, or at least it will as long as American soccer continues to close the gap that separates it from Europe (another touchy subject that I won’t get into right now). Fans will see Seattle play a fiery and even game with Chelsea for 90 minutes, despite losing 2-0. They will watch MLS games held as part of double-headers after Barcelona and Milan games. And some on the cuff will be converted when they realize, yeah, American soccer is bad, but you know what it’s not that bad goddammit, or at least not bad enough to ignore. They will think, it’s kind of like American beer – cheaper, grittier, and a lot less pretentious. Then again, you’re probably right Kartik. A lot of American fans need a slap in the face.

Is Soccer the New Poker?

This isn’t necessarily a new era for American soccer. But it does seem like a new era of marketing and exposure for soccer, mostly foreign soccer, in the U.S.. Although America has accommodated foreign clubs for centuries, we’re seeing foreign clubs exhibited and marketed like never before.

http://www.guntheranderson.com/cards/apr97/emanjs1.gif

I grew up watching as much scrambled soccer as porn on television. Kids these days have it easy. Both porn and soccer are readily accessible. ESPN and Fox continue to increase their soccer coverage – mostly of the foreign game. They’re not dumb. Demand exists, and it exists because these leagues are the tits.

For this reason, EPL teams will probably become household names before domestic teams do. It’s already happening. Teenagers bounce out of bed to watch Chelsea games. College kids pass out with a Fabregas through ball sliding its way into their dreams. MLS fans need to accept this no matter how much it hurts. More European soccer won’t necessarily help MLS attendance or TV ratings. It might even hurt our domestic game’s ratings. Like, I won’t be the only one watching Tottenham vs. Portsmouth on Saturdays instead of Dallas vs. D.C. United. But this is how the game will grow here in the long term, with impressionable youngsters emulating swarthy icons with slippery last names. These icons might be a little more flamboyant with prettier hair than the ones we’re used to, but they’ll have to do in the absence of any truly magnetizing magicians in the U.S. Sorry Beckham.

While we wait for them, our domestic game will grow, slowly. And we will send our best players to Europe. And we will bring European players here to go to seed. And we will watch MLS during halftime of replays of Premier League games. And we will grow toward a foreign sun. Meanwhile, the home roots of the game continue to squirm beneath us, live and hungry and waiting to recognize their turn.◊

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

5 Comments

WHEN DO THE HEADS START EATING EACHOTHER?

When More Billionaires Own More Teams

The image “http://www.liv.ac.uk/science_eng_images/psychology/ccir/Hydra01.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

I view billionaires from kind of the same curious perspective I view species of mysterious origin and function, like tapir or rare slime molds. I have lots of questions: How did they get there? And what do they do? If I see one, will I know it? Generally, these questions don’t have easy answers.

A few billionaires grabbed headlines recently for buying complete control of English Premier League clubs. Real estate tycoon Dr. Sulaiman Al-Fahim bought out Portsmouth, and Texas investor Ellis Short bought Sunderland. I’d like to ask both of these fat cats lots of questions. More than questioning their history, I’d like to know why they wanted to buy a club. Why wouldn’t you is the obvious and appropriately pimp answer, but why? Do you like soccer? Is it really an investment? Is it a game? Is it because other billionaires are doing it? I want to know. Sadly, we never will. Rich men have too much at stake to be too transparent.

As we know professional players from the images that they project, so it is with owners. And these two magnates project very different public images. Ellis Short, well – in short – he doesn’t really have one. Try googling him. Last year, EPL Talk published an article entitled, “Who is Ellis Short?” that rehashes his bio on Wikipedia. After getting his start at General Electric, he made his billions through private equity and hedge funds etc. etc., the same way so many other Americans have minted fortunes that will never get truly revealed or investigated. Then he popped up sporadically in the news when his wife “threatened to have her gamekeeper shoot the dogs” belonging to a couple trespassing on the grounds of the hallowed Skibo castle, in Scotland, which the Short’s own. Essentially, though, Short is a ghost to the general public – flitting behind the pixels of stock tickers or around you on the ninth green of a course you only dream about.

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/skibo.jpg

Dr. Al-Fahim cultivates much more of a “personality,” as Jamie Jackson of The Guardian puts it. Bursting into the limelight last year, the Dr. brokered the deal that saw the Abu Dhabi investor group take over Manchester City. He followed this with comical pronouncements about prying Fernando Torres from Liverpool and Ronaldo away from Manchester United.

“Ronaldo has said he wants to play for the biggest club in the world, so we will see in January if he is serious,” he said, suggesting an appropriate fee of around $240m, a drop in the bucket for the financiers.

Al-Fahim is an interesting case. At 31, he appears a pretty much a self-made billionaire, although it’s hard to tell where the money came from that he started investing in property at “age 14 under his mother’s name,” as Wikipedia states. A child chess prodigy, he currently heads the UAE chess association. He also has his hands in some monumental projects. He is a high-profile ambassador of the Intergovernmental Institution for the Use of Micro-Algae Spirulina Against Malnutrition (IIMSAM), an organization working to end world malnutrition. He’s also as a big player in the construction of Al Reem island, an island off the coast of Abu Dhabi that “offers you the unique amalgamation of the ‘vibrancy of a chic, urban metropolitan’ and the ‘rejuvenating tranquil that only a secluded island can provide,’” says its website over music I imagine accompanies the city’s maternity wards. A “city within a city,” it’s the “perfect place to live, work, and relax.” Apparently the Dr. is dedicated equally to enhancing the lives of the poor and the rich, as long as it enhances his own reputation.

http://realestate.theemiratesnetwork.com/developments/abu_dhabi/images/al_reem_island.jpg

A la Donald Trump, the Dr. knows how to sell himself as equal parts goodwill and gangster. Like Trump, he has his own reality TV show, the Hydra Executives. An Arab spin-off of The Apprentice, the Dr. plays the Trump/God role – providing the contestants with tests of their business acumen to help him decide who gets fired. Despite the lower budget and production quality of this show vs. The Apprentice, the characters play for higher stakes. A British team of dimwits competes against an American team of douche bags until one winner earns a one-million-dollar-partnership with the Dr. in his new real estate venture, Hydra Properties, one of the “fastest growing real estate companies in the world.

