Slashdot Mirror


IT Meets the World Cup

daria42 writes "Looks as if there are some mad soccer fans at ZDNet ... they have compiled a guide to some of the IT systems behind the soccer World Cup. 'What does it take to design, build and operate an advanced, fault-tolerant IP network while the whole world watches?' one of the articles asks. Another looks at how broadcasters have beefed up their infrastructure as they prepare for an influx of fans desperate for information, while another looks at one of the upcoming matches: FIFA vs. Hackers."

204 comments

  1. Re:Mad Soccer fans? by skyh0rse · · Score: 1

    For the last time, it's called Football!

  2. Soccer? by StonePiano · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hadn't noticed a soccer event. Whatever 'soccer' is, it was bad timing to clash with the Football World Cup!

    1. Re:Soccer? by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's an abbreviation for "Association football", used to distinguish it from the popular alternative version of football invented in Rugby by William Webb Ellis.

    2. Re:Soccer? by bogaboga · · Score: 1
      While speaking of the [football] world cup, here in Canada, hockey is the killer game. Being an immigrant nation, Canada's diverse people return to their roots to support their national footbal teams. For this season, these folks "forget" their Canadian identity. Some are even citizens of Canada!

      For those like myself who thought that Canada is made up of "white" folks and "Indians", you will be suprised that these people are now the minority in cities like Toronto.

    3. Re:Soccer? by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 1

      Sometimes that is because the Canadian football team may not be fully up there yet.

      Here in England (especially London), despite being a Multi Ethnic community, Ethnic Minorities, who dont have a suitable national team tend to stick to England (I am Sri Lankan, and I am flying my England colours).

      Hmm, would be intrested to find out what team the "largish" Sri Lankan community in Toronto take on, as there isnt a Sri Lankan team in the World Cup. Who do they support?

      I woudl think that Canadians in general would support their Neighbour, USA, as that team is pretty well rated.

      --
      Have a nice day!
    4. Re:Soccer? by Spliffster · · Score: 1

      in most latin derived languages (except english) it's just called football however.

    5. Re:Soccer? by lbrandy · · Score: 1

      in most latin derived languages (except english) it's just called football however.

      That's an interesting point except for the fact that English isn't a latin-derived language in the traditional sense like Spanish, French, and Italian.

    6. Re:Soccer? by after+fallout · · Score: 1

      English isn't Latin derived period (it is Germanic).

    7. Re:Soccer? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, but there's a lot of pollution form French, and a pile of other languages that it's probably more of a creole.

    8. Re:Soccer? by Spliffster · · Score: 1

      oh right, i should have said "influenced" instead of "derived" concerning english.

      Bitte vergeben Sie mir, ich spreche deutsch. - Please forgive I speak german. ;)

    9. Re:Soccer? by skribe · · Score: 2

      900 years ago it was Germanic. Then the Normans invaded.

      --
      Blog
    10. Re:Soccer? by StonePiano · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, in English, it is called 'football'. That was the point of starting this 'Soccer?' thread.

      Now, Americans have a game they play with their hands, which they call, 'football'. I really enjoy American football (or grid-iron as we sometimes call it). It is more of a turn-based strategic game with complex rules and all the physicality of a train-crash. I like it.

      But football is a free-flowing game. It has a simplicity and a beauty that gives it unparalleled status as an international team sport.

      I for one am pleased to see the American team in the World Cup. They are improving and genuinely competing on the international scene nowadays.

      It probably does more for US/international relations than most diplomatic efforts.

    11. Re:Soccer? by Spliffster · · Score: 1

      and before that, the romans were there.

    12. Re:Soccer? by Spliffster · · Score: 1
      Actually, in English, it is called 'football'.
      I used to live in london for some time, the brits call it soccer.
    13. Re:Soccer? by bheer · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you tune into any channel in the UK, or indeed any of their innumerable tabloids, it's "football" all the way. I don't know *who* uses the word 'soccer' in Britain, but America-returned Brits would come to mind.

    14. Re:Soccer? by StonePiano · · Score: 1

      Actually, some rugby enthusiasts use the word 'soccer', perhaps as a way of saying, I'm not with this 'football' crowd.

      (I'm from New Zealand where 'football' means rugby. But I now live in England and play football.)

      I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of British call the game 'football', not 'soccer'.

    15. Re:Soccer? by lolocaust · · Score: 2, Informative

      They were probably calling it soccer for your benefit.

      --
      Why does my post history abruptly stop? I want to laugh at the stupid things I posted as a kid.
    16. Re:Soccer? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      I've lived in London for the last 12 years, and various parts of England for the 19 years of my life before that, and trust me, almost no-one calls it soccer here.