I thought watching the Hydra Executives might give me a glimpse into Al-Fahim’s personality and the way he conducts business. But the Dr. remains a turbaned mystery for most of the show. The show does, however, reinforce his dual role as benevolent god and ruthless grim reaper. At the beginning of each episode he enters an airy boardroom, wearing a white headdress and a black headband, to give the contestants absurd missions. With deadpan gravity, he says, “You have to generate cash. You can do whatever you want to do as long as you’re using your vehicles. Americans you have the Denalis. British you have the Range Rovers. You have till tomorrow 5 pm. The team with the most cash wins.” After the characters bungle through the tasks and the Dr.’s associates determine the winner, the Dr. emerges from fogged darkness in a stretch limo to give the axe, or a pink slip, to one contestant.

http://www.hydraexecutives.com/images/teamThumbnails.jpg

Like most reality TV I’ve ever watched, this show revealed next to nothing about its supposed topic (the real estate business), depressed me about humanity, and made frustratingly little sense (see below, 1.). But although the Dr. might get some criticism for being a part of such garbage television or for acting like a poor man’s Donald Trump, his part in the show is still genius for the way he leverages the show as a marketing device. The Hydra Executives primarily functions to promote the dazzling resources and reach of Hydra Properties in the UAE, one of the richest real estate markets in the world. The Dr. has the contestants working for the company for free – creating ads and securing contracts, but mostly name-dropping the company and generating buzz in front of however many millions watch or hear about the show.

What does all this mean? The Premier League, arguably more than any other sports league in the world, serves increasingly as a fantastical battleground for modern world magnates. And as more individual billionaires – as opposed to conglomerates – grab complete ownership of more clubs, as more so-called “swinging dicks” go head to head in an arena that is becoming a bigger and bigger business, I imagine that the personal characteristics of these owners will play an increasing role in the success and direction of their teams. Business style and clout will come to the fore more than ever. It will become Ambramovich vs. Al-Fahim as much as Chelsea vs. Portsmouth. I’m not sure if such battles have the charge to overturn the balance of the league, but we appear to be approaching that point.

Another big question is this: What does success mean to these owners? Is it staying in the black? Or is it winning championships? Because in the cutthroat world of modern soccer you can’t do both. The league’s ruthlessly capitalistic structure doesn’t allow it. Clubs need to win to make money. But clubs can’t win without spending themselves into debt. Something has to give.

Notes
1). Here’s the premise of the second episode of Hydra Executives, as delivered by the Dr.: “Each team will have to create a 30 second TV commercial for Hydra. You must create the storyboard and you have to star in it. I’m going to give you 15 thousand for your expenses. And you have to complete your mission in two days. The team with the best commercial wins.”

Both teams immediately hire professional production companies, which seem to make the entire commercial, although the producers of “Hydra Executives” try their best to make it look like the contestants themselves maintain creative control. The British team calls in a bigger gun, a NY Film Academy director named John Sammon, to make their ad. This, I assume, is the same John Sammon listed in the credits as the “Producer” of the entire show. And at the end of the episode the British team unveils a commercial that looks suspiciously like the opening montage to the show itself. Maybe this is a brilliant budget-saving device by the producer. It’s also ridiculous; the contestants “hire” the producer of the show to make an “ad” for the show he’s already producing. The American team takes more creative control of their ad, produce a laughable one that involves a woman on the team walking into the sunset, lose to the British team, and then have their doucheiest member defend the ad by saying “sometimes art is hard for common people to understand.”◊

http://biology.unm.edu/ccouncil/Biology_203/Images/Protists/myxomycota.jpg

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Comments

BEFORE IT’S GONE

Maybe soccer games can never truly live up to their hype. The whirring factory of the sport won’t let that happen. Before a game with weeks of buildup can settle in our memory, we have more championships to follow, transfer rumors to process, and international competitions to prepare for. The momentum of the sport turns with the globe.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2130/1856617357_3b2de77c97_o.jpg

The Barcelona – Manchester United Champions League final, however, came as close as any to stopping the inertia, to folding the game in on itself. It wasn’t a great game. But it was an example of the game played to perfection. In its afterglow I considered not watching more soccer for the rest of the summer for fear of dulling this game’s impact. OK, I said the next day, for the rest of the week. Then I relapsed and watched a testy encounter between MLS conference leaders Chivas and Chicago. No harm done. Good game.

But I still have a strange need to preserve the final Barcelona performance in my mind. I want to tuck its intricate carapace under my pillow, to preserve it for myself and humanity.

As much as I hope that Barcelona’s success will revolutionize the way the game is played – by ushering in a freer, more dynamic, attacking brand of soccer – I know that this probably won’t happen. Teams like this don’t come around very often. They’re too fragile. You need all the right players.

Still, I wonder if Barcelona have given everyone else out there a style to emulate, the perfection of the sport to date. Did their artistry trump every national style so emphatically as to say, “This is it. Any questions?”

http://www.lastkick.com/wp-content/P_How_Soccer_Explains_the_World.jpg

In this age of globalization, it’s possible. This year’s Champions League final reached more homes than ever before. With double the worldwide viewership of the Super Bowl, it represents the number one annual sporting event in the world. In the U.S., ESPN’s broadcast reached over one million homes, over 30% more viewers than last year’s record breaking final. The sport grows every year. More of its magic pours into new realms of the globe. In this way, soccer acts as one of the great accelerators of globalization. This is a fact that makes even the title of Franklin Foer’s book, How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization, frustrating. Simply, soccer produces some of the most likely scenes of globalization anywhere. Kids around the world watch highlights of Messi and Nakamura while eating whatever type of cereal puffs their county produces. Clubs have foreign owners, foreign coaches, and players from ten different nations. Elite club teams send scouts to every continent.

But, as is part of Foer’s point, different countries treat soccer as part of the cultural glue that preserves and forms unique national identities. Here, Foer digs into some of the rich and politicizing pulp of the game. The sport informs society and society informs the sport. Nations use, and relate to, soccer in unique ways.

National leagues play with unique styles. I’m often amazed at how different La Liga can be stylistically from the Premiership and Serie A. But how long can this last? How long should it last when Barcelona hang an archetypal style like a starburst in the sky at which everyone else can gaze and wonder?

As everyone has already said, they play beautiful attacking soccer – maybe the most beautiful soccer I’ve ever seen. They feed on possession, starving the opposition of ball and opportunity. But it’s easy to forget about the defensive energy of this team. As playful as they often appear with the ball, they can also be frantic without it, as they were against Manchester United, swarming in bunches to blind Carrick and Anderson before they could even turn upfield. Experts will call such defense a tactic, and it is in that it was probably premeditated. But it’s more of a spirit. Barcelona run with the enthusiasm and instincts of a child playing tag. When “It” they chase the ball into corners, looking desperately to unload the burden, the embarrassment. Then they turn the ball over. And they’re free to breath and laugh again. Like Paul Gardner said in his recap of the game, “It was a pleasure, and a privilege, to watch Barcelona at work. By which I mean -Barcelona at play.”

I hope that in a world where everyone can hear and see the laughter that it might be contagious.◊

, , , ,

1 Comment

WHAT BARCELONA – CHELSEA MEANS

Language and Contradictions in The Beautiful Game

The Barcelona – Chelsea game tomorrow is one of monumental implications. It might affect our conceptions of the game’s aesthetics, morality, and function. Don’t believe me? Check out all the philosophizing, pontificating and aggrandizing going on about the game in columns, soccer-culture blogs, and chat rooms the world over. In every imaginable language, fans are quoting Shelley to Garcia Marquez to Galileo in desperate attempts to place this game within an appropriately abstract and meaningful context. However trifling or hyperbolic, though, the narrative of this debate touches the core of the contradictions that drive the Beautiful Game.

http://cs.astronomy.com/asycs/photos/sunandmoon/images/405287/500x333.aspx

Barcelona, a team steeped in vibrant Catalan culture and a history of stylish soccer, have understandably staked claim to an abstract moral high ground over Chelsea and the cowardly/negative tactics the Blues employed last week in the team’s first Champions League clash. As compared to the more mutable and calculating identity of Chelsea, Barcelona represent a heroic form of beauty. They cling to a form so pure that after the draw in the first leg many have questioned whether Barcelona falter by focusing more on achieving this ideal of the game than on the game’s purpose, ie. winning.

This notion has caused some serious discussion about the tensions between form and function central to the Beautiful Game. The main tension is this: As a competitive game, soccer functions via the one utilitarian goal of winning, but the game attracts us and resonates with us not because of results but because of its form. This can be true of any sport, but especially soccer for reasons that books have been written about. Brian Phillips probably hit the root of the matter when in a second post on the topic he said this: “The two words in the term ‘beautiful game’ are always struggling against each other in some ways, but they have to coexist. That’s why, for me, the necessary dream is to find a team that resolves the tension, that plays beautifully and coherently and defeats both the chaos of the game and all the studs-up, 10-men-behind-the-ball bullies who try to stop it.”

I think this is the dream for most of us (except maybe Chelsea fans and stubborn fans of the Premiership who, given circumstances, might not be able to admit it). We want a team’s function to grow out of its form, or vice versa. We want surreal and fluid soccer over calculated tactical positioning that stifles the organic nature of the game. This isn’t to say that defensive soccer cannot be beautiful, or that the tearing pace and sharp angles of the Premiership do not give it a form. But its form, both sleek and powerful, is somehow too real, too adaptable, too logical in the way it works to have the same kind of soul-lifting warmth as Barcelona’s. Barcelona plays like a dream. And us romantics want our dreams to bloom, to become more real. We want them to mean something. Right now, for those who pray to the lyrical Gods of the game, Barcelona represent a team on the trembling verge of a clarifying coherence between both form and function. For this reason, Barcelona’s season has taken on much more significance than results. They are playing for immortality, to uphold a form that fans might remember as it: the most beautiful soccer ever.

A team in the truest sense, this year’s Barcelona team plays a game so deft and connected that you don’t want to touch it. Their goals hang like dewy webs, too fragile and perfect and mysterious to replicate. Then you see another one, and another. They play whole games that hang together like the most illuminating prose of this, or any, language. As Phillips suggests, their artistry eschews the way most teams rely on, and adapt to, the game’s inherent elements of chaos and entropy. While big-money Premiership teams tend to employ negative defensive schemes, while they openly commit fouls to break up attacks, while they hammer the ball over-the-top to over-priced strikers in the hopes that one defensive mistake will change the game, Barcelona weave every stitch in time and space. They score despite perfect defenses. Not only do they control the game’s order, they create it.