    17. Re:Soccer? by drsmithy · · Score: 2
      and before that, the romans were there.

      But it'snot like the Romans did anything for them...

    18. Re:Soccer? by drsmithy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Actually, in English, it is called 'football'. That was the point of starting this 'Soccer?' thread.

      There are many places in the world that use "soccer", not "football". Here in Australia, for example, where there are several other established codes of "football", "soccer" is by far the most common (and more importantly, least confusing) name.

      Saying "football" to a random Australian - depending upon which part of the country you're in and which part of the country (or world) the person you're talking to is from - could result in a conversation about any one of four quite different (well, only three of them qualify as "quite different) sports.

      It is more of a turn-based strategic game with complex rules and all the physicality of a train-crash. I like it.

      If you like American Football and Soccer, then Rugby Union is probably your dream sport. Most of the athleticism, dynamic and constant play of soccer, all of the body-crunching violence (plus interest) of American Football (only without the body armour)

      But football is a free-flowing game. It has a simplicity and a beauty that gives it unparalleled status as an international team sport.

      You cannot truly appreciate the fitness and incredible (and unmatched, IMHO) amount of whole-body co-ordination required to play soccer at a high level unless you've actually played the game competitively, IMHO.

      The real beauty of soccer - and the main reason behind its popularity - is that it scales all the way from a couple of kids kicking a dead dog's head around all the way up to an epic spectacle like the World Cup. You can play it anywhere, even with people who have never touched a ball before - yet players at the top level regularly perform feats with a ball the typical - even the above average - person couldn't even dream of replicating. Soccer is incredibly easy to just pick up, but simultaneously incredibly difficult to play well.

    19. Re:Soccer? by houghi · · Score: 0
      It is more of a turn-based strategic game with complex rules and all the physicality of a train-crash. I like it.


      Look how they are padded. Look at Australian football or rugby. Those are sports for real men. American football is a sissy sport compared to those two.
      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    20. Re:Soccer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And even then in Italian it's called "calcio" (nothing like football...)

    21. Re:Soccer? by dohcvtec · · Score: 1

      Now, Americans have a game they play with their hands, which they call, 'football'

      Heh, we also have "stock car" racing in which the cars are *anything* but stock.

      --
      -- Never hit a man with glasses. Hit him with a baseball bat.
    22. Re:Soccer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually, in English, it is called 'football'.

      Aah, selective history. Gotta love it.

      It was originally called "association football". Americans shortened it to "soccer" (aSSOC...). Brits shortened it to "football". Both sides claim to be right. Both sides are.

      Two countries each thinking the other is wrong ... where have I seen that before? Oh, right, all of human history.

    23. Re:Soccer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Word American football comes from the lenght of the ball - it's 1 foot.

    24. Re:Soccer? by space_dude_27 · · Score: 1

      Yes but the Old English (Anglo Saxon) language spoken in England before the Norman Conquest was a Germanic language that was pretty much completely unrelated to Latin. The people who became the English arrived in Britain after the Romans left. The huge number of Latin-derived English only began to enter the language after the Norman conquest, as others have already pointed out in this thread.

      Incidentally, the Welsh language is descended from the languages that were spoken in Britain during Roman times and, as such, it contains a fair few Latin loanwords. I'd guess that these entered the language from contemporary Latin while the Romans were still in Britain.

    25. Re:Soccer? by jocknerd · · Score: 1

      ha ha. Right dude. If you think the hitting in rugby is even close to that of American football, you are clueless. Because of the gear they wear, the hitting is way more violent than in rugby. Rugby, for the most part, is arm tackling with a few body shots thrown in. American football is extremely violent.

    26. Re:Soccer? by Psychotext · · Score: 1

      There's a very simple reason you don't see so many body shots in Rugby... most of the players actually have some athletic ability and (from range at least) it's amazingly easy to avoid a full on hit. Besides that, in Rugby you can get back up after hitting the floor, so you'd have to make sure you hit someone hard enough to take them out completely.

      Yes, I have played both at a semi pro level. Well, that is if you can call American Football in the UK anything but amatuer. :)

      --
      People that believe in their opinions don't post AC.
    27. Re:Soccer? by javcrapa · · Score: 1

      American team? I thought the cup was for individual countries, not continents...

    28. Re:Soccer? by MooUK · · Score: 1

      As others have said: We really don't.

    29. Re:Soccer? by ashitaka · · Score: 1

      I woudl think that Canadians in general would support their Neighbour, USA, as that team is pretty well rated.