Barcelona have scored a stunning number of goals this season by passing the ball into the net, as if they knew the result before it happened. They know where they want the ball to go and how to put it there, eventually and exactly. As Joao Jorge suggests in a recent response to Brian Phillips’ posts, Barcelona present “the possibility of truth in the random and chaotic world of a game.” I agree.

Jorge also suggests that Barcelona are “attempting to create a new paradigm of football. To create a dominant team from the front. Their success may force a rupture in the interpretation of the rules of success in football.” While I agree that in winning Barcelona might change the way we view success in modern soccer, the underlying force beneath such a change doesn’t represent anything new. It stems from an old faith in attacking soccer that not only deserves to re-emerge in the modern game, but needs to triumph for the game’s sanctity and progress. Soccer America’s Paul Gardner has been preaching such faith for a long time.

For the faithful, attacking with the right blend of touch, guile and pace produces at once both the most entertaining and effective version of the game. Jorge himself points to the way older Barcelona sides played inspired offensive styles. For example, see their 2006 team or the team in the 70’s led by Cruyff and Guardiola. There was also Arsenal earlier this decade, and the many incarnations of Brazilian and Dutch sides throughout the 60’s, 70’s and 90s. Some won. Some didn’t. These teams had flaws (not all of which were defensive, which I’ll attempt to address in a future post) but they all honorably strived for some immortal truth in union between form and function. Like all of us hopeless soccer-romantics, I hope Barcelona can win in a way that will help us more fully realize these truths. As Jorge suggests, although Barcelona are riding the wave of an old idea, they offer the possibility of changing the way we look at the game.

The only right way for Barcelona to achieve immortality would be to win. As Jorge suggests, “Barcelona is trapped in its own rhetoric of moral cause.” The truth behind their style is as important as winning; But you can’t achieve the first without the latter. This points back to the central paradox of the form/function relationship. As much as we pray the two work together, they can’t, in any perfect sense. This is because no matter how much Barcelona illuminates the game, no truth can overthrow the game’s fundamental entropic nature, the element of chance that ultimately determines wins and losses, the flawed and contradictory black and white terms that give the game definition and weight. In this sense, soccer creates a paradox much like the paradox of language that so many postmodernist authors point to. Soccer, caught in reflexive web similar to language itself, allows us to create order and beauty and even truth out of chaos – if only for fleeting moments. But such order can never transcend the laws of the game. Rather, it depends on the game, the rules and chaos it provides and allows, to mean anything. Truth means nothing without nothingness.

I’m not calling Chelsea evil or the equivalent of the Dark Side or anything. Their winning just means a less beautiful future, even if we can never know this future’s meaning.◊

The image “http://www.optcorp.com/images2/articles/full-moon.gif” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Afterthoughts

Maybe each league, each team, is a different form of language. As Brian Phillips suggests, Barcelona could easily represent some effusive romantic poetry. Like Shelley or Keats, they are at once visual and sensual and mysterious. If this is true, then what are the Big Four Premiership teams? Against the gushing narrative of Barcelona’s intricate passing game, they appear more results-driven and fractured modern art forms, whether visual or literary. Maybe Liverpool are the blockbuster movie of a bloodied heroine down but never out, guns taped behind its sweaty back. Chelsea are the serial TV drama, with a revolving cast of actors and writers and interweaving plotlines. They will stoop to any level for ratings, as long as they deliver enough juicy drama to make us believe in the promise of more. Manchester United are somehow the Avant Garde flick that succeeded in the box office, a Coen Brothers film, safe form the snobby criticism of the other two, more powerful in effect but possibly no more brilliant. Or maybe each of these teams has a counterpart in modern literature and I’ll have to do some soul searching to see if Cormac McCarthy really writes most like United play.

All I know is that watching Chelsea refuse to play against Barcelona in the first leg was like trying to read poetry in a movie theatre, through blinding strobes of explosions while buttered popcorn and Coke spilled onto the pages. It was like trying to complete a word jumble for a non-existent word. It was like looking at stars from underwater. It made me wonder: is hoping for Barcelona to win like hoping younger generations of children retain a love for reading, for the playful but deeper truths of words? Or is this over-dramatic and absurd? Hopefully, I’ve ballooned the meaning of this game too far out of proportion and reality for anyone to say anything else of any meaning.

It’s fucking huge.

I could probably explain all this a little better. For those interested, Brian Phillips’ posts on these matters are pretty damn illuminating. And Don Delillo wrote a twisted book largely about the above topic called End Zone, except it uses American Football, instead of soccer, as a vehicle to explore the paradoxes of language and a whole lot of other apocalyptic and ascetic and head-bending shit.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

3 Comments

+/- : SLIVERS OF SENSE IN STUPID STATS

Does Tevez Have the Best Plus-Minus in the Game?

Plus-minus differential has long functioned as one of hockey’s central statistics. Over the last two years, the stat has gathered momentum in the NBA to help measure an individual’s contribution to team performance beyond worn numbers like points and rebounds.

In soccer, the statistic is understandably ignored. Too many players working together on the field produce too few goals to statistically isolate one player’s contribution to team success. Except, that is, when you’re looking at Carlos Tevez.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/12_01/tevez0812MSBPI_468x679.jpg

Without the facts to back it up, I’m willing to bet that Tevez has the best plus-minus differential in the Premiership this season. Of course, playing for United automatically gives any player a good plus-minus, as United have the second best goal-differential in the league. But Tevez’ hand in that number, both as a starter and substitute, cannot be denied. If I had more time and better resources I would prove that, proportionally, he has contributed to it more than anyone.