      And you would be wrong. As noted in a previous post, most Canadians will support their ancestral team or the team that their ancestral country would support if they didn't qualify. I'm typical of this; born in England, moved to Canada at 8, spent 10 years in Japan. I'll support England first, Japan second and hold some respect for Brazil just because they're Brazil. :-)

      This whole "why don't Canadians support Canada?" has been analyzed to death on the Canadian news but it all comes down to "Our team isn't anywhere near good enough and we're too devoted to Hockey, the Canadian Football League and baseball.

      We also know that the American team's ranking is a crock and an indication that the rating system needs an overhaul.

      --
      If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
    30. Re:Soccer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never ever heard a native call it soccer in london or any where else in england with the only exception being when speaking to a particularly clueless American...

    31. Re:Soccer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original name was "association football", by which it was referred to worldwide. In England, that got shortened to just "football"; in the US, it got shortened to "assoc." and then the first syllable got dropped and an unstressed syllable added to the end. There are actually two other kinds of football, Australian Rules football, and Rugby football (which was the progenitor of the A.R. and American varieties; hence *three-fourths* of all footballs are actually played primarily with the hands).

      But then, if you weren't so busy contracting BSE from eating beef brains, you'd have known that, you crazy limey.

      PS: The bit about diplomacy is right on, but have you seen the people in charge of US diplomatic efforts lately? I think slutty sorority girls going on exchange programs to Paris probably does more for international relations than the US diplomatic core.

    32. Re:Soccer? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      There are actually two other kinds of football, Australian Rules football, and Rugby football (which was the progenitor of the A.R. and American varieties; hence *three-fourths* of all footballs are actually played primarily with the hands)

      You missed Gaelic football. Which also uses the hands.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    33. Re:Soccer? by palndrumm · · Score: 1

      here in Canada, hockey is the killer game

      Except of course what Canadians call 'hockey' is known in most of the rest of the world as 'ice hockey', to distinguish it from real hockey, which is played on a field with a ball, not on a rink with a puck...

  3. More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm more interested in what FIFA is going to do about the rampant racism that often surrounds European football more than what they'll do against hackers. It's very real and very scary for people of color (as Henry has talked about).

    1. Re:More importantly by bartyboy · · Score: 1

      FIFA's IT department has an equal-discrimination policy. They don't care if it's a scrip kiddie from India, a cracker from Russia or a scammer from Nigeria - none will get in.

      At least I'm on topic.

    2. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm more interested to find out how your blatantly off topic comment got modded up to +2.

    3. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not so much to do with color as it does ethnicity

    4. Re:More importantly by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It's very real and very scary for people of color (as Henry has talked about).

      It's not just people of colour. If you walk through certain zones of fans wearing the wrong team colours or speaking with the wrong accent you stand a serious chance of being seriously assaulted, if not killed.

      I'm sick of soccer fans. These days, FIFA jerseys have replaced the black/blue/brownshirt.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    5. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the bloody hell is this 'interesting'?

      You want a sport regulation to take care something governments in those countries cant?
      Gee, why not have FIFA take care of unemployment?

      Basketball is played around the world, yet I dont think youd ask FIBA to do the same.

      People care about watching sport...or talking tech.

      You dont do either, so Goodbye, you are the weakest link!!

    6. Re:More importantly by RahoulB · · Score: 3, Informative

      The clubs have the power to ban individuals from the grounds. In England you can expect a swift ejection and a ban for racism. But in some countries, a large proportion of the crowd can be making monkey noises and chucking bananas and UEFA (yes, I know, not FIFA) fine the club a few thousand Euros. If UEFA cared then they would put pressure on the clubs to take action. But they don't.

    7. Re:More importantly by jonnythan · · Score: 1

      When there are fans in the stands with blatantly racist signs, and large groups of them wearing Nazi logos and giving the Nazi salute to on-field players - who occasionally return the salute - as well as players being hounded *on the field by other players* and FIFA does *nothing at all about it* something is fucked up. If someone showed up at an American football game and waved a swastika while calling Daunte Culpepper racist slurs, or even simply *threw bananas at him*, he would be escorted out of the stadium and probably brought up on charges.

    8. Re:More importantly by eraserewind · · Score: 1

      I'm more concerned about the recycled arguments that people copied from some tv pundit I see on websites from people that are insecure about unamerican sports existing and being more popular.

    9. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Throwing bananas might get a charge, yelling racial slurs and waving a swastika would not. Of course the overall makeup of the surrounding crowd would probably not like it very much and the person(s) would probably be limping and using some paper towels to hold pressure on some wounds when they left the bathroom the first time. Not that I agree with either persons actions (the slurs or the beating) but that is what would likely happen.

    10. Re:More importantly by BiboErgoSum · · Score: 1

      I guess they have made a little more than the US Government against the minutmen and some other radical groups that have attacked the inmigrants in US...