Against Tottenham on Saturday, Sir Alex Ferguson made one change at halftime, down 2-0 at home. He brought on Tevez for Nani. United then scored five goals in 22 minutes. Although not always present in the highlight-clips of those goals, Tevez’ presence impacted almost all of them. His defensive pressure repeatedly forced Tottenham to turn the ball over. He sparked the counter-attacks that Rooney and Ronaldo finished.

His productivity is undeniable, and leaves me scrapping for a way to statistically prove it. Working with the most rudimentary stats available on soccernet.com, I came up with this: United is 15-2-2 in the Premiership this season when Tevez plays over 45 minutes (9-3-3 when he doesn’t). If you think such performance doesn’t deviate enough from how United performed without Tevez to mean much, then consider that those two losses both came to Liverpool, games in which Tevez still produced. Tevez scored the lone United goal in September’s 2-1 loss. And he set up United’s opening goal in the recent 4-1 loss (a score line that didn’t reflect the closeness of the match) with an incisive ball to Park Ji Sun that drew a penalty.

Given his goals-per-minute played (my intern is looking into this), and his stunning shot percentage, Tevez appears one of the most efficient players in the game – along with teammate Rooney, Messi, and a few strikers who see far less of the ball. Playing limited minutes, and openly frustrated by it, Tevez has still amassed 14 goals in all competitions this year. He scored these goals on 112 shots. Last season, he started 31 Premiership games and grabbed 14 goals and 7 assists on 92 shots. Compare these numbers to the 318 shots that Ronaldo has needed this year to get 31 goals, or the 324 that Ronaldo took in 2006/07 to bag 26. I’m not saying Tevez has been more productive than Ronaldo, as looking at shots vs. goals gives a limited and misguiding picture of a player’s productivity, but such numbers make you wonder what Tevez could do with more playing time, and more scoring opportunities.

His goals haven’t come in garbage games either. He has played a crucial role in United’s quest for the quintuple (now quadruple) this season. His four goals single-handedly crushed Blackburn in the Carling Cup. He scored two goals en route to a 4-0 win over Fulham in the FA Cup Quarterfinals. Among a few crucial Champions League goals, he scored a decisive goal in the first leg against Porto, immediately after coming off the bench.

Can plus-minus be a telling statistic in soccer? Haven’t people tried this, and where can I find it? Which other players have the best plus-minus scores in the game or on their team? Mascherano? Fabregas? Ferdinand?◊

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3368/3178999525_ffaee6e0c2.jpg

, , , , , , ,

1 Comment

RONALDO VS. FABREGAS AND THE FORCES OF CHANGE

Placing Ronaldo and Fabregas Within the Evolutionary Trajectory of Soccer

Cristiano Ronaldo, 24, and Cesc Fabregas, 21, are emblematic of modern soccer. Barely on the backside of puberty, the two have become indispensable players on two of the biggest clubs in the world. They share boyish good looks and European-underwear-model hairdos. Despite their similarities, however, these two wunderkinds have evolved in very different ways. Together, their examples will change the sport.

The image “http://www.soundoffcolumn.com/images/cristiano-ronaldo-3-31-08.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

When Ronaldo entered the public eye he was the cock-sure, crybaby prince— Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator—who we, at least at first, loved to hate. He came on the scene as if everybody—referees, players and fans—owed him something they weren’t giving. He would sell straw-legged flops with a pout and wet eyes. He bickered with veteran teammates about taking free kicks. He played with a reckless disregard for fundamental soccer and the benefit of his team to show off his twinkle-toed feet and You-Tube-ready tricks.

Seething in front of televisions, I used to count his turnovers in the defensive third, wanting to get on the field just so I could break his toothpick-sized legs. I predicted that United would dump him after two seasons of painfully inefficient football. I would have.

Thank god I’m not a manager. Sir Alex Ferguson showed consummate faith in the talent, and there has never been an athlete on this planet about whom I have more resolutely changed my opinion. Besides becoming arguably the best player in the world, Ronaldo has even begun to shed his abrasive, crybaby demeanor. Taking cues from Rooney, he chases on the defensive end, even tackling once in a while. He wins headers over center backs twice his girth. He makes smart and incisive passes. And despite all the harsh tackles aimed his way, he has established himself as a relentless and surprisingly durable force.

Now everybody does owe him something, and he plays as if he always knew it, a smile-cracked pout when a defender commits a foul to prevent him from skipping to goal. None of the other superstars on his team ask questions when he lines up for spot kicks, which he snaps toward net with some freakish combination of swerve and knuckle.

During the 1998 World Cup, Adidas ran an ad in which a tour guide led the way through a future fictional player’s back yard. The guide said something like: “And this is where he perfected his revolutionary kick, the double helix.” Maybe it’s the modern balls, but Ronaldo has proved that Impossible is, indeed, nothing. In a Champions League game against Sporting Portugal last season, he scored the clinching goal with a free kick that looked as if two separate magnetic forces guided the ball, which spiraled into bottom corner of the net.

Instead of turning his moves down to make them more manageable, Ronaldo has learned to use them effectively, absorbing them into a repertoire of technical brilliance. He has made routine what were once once eye-catching tricks like back-heel through balls, behind-the-leg crosses, and behind-the-leg direction changes. They are no longer disgusting or ineffective displays of pomp. They beguile. They slice defenses apart. And kids around the world try to emulate them.