    11. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, no one is attacking immigrants in the US. We are, however, trying to stop the flow of illegal aliens across our border.

    12. Re:More importantly by Obi-w00t · · Score: 1
      When there are fans in the stands with blatantly racist signs, and large groups of them wearing Nazi logos and giving the Nazi salute to on-field players - who occasionally return the salute - as well as players being hounded *on the field by other players* and FIFA does *nothing at all about it* something is fucked up. If someone showed up at an American football game and waved a swastika while calling Daunte Culpepper racist slurs, or even simply *threw bananas at him*, he would be escorted out of the stadium and probably brought up on charges.

      I am so sick of all of this uninformed rubbish about racism in football. What you are referring to are isolated incidents of very small groups of fans - and if you think football teams would return a Nazi salute then you really are living in the dark ages. Some other posters imply it is only European fans - like we are the real problem. The fact that this World Cup is being held in Germany, would you also say that Germany is the hub of racism in Europe? All developed countries in Europe have strict anti-racism policies in football, any team that is subject to racism on the pitch can go home and file a complaint - they do not have to put up with it. Believe it or not Europe is not still a dangerous continent filled with Nazis and Communists, football is a civilised game of skill that is open to any nation and does not have limits of sexuality or ethnicity. What some nations may believe about how their own club is run is their problem, not FIFA's. If we can please drop the whole subject of racism in football, it is no longer an issue at all.

      Good luck to all countries competing in the World Cup.

    13. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paolo Di Canio did return a Fascist salute.

      But there has been trouble about it.

    14. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rampant racism? Doubtful, there aren't any Americans over there, and everybody knows that only white Americans are racist. Every other person is surprisingly angelic in comparison to your average white American.

  4. Don't mention the World Cup by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    I bet with that headline most Slashdotters won't even read the fucking summary.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    1. Re:Don't mention the World Cup by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why? It's more "World" than the "World Series".

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Don't mention the World Cup by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I know, I was being sarcastic (and referencing Basil Fawlty).

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re:Don't mention the World Cup by IngramJames · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's more "World" than the "World Series".

      Which is, as everyone knows, called "The World Series" because it was originally sponsored by a (now defunct) newspaper called "The World".

      --
      'No rational religion claims "supernatural" exists, that's an atheist slander.' - seen on slashdot.
    4. Re:Don't mention the World Cup by jskiff · · Score: 1

      While the games are played entirely in the US (and occasionally Canada), the "World" in "World Series" is becoming a more apt descriptor. There are +many+ non US players in Major League Baseball, particularly from Central American and the Carribbean. Asians players are also becoming a bigger factor; Ichiro will probably lead the AL in hits again this year.

      Oh, and I'm a huge football (American) and football (real) fan as well...I'm taking Monday morning of to watch US/Czech.

      --
      It's "no one," not "noone." Who the hell is noone anyway?
    5. Re:Don't mention the World Cup by gdr · · Score: 3, Informative
    6. Re:Don't mention the World Cup by Bake · · Score: 1

      Not quite.

      Going by your logic it would make perfect sense to rename the English Premier League to "World Premier League", given the fact that there are _many_ non-English players playing in the English Premier League.

      Biggest difference here is that the World Cup is played at a national level whereas the World Series is played at a league level.

    7. Re:Don't mention the World Cup by IngramJames · · Score: 1

      Bugger; now I have to stop using that. Thanks for the heads-up.

      --
      'No rational religion claims "supernatural" exists, that's an atheist slander.' - seen on slashdot.
  5. World cup? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

    What world cup? Is there anything meaningful going on currently?

    (spare me the answer. I wish I could cryo myself for a month)

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:World cup? by dissolved · · Score: 1

      you do know that you don't have to watch it?

    2. Re:World cup? by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      it's true that you don't have to watch it, but everywhere you go you get it crammed down your throat.
      Shops, TV even Slashdot now and if that isn't enough, it will be THE topic at the water cooler and in the offices for a a long time.

      That's why I took the coming 2 weeks off and plan to live like a hermit, just me, my beer and World of Warcraft.

      I just hope the Netherlands lose soon so the madness will die down sooner here.

      (and I wish the people that do like it the best of fun with it, just don't bother me with it)

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    3. Re:World cup? by dissolved · · Score: 1

      That's fine - I was the same with The Ashes last year. What I disagree with are people who go out of their way to be killjoys. For example the BBC site has been inundated with people writing on polls stating they hate football and "can everyone stop please flying England flags?" etc. Each to their own.

      Enjoy the WoW - I don't get time to play anymore :-(

    4. Re:World cup? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I don't?

      Buy groceries and try to avoid the ball-shaped coke cans and the "win a ticket" competitions on EVERY SINGLE piece of crap you buy.