Ronaldo, like no other player in the modern game, has raised the bar of possibility. Where as a player like Ronaldinho showcases skills that those with good touch, passion, and enough time can grasp, Ronaldo’s warp-speed moves come from a more supernatural realm, where time and space have different properties than we are used to. It’s as if he’s transferred all elements of personality, some of which might have even been endearing, to the shimmering gloss of his technical makeup. As vacuous as he may be, Ronaldo suggests that in the modern game personality only slows you down. Sports evolve by getting faster, and Ronaldo has upped the anti. A hummingbird that knows no stasis, he darts sideways and then back to the same spot in a blink, vibrating above the context of a game, irrespective of the rooted defenders and teammates surrounding him.

Ronaldo also possesses a quality crucial to both his own evolution and that of the game; he is hungry. Over the past few years his facial expression during games has changed from a wet-eyed adolescent looking for pity to a moist-eyed, near-adult who knows he doesn’t need it. Maybe it’s his long-necked complexion, which brings to mind a fledgling gawking for food, but Ronaldo looks famished compared to other superstars. He doesn’t simply want the ball; he needs it for his team to win. This hunger clashes with the complacency that other superstars like Ronaldinho have slipped into over the years. While Ronaldinho’s carefree attitude may add to his magical appeal, it also makes us believe that he could do more.

Maybe Ronaldo’s transformation came as much from circumstance as from within, from playing under Sir Alex Ferguson in the Premiership, a league that doesn’t forgive complacency. The league’s relentless expectations have forced him to constantly bring his best and to keep improving. The league’s physicality forced him to develop armor. And the league’s pace made him even faster. Also, Sir Alex Ferguson has provided Ronaldo the magic combination of guidance and freedom. Ferguson has prompted Ronaldo to be more intelligent and conservative in his own half. At the same time, Ronaldo gets more artistic license on the attack than anyone in the game. Good idea. He teleports around the field, free to exploit weak points in an opponent’s defense. As a result, he took the scoring title in Premiership last year, as a wing midfielder, by an absurd margin. This year he has more quietly topped the table again.

Messi serves as the most apt counterpart to Ronaldo in the modern game. Another mutant, Messi possesses similarly freakish speed. He plays a similar position. And compared to Ronaldo’s dives and flashy moves, Messi shrugs off challenges while using simple, efficient jukes, and an innate understanding of the game.

But Fabregas counters Ronaldo on a larger, more ecological, scale. The opposite of a freak, Fabregas has no stunning athletic abilities. He is one of the most unassuming players in the game. While Ronaldo conjures some pomp bird splaying blinding feathers, as Brian Phillips suggests in his portrait of the winger in The Run of Play, Fabregas might conjure a kind of spirit-organism instead of simply an animal. A mushroom, or the fruiting body of some highly intricate subterraneous mycelial network, Fabregas seems more essential to the life of his team than any higher-order animal. He recycles errant possessions, keeps attacks alive, and gives them the nutrients to bloom. Highly sensitive to the requirements of everyone around him, Fabregas binds every element of his team together: backs to strikers, wings to wings, past to future, nothing to life.

http://www.kimicontrol.com/microorg/epidermophyton_mycelium_piede_datleta.jpg

Good central midfielders do this. But Fabregas plays with a sort of contradictory brilliance, somehow all the more brilliant for the way he deflects attention. Instead of soaking up the spotlight when he has the ball, he deflects it in a way that forces us to pull the spotlight back, to uncover light and a connectedness of movement and understanding that we didn’t see before. While appearing every bit the pretty boy as Ronaldo, while probably wreaking just as much of gelled hair and cologne up close, he plays with a modesty that makes irrelevant any highlight reals or snap shots of his game. The fluidity of his game makes it more significant than the the sum of its parts. He makes complex plays look easy, with a smoothness that makes them mundane, as natural to his being as blinking, or pumping blood. He links these plays together, one by one throughout the course of a game, until we see the larger picture and purpose of his work and his team. In this way, he connects Arsenal and their fans as one body, as one collective consciousness of their beautiful purpose.

To appreciate Fabregas, you also need to see the context in which he plays, how he reads and pushes the narrative of any game, how he controls the ebb and flow of all the players around him. The cornerstone of Wenger’s offense, he makes Arsenal’s gears hum with a cool, measured efficiency that he holds the levers to. He links quick passes to diffuse pressure. He uses a deft first touch to evade a defender and switch the field. He slips perfectly weighted balls behind a back line. His own game has a million predecessors. And as professor Wenger’s understudy, he will test the limits of its’ perfection.

Fabregas, like history itself, is all context – the opposite of Ronaldo, whose game functions as a sum of unrelated clips. Ronaldo is one sparkling pop single after another; Fabregas is an album that reinvents itself over time. In this way watching Fabregas is somehow so much more edifying than watching Ronaldo do the impossible. Fabregas helps us better understand the game – its’ roots and its’ future – the way its’ relentless simplicity belies its’ indecipherable complexity.

As with Ronaldo, Fabregas’ accelerated development could only have come in the Premiership. He has said so himself. If Fabregas chose to stay with the Barcelona youth team, where he trained alongside Messi in the midfield, he would have had to wait his turn behind a pecking order of talented central midfielders: Deco, Xavi, Iniesta, Motta. At Arsenal, Wenger threw Fabregas into the fire. As a result, at 18 Fabregas was a man-child, one of the most consistent players in the game.

The image “http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00383/Cesc_Fabregas_383809a.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Unlike Ronaldo, Fabregas doesn’t get embroiled in clashes with opponents, referees, or fans. He doesn’t show a self-conscious awareness of the dozens of television cameras idolizing his every step. For Ronaldo, like many other players, maybe the fracases with referees and the winks toward cameras serve as evidence of caring too much. But Fabregas’ isolation from these external distractions reaffirms his Zen-like focus on himself and his place within a larger schema. When he scored the 25-yard clincher against A.C. Milan at the San Siro last year he didn’t taunt the fans or dance around the pitch. He ran over to hug his coach.