      Go to work and try to find ANY subject to talk about that doesn't involve it.

      Go out with friends to a bar. Use your imagination for the development of the evening.

      I swear, I'm THIS close to opening a channel dedicated to World Cup refugees. Kickban for everyone who even comes close to touching the subject.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:World cup? by gerddie · · Score: 1

      Who talks about watching it - when you live in a city where five games take place (Leipzig) then it gets crammed down your throat. I could bear with the football games and the fans, but the hype is just intolerable.

    6. Re:World cup? by Old+Thrashbarg · · Score: 1

      Yeah but it only happens once every four years, so there's lot's of pent up excitement to be released. It's funny, all the anti-football people come out of the woodwork around the World Cup complaining about how it's taking over their lives, boring them, or just plain making baby Jesus cry; but you never hear anything against the Olympics, that stalwart shrine of drugs and corruption....

      --
      One should never throw the letter Q into a privet bush.
    7. Re:World cup? by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Buy groceries and try to avoid the ball-shaped coke cans and the "win a ticket" competitions on EVERY SINGLE piece of crap you buy.

      Don't buy the ball-shaped cans (haven't even seen them), don't enter the win a ticket competitions.

      Go to work and try to find ANY subject to talk about that doesn't involve it.

      I've been to work today and had several conversations that weren't about the World Cup, and England kick-off tomorrow.

      Why would someone who hates the World Cup even open a World Cup article, let alone post in it? Two words: Attention-seeking.

  6. FIFA live cast by jsse · · Score: 1, Insightful

    In China, most of them don't pay for watching FIFA.

    Don't blame them for pirating your content. They should really taking their standard of living when charging them the royalty. What RMB150 per month for FIFA watching? Fuck, some of them just earn less than RMB500 per month.

    Life finds its way. You charge them what majority can't afford, majority looks for something free

    .

  7. Yes, but is it streaming in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think this was brought up recently - how can I watch the games streaming in the U$A?

    1. Re:Yes, but is it streaming in the US? by lbrandy · · Score: 1

      I think this was brought up recently - how can I watch the games streaming in the U$A?

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/. That, or watch ABC/ESPN/ESPN2.

    2. Re:Yes, but is it streaming in the US? by Scorchio · · Score: 1

      The BBC streams are locked to be viewable by UK residents only.

      Being sat in the office, many of us don't have access to TVs or XM radios, which is why internet streaming would be really useful.

      The closest thing I found was ESPN 360, but it was locked to a select few ISPs, ffs.

    3. Re:Yes, but is it streaming in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can find a proxy that's located in the UK and use it.
      See:

      http://www.ghacks.net/2006/06/06/how-to-view-the-f ootball-worldcup-online/#more-542

    4. Re:Yes, but is it streaming in the US? by VlartBlart · · Score: 0

      You can only watch BBC online if you live in the UK (we do pay the license fee after all) - have you tried using a UK proxy - it might work... 1st game kicks off in 45 mins...

      Good luck!

    5. Re:Yes, but is it streaming in the US? by VlartBlart · · Score: 0

      If you can't watch it you can always listen to it on talksport radio - it's a pretty good UK station.

    6. Re:Yes, but is it streaming in the US? by Scorchio · · Score: 1

      They cut off streaming 1 minute into the broadcast, citing contractual reasons. :(

    7. Re:Yes, but is it streaming in the US? by Scorchio · · Score: 1

      Thanks... the trick is finding a UK proxy. Rare as hens teeth at the best of times, and slower than stopped today.

    8. Re:Yes, but is it streaming in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/

      We're sorry. The content you requested is available for UK users only.

    9. Re:Yes, but is it streaming in the US? by chrnb · · Score: 0

      you can go here: http://www.sopcast.com/player/index.jsp/

      some chinese p2p tv

      --
      MikMik Baby Organics Mikkaworks
  8. Article submitter born yesterday? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Informative
    ""Looks as if there are some mad soccer fans at ZDNet ... they have compiled a guide to some of the IT systems behind the soccer World Cup."

    Or, ZDNet reprinted a four-page press release from the World Cup after the Cup spent four years soliciting IT sponsors. "Compiled a guide" my ass...

    1. Re:Article submitter born yesterday? by eraserewind · · Score: 1

      (you are right of course) However what's interesting is how obvious the internet makes it that most mainstream journalism is just recycled press releases and anonymous AP/Reuters articles. There is very very little independant reporting going on. You can see it for consumer electronics too. Our marketing announced the product that we have been developing for the past 18 months. We are a big company, so this was a fairly heavily covered announcement, but the vast majority of the coverage out there is just recycling of our press release & marketing material. It's dissappointing in a way. After 18 months, we would like to know what people really think! Instead if you search for reaction, you mostly see hundreds of variations on our press pack, with 3 or 4 independant opinions (and those recycled endlessly in the "blogosphere" also).

  9. Re:Mad Soccer fans? by twd · · Score: 1

    Mad as in crazy. Mad meaning angry is an American colloquialism.

    --
    ~*~ Tara
  10. Damn US-centric website by Roadmaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    in most of the world, the World Cup is (dare I say it) more important than any other sporting event (yes, even the olympic games). It'd do good to US citizens to dig out of the hole and stop pretending; while you're at it you might as well start ditching the imperial measuring system. And yes, in most of the rest of the world, interesting matches are broadcast for free. lol!

    1. Re:Damn US-centric website by UnixSphere · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I live in the US and I love soccer(football), people ask why haven't we really adopted soccer as widely as the rest of the world did, it's still relatively young but things like this (charging to see the games) are impeding the wide adoptation of it. Companies are so short-sighed and just want to profit as much as they can, instead of stepping back and letting us American see the games for free and help build a soccer fan-base that could be comparable to any other.

    2. Re:Damn US-centric website by lbrandy · · Score: 1

      And yes, in most of the rest of the world, interesting matches are broadcast for free. lol!

      Really? And here in the US, most of the interesting matches are broadcast on ABC which is.. you guessed it... free! lol!

    3. Re:Damn US-centric website by OctoberSky · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I can't argue with your statements. I was watching ESPN the other day and they were talking about how the Championship games (or series) are watched in terms of viewers. The Superbowl is tops in America at an absurd number like 90 million (from my memory someone else will prove me wrong) and the NBA and MLB finals came in well below at about 30 & 20 million respectively. Football (with a round ball) has the World Cup championship coming in at.. I have to type this one out... 1,300,000,000. That is 1.21 Billion more people than who watch the Super Bowl and that is in 2002. No one knows what 2006 will hold.

      The real question should be:

      What does it take to make Americans watch Football

      And not for nothing but I have only once in my life watched an entire game of Football/Soccer. Ireland v Italy from the Meadowlands, in 1994.

    4. Re:Damn US-centric website by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Like in the UK, where every single news cast has a 5 minute story about Wayne Rooney, a player who injured his foot. It is really amazing to see, every broadcast on every channel saying the same thing 'We won't know for sure, until next week'. They fact thay they have nothing new to report won't stop them. Sure I can understand an update on when SOMETHING HAS HAPPENED, but this is ridiculous.

    5. Re:Damn US-centric website by hrtserpent6 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Soccer is *not* relatively young in the U.S. It has been a member of FIFA since 1914, and was one of 13 nations in the first World Cup in 1930.

      There are over 200 NCAA Division I men's soccer teams, and yet professional soccer in the U.S. is a curiosity at best. Why is this? I think the reasons may be more deeply rooted in the American need to be unique and dominant (see "American-invented sports" such as baseball, football, basketball, NASCAR, etc.) rather than in soccer's popularity or approachability. I will posit that *at least* 1 in 4 kids in the U.S. have played soccer at some point in their youths.

      But to say that soccer is not popular in this country because it is 'young' is patently false.

    6. Re:Damn US-centric website by thefirelane · · Score: 1

      Companies are so short-sighed and just want to profit as much as they can, instead of stepping back and letting us American see the games for free

      Sorry, you are the short sighted one here. Why would they establish a precident of free games? It would make it increadibly difficult to switch them to a charging system later on. Prices are set to what the market will bear, and if the market gets 'used' to free, it makes it tough to raise prices

      A good example is gasoline... people cry murder for $3 a gallon when almost every other liquid they buy costs by far more.

    7. Re:Damn US-centric website by mgblst · · Score: 1

      I will watch the world cup, but there are plenty of things to hate about soccer.

      Foremost is diving, players who act up every chance they get - ie, when another player approaches them. This is just too much for Americans (with American football), Australians (with Aussie Rules) and Rugby watcher, who are used to seeing real injuries.

      Also, the fact that is it such a defensive game these days, with hardly any goals being scored makes it poor to watch. Watching people get excited over an almost goal makes me laugh everytime.

      And penalties is no way in the world to decide a game - what a joke.

    8. Re:Damn US-centric website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to break it to you, but basketball was Canadian invented

    9. Re:Damn US-centric website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe soccer is the number one participation sport for school kids in the US.

    10. Re:Damn US-centric website by hrtserpent6 · · Score: 1

      The inventor was Canadian, but the sport was invented in Springfield, Massachusetts in 1891.