While Ronaldo might represent the game’s biggest evolutionary jump, providing new laws that require time to test properly, Fabregas reminds us all how the game can and will remain tied to the past, how it depends on the same beautiful laws it always has to move forward. If only we could crossbreed the two. Or maybe we already have, and we call him Messi…◊

, , ,

2 Comments

6 + 5 AND THE CELLING OF THE HIVE

Why FIFA’s 6 + 5 Rule Represents The Wrong Fight Against the Globalization of the World’s Most Global Sport

FIFA’s proposed 6 + 5 rule is supposedly gaining traction. The law would require club teams to start a minimum of six players eligible for the national team of the country in which they play. This would affect the way the world sees, plays, and relates to the game – in a scary, and undetermined, way.

The image “http://blogs.sun.com/theplanetarium/resource/bee_hive_spl470_470x303.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

The guiding principles of the 6 + 5 rule puncture some of the softer spots in my already gooey emotional attachment to soccer. In theory, the 6+ 5 rule serves to improve the financial and competitive equality of club teams while protecting the national identity of those teams, and by association the identity of the national teams they feed. This sounds good. But the proposal doesn’t suggest a sensitive or realistic understanding of its own implications. Beneath FIFA’s ideal portrait of improved “equality” and “competition” lie vast questions about the proposal’s economic, moral, and cultural shortcomings. As FIFA and the European Union work out the crucial details and lawfulness of this proposal, maybe the argument will become more clear and convincing. Right now, it isn’t either, in principle or possible affect.

The 6 + 5 rule would shackle the international marketplace of soccer by design. I doubt that placing such limitations on the marketplace will produce any more financial equality than the current capitalistic system of club management. How will requiring club teams to field a certain number of homegrown players force the managers of these clubs to make more frugal investments in players? Won’t the biggest and richest clubs still buy whichever players they want? Without implementing spending caps or more economic-driven incentives, FIFA seems powerless to change the deep-rooted financial inequalities of clubs. As opposed to making more frugal expenditures, big clubs will pay inflated prices for homegrown talent. Market inefficiencies will balloon. More than fans or bottom table club teams, the big winners will be vastly overpaid English players – the Michael Owens and Darren Bents – who will benefit from their noble birthplace and bidding wars that make me sick even imagining.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41204000/jpg/_41204933_owen2_pa300.jpg

Blatter seems to have his heart in the right place. He wants clubs to focus their resources inwards, on what should be the roots of their success, on developing players and national identity instead of on buying the best available talent. Overtime, this might produce more parity in domestic leagues, as more clubs develop and keep better domestic players. But how will this work when the roots of any club’s success are so clearly tied to capital? To change the roots of success, FIFA will need to change the form, or the rules, of club’s development systems. So I wonder: in addition to the 6 + 5 rule will FIFA need to include additional stipulations that wed players more completely to the clubs whose development academies they train under? Will the richest clubs start vying for national talents at younger and younger ages? Will clubs need to start signing players before grade school to best protect their assets? I worry about the gross culture of speculation and ownership such policies might accelerate.

I’m not saying that the current capitalist player-market is without its own gross inefficiencies. Inequalities in spending cash produce reckless, imprudent investments. The war-chest-sized budgets possessed by clubs like Chelsea and Manchester City have caused salaries to balloon worldwide. And that these clubs operate at losses causes concern about the economic stability of the marketplace they are producing.

There are other ways that FIFA might encourage clubs to spend more prudently and equally that don’t involve limiting players’ mobility. American policies like salary caps and revenue sharing, ironic in their anti-capitalist purpose, come to mind. Another innovative policy I’ve seen thrown around in forums is that of a “Deficit-Free Incentive,” which would reward clubs financially for prudent spending and staying in the black. For these policies to work, however, multiple different teams and leagues with vastly different budgets would need to accept the same stipulations – an unlikely event. Also, more budget-equalizing policies would loosen the stranglehold that the richest teams have on European and domestic titles. While FIFA representatives suggest they want this, proposing the 6 + 5 rule as evidence, I’m not so sure they mean it. The 6 + 5 rule might create more parity, over the long term and only with additional stipulations that castrate clubs’ spending power, or it might not. Also, losing the biggest teams from the Champions League would mean revenue losses from those teams, and therefore losses for FIFA, which depends on the cash-generating powers of those teams.

http://fc02.deviantart.com/fs9/i/2006/044/8/a/Andean_futbol_by_lethe06.jpg

The main argument for the 6 + 5 rule seems an emotional or moral one rather than an economic one. As Blatter suggests, the proposal would give identity and autonomy back to nation’s players and fans. Or, as Jose Mourinho says in a recent ESPN interview: “The world is global. Football is global. We cannot be too much concerned about nationalities, but I think the clubs, they must invest in their formation, in players made in the club, made in the country. I think this is also about the empathy between the team and the fans.” Mourinho, ever-political, saying nothing while saying everything, adroitly points to the tenuous balance that the proposal tries to strike between the necessity of national identity and the centrifugal forces of global appeal. Investing in national players and styles would help preserve the unique and beautiful cultures of the game. If more local players played for local teams, then local fans would feel more connected to their club and their homegrown players. At the same time, however, focusing on national culture leaves clubs disconnected from the real, world-wide marketplace.

This recalls the “Eat Local” Food movement, except it deals with humans and not vegetables. This is the problem. The nationalism that the law promotes inevitably produces an inequality of opportunity, a value that lies at the heart of the democratic world. As Brian Phillips points out in his brilliant blog, The Run of Play, the 6 + 5 rule would prevent an African or Asian player from getting the same “money, fame, and glory” as a less-talented European player simply by an “accident of birth.”