    11. Re:Damn US-centric website by bheer · · Score: 1

      > I live in the US and I love soccer(football), people ask why haven't we really adopted soccer as widely as the rest of the world did

      I think it's the 2x45 minute playtimes. Makes it hard on TV companies to promote (less time for ads) and requires a lot of stamina for a casual player.

    12. Re:Damn US-centric website by Roadmaster · · Score: 1

      Yeah, quite unlike a 5-hour world series game. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge baseball fan, but the length of soccer games is no excuse.

    13. Re:Damn US-centric website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People don't buy 16-20 (or more) gallons of milk every three to four weeks.

    14. Re:Damn US-centric website by Politburo · · Score: 1

      The problem is that every other sport in the US is shown for free. The rare exception off the top of my head is boxing. The pay sports channels are almost all gone.

      Furthermore, there aren't that many common liquids more expensive than $3/gal. Water and soda only are if you extrapolate the per gallon price from a 12 or 20 oz. bottle. Brand name soda is available for 2L @ $0.99, which makes it ~$2/gal. Water in bulk is ridiculously cheap. 100% Juice is the only one that I can think of right now that is routinely over $3/gal.

    15. Re:Damn US-centric website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there's your problem then, eh?

    16. Re:Damn US-centric website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its the US/world media mentality. After all, Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" was ruined for a week while he was getting ready to present a local award ceremony in Los Angeles that wasn't even televised. The "oscars" 2006 weren't shown on mainstream television in the UK (broadcast or digital terrestrial "freeview"), while "the daily show" was just repeats that week. I guess hollywood didn't want anyone to know what films they were promoting this year.

    17. Re:Damn US-centric website by General+Melchett · · Score: 1

      And penalties is no way in the world to decide a game - what a joke.

      I reckon penalties is am excellenet way to decide a game. Testing skill, nerves and still involving a modicum of luck, exactly like the previous 120 minutes did.

      Penalty shootout naysayers confuse me....

    18. Re:Damn US-centric website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh yes, i for one look forward to the time we get goals in double, even triple figures.. NOT. the what ifs, maybes and the oh so closes are part of the sport.

    19. Re:Damn US-centric website by Spectra72 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is America the only country that has to defend having sports other than soccer take center stage?

      Do people get their panties in a twist over Canada liking hockey more? Is it a deep rooted Canadian need to be unique and dominant? Does the fact that they also embrace a version of football that is not soccer piss the world off?

      Australians and New Zealanders like Aussie Rules Football or Rugby more. Why is that?

      India and Pakistan love their cricket. Any deep seeded psychological reasons the world would like to debate over that?

      China? What's their problem?

      The two most populous nations in the world and seven of the top 10 have no representation in Germany this World Cup and people say Americans have issues.

    20. Re:Damn US-centric website by reidbold · · Score: 1

      Baseball games have breaks every 7 seconds where TV co.'s can put in ads, soccer has only 1 break per game.

      --
      -Reid
    21. Re:Damn US-centric website by hrtserpent6 · · Score: 1

      > Why is America the only country that has to defend having sports other than soccer take center stage?

      Why is America the only country that has to defend...well, pretty much anything they do or are? :p

      I personally don't have issues with America not liking soccer. I'm American, I played soccer as a kid, and went to a lot of Division I games in college, but I don't follow any kind of soccer US or otherwise. I'm thoroughly ambivalent about the entire sport. But I couldn't really tell you why. Many of my non-American friends ask me why American soccer isn't more popular, and after a lot of thought and discussion, "unique and dominant" was the best answer I could come up with, but IANA Cultural Anthropologist.

    22. Re:Damn US-centric website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is what I've observed: it would be fair to say that most American men think that soccer is played by prancing fags. No, this is not what I believe but what I have observed everywhere in the USA. In the USA you don't go into a bar and talk about soccer. If you go into a workingman's bar you may end up in a fight. Most Americans believe soccer is played by fags.

      In youth leagues, soccer is played by girls. It is also played by boys who are too delicate for real sports. Many youth soccer leagues don't allow score keeping, and every team and everyone is a "winner" so as not to bruise the fragile self-esteem of the competitors. Soccer in the USA is thought of in the same vein as chess or curling.

    23. Re:Damn US-centric website by EL_mal0 · · Score: 1
      A good example is gasoline... people cry murder for $3 a gallon when almost every other liquid they buy costs by far more.

      Apples and oranges (or apple juice and orange juice, if you prefer).

      Nobody I know drinks a couple gallons of milk (approx. $3/gal) on their way to and from work every day. If they did, there would be a lot more complaining about high milk prices (not to mention complaining about crippling stomach pains). If people used one gallon of gas each week, instead of one tank, I think we'd see a lot less complaining about $3 gas.