There’s also a major aesthetic argument against 6 + 5, and this is that it would immediately decrease the quality of the game at the highest level. The best clubs in the world have pooled the best talent money can buy. This talent, gelling and flowing together, produces mesmerizing soccer. The Big Four all play it on their day. And Barcelona, at least right now, plays it almost every time they step on the field. Sabotaging the talent pool’s of major clubs would lower the pinnacle of play, at least in the short term. How could FIFA divest world eyes of the highest quality game once these eyes have already seen such angelic purity of form? Is such brilliance really wrong?

The argument for lessening clubs’ talent in the short term relies on the theory that national talent will increase in the long term. Blatter suggests that redistributing the most talented players back to the clubs of their home nations will benefit the level of competition in these nations, which will produce more good players. I’m not so sure. This might be true in nations with weaker domestic leagues. But at the highest level, maintaining competition requires gathering world talent. If a nation’s best are competing against more of the nation’s best, instead of against the world’s best, how is this good for competition, and for the overall evolution of the game?

Blatter is right to point to the fading identities of clubs and national teams. This has been happening for a while. Arsenal, for example, plays with style that rejects longtime English directness and aerial attacks. They have only a few English players on their roster. They have many more fans outside of England than inside. In a way, this is sad. One of the aspects of soccer I enjoy most is the way it informs, and is informed by, national cultures. Different nations play with different styles – they identify to soccer differently.

http://www.imagesofanthropology.com/images/soccer_town_of_Urubamba_Andes_Mts_Peru_copy.jpg

But I question if preserving national identity and cultural autonomy is possible in such a globalized sport. One could make a strong argument that soccer serves as one of the most globalizing forces in the world, right behind the internet itself. More than any other game on earth, soccer causes cultures to collide and interweave. It accelerates diversity and erodes national barriers to communication. For most of us, soccer has made us more aware of foreign cultures, languages, and peoples. Such awareness, placed in global context, makes us more sensitive to our own individual and cultural identity.

I fear that a law that functions to preserve nationalism indirectly, by placing strictures on players’ international mobility, stunts the game’s power to connect us all. Preserving national identity is important, but FIFA needs to rework its policy so that it more positively affects the roots of the game, more directly affects financial and competitive equality. As it stands, the proposed 6 + 5 rule would do more harm to the global game than good for any national one.◊

, , , , , , , , , ,

2 Comments

SOCCER ANALYTICS: ADDICTIVE AS JUNK AND ABOUT AS USEFUL

Why The Guardian’s New Football Analytics Tool Doesn’t Mean Much, Yet.

Man, technology moves too fast for our own good. I thought we were years away from this, but here it is – real time (almost) analytics of Premiership games. The Guardian Online has unleashed some of the player-tracking technologies of ProZone to the general public so that football junkies can track events like passes, shots, and tackles for every match over the last two and a half seasons. “Interactive Chalkboards,” as they call them, let you compare player or team performances side by side. You can validate your observations, or (theoretically) test new theories.

by Guardian Chalkboards

This is good news for those football addicts always on the lookout for new forms of the drug. But, as I argued in a past post, Fact vs. Faith: Considering the Impact of Statistics on the Beautiful Game, this isn’t revolutionary, yet.

This type of analysis will have a few not-so-new results. First, spazoids will use it to validate observations that are painfully obvious for anyone who watches the game under the microscope with any scrutiny. For example, Morinho2030’s will propose astute observations like this “award-winner” on The Guardian’s website: “Tottenham’s wide players Lennon and Modric take up very different positions on the pitch.” Wow. Can you shed any light on the way Ronaldo plays a different wide role than Park Ji Sun?

Instead of revealing facts about performance, as The Guardian states, stat-based analysis will provide us with another way to evidence our empirical theories about a game. It will temper and bolster observation, not replace it as the most objective way to analyze a game. In other words, the “objective” data that this analysis provides will continue to lead to subjective arguments. You can still interpret the data in different ways.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/161/344688246_58d43be3df.jpg?v=0

But that doesn’t mean this technology is useless. Arguments are great. They’re why sports, especially soccer, were created. They’re what propel the sport forward.

As maybe the most revolutionary affect of Interactive Chalkboards, they allow an instantaneous and informative analysis of a game. You can now digest the flow of a game, or the relative effectiveness of one player, with a few clicks and drags.

One day soon we’ll develop a statistical language that works in concert with a honed version of this analytical data. This is why I’ve locked my intern to Interactive Chalkboard until he creates stats for the following terms: “Attacking Third Productivity Rating,” “Defensive Third Turnover Rate,” “Forward Passing Success Rate,” “Long Ball Success Rate,” “Off-Foot Effectiveness Rating,” “Long Shot Accuracy Rating” and the vaunted “Player Efficiency Rating.”

How long will it take for stats like these to appear along with the analytics that The Guardian provides?

I’m not saying I want this garbage flashing across television broadcasts. And I’m not saying these stats will solve any arguments about player performance. These terms will probably cause useless mathematical arguments of their own. But they will provide a new dimension to player analysis.

For now, my time is better spent watching games than crunching numbers and dividing fractals of passes on Interactive Chalkboard. It’s a little more meaningful and a lot more fun. Even when we do develop a new statistical language and a more sensitive real-time version of the Interactive Chalkboard, the big question will still remain: will this analysis prove any more reliable than a good set of eyes?

I don’t think so. At least, I hope not. Then I might have to start reading poetry or something instead of watching the sport I love.

http://www.davidahernandez.com/images/BillKnott.jpg

, , , , , , ,

No Comments

Listed on Soccer Blogs