      I never did like that argument against "high" gas prices, and with your comment, I finally figured out why. Thanks.

    24. Re:Damn US-centric website by gerbouille · · Score: 1

      The combined audience will probably be above 30 billions... Usually, above 1 billion people watch the final.

      --
      This post is displayed with recycled electrons
    25. Re:Damn US-centric website by K8Fan · · Score: 1

      American Football has peaked and will only decline in popularity from now on.

      Why?

      One word: liability.

      American Football is too dangerous to continue. That's why so many schools have emphasized "soccer" over American-style football (and the Title IX need to offer sports to both sexes). The possibility that a student will suffer a paralyzing injury is too great a risk for a school to bear. Injuries happen in soccer, but rarely as devastating. If kids don't grow up playing American football, there will be a smaller pool of players at the college level and subsequently the pro level. The NLF is already feeling the crunch and has started their own "farm team" system according to a friend who is the official photographer for an NFL team.

      --
      "How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
    26. Re:Damn US-centric website by eraserewind · · Score: 1

      Well, they have to charge, because the advertising doesn't cover the price they paid for the rights. The companies have no interest in football or building a football fanbase. They have an interest in making a profit. Of course for less popular games, they might offer it for free, but the world cup is the big payday. It's as guarenteed an audience as they are going to get.

    27. Re:Damn US-centric website by donutello · · Score: 1

      n most of the world, the World Cup is (dare I say it) more important than any other sporting event (yes, even the olympic games). It'd do good to US citizens to dig out of the hole and stop pretending; while you're at it you might as well start ditching the imperial measuring system. And yes, in most of the rest of the world, interesting matches are broadcast for free. lol!


      What should they stop pretending to be? You really think most US citizens are closet Soccer lovers who are denying that they are interested in the sport? And why is the rest of the world so obsessed with whether Americans are watching or not?

      I grew up a Soccer fan. I watched almost all of Mexico 86 and Italia 90. Soccer played at the highest level can be very entertaining. When I moved to the US, I took up watching football. I find soccer boring by comparison. The difference between organized football and soccer is a lot like the difference between watching a professional soccer team and a bunch of kids playing in the backyard.

      And every single game will be available on my TV for free and I will watch the ones that are on while I'm not at work but you need to stop pretending that most Americans would love soccer if they only weren't under the thumb of corporate overlords who forced them to find it boring. A lot of Soccer is available on TV here and very few people watch it.
      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    28. Re:Damn US-centric website by dawime · · Score: 1

      heh..Both ABC/ESPN are transmitting the games, as well as ESPN360.com (if you have an account with a broadband partner). Also, Univision will be showing the matches.. And as far as I know one of the ESPN channels will be showing it in HD.
      Just look at your local schedule. Its all there.

      --
      |>
    29. Re:Damn US-centric website by angle_slam · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to this article, about 130 million US viewers watched the 2006 Super Bowl. The Worldwide figure is about 1 billion (or, as you would put it: 1,000,000,000). Not bad for a sport that's played at a high-level professionally in only 4 countries (and even in the European countries, played primarily by Americans).

    30. Re:Damn US-centric website by torqer · · Score: 1

      My Question is: How many people watch the Super Bowl for the commericals. They are argueably the best part of it. For me, the beauty of soccer (or football, whatever... I'm Canadian) is that there are no real commericals breaks. Sure there are some at halftime. But for the rest of it, it's 90+ minutes of pure sport.

    31. Re:Damn US-centric website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does it take? It takes a sport which is willing to add time-outs for commercial breaks.

      It takes three (or more) hours to air 60 minutes of American Football. Why? Because there are scads of clock-stopping events which the National Football League added at the behest of sponsors who wanted television commercials in broadcasts.

    32. Re:Damn US-centric website by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      Elemantary schools may be trying emphasizing soccer over football, but Universities and many High Schools are still completely focused on football. Granted I went to Texas Tech (football is part of religion in Texas), but a huge majority of spending was directed towards our football team, whether it was the stadium, equipment, or the team itself. We don't even have a NCAA men's soccer team, just a woman's soccer team. I don't know the stats but I would imagine that football players get offered better scholarships than soccer players.

      The television networks will always favor football over soccer as well. Every 10 seconds there is a stoppage of play, and every change of possession creates an ample oppurtunity to pour advertisements into our living rooms.

      As much as I would like to see soccer take over football in terms popularity in America, I don't think that's going to happen. There is just too much money to be made from football, and too much money invested in both college football and the NFL.

    33. Re:Damn US-centric website by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      The Worldwide figure is about 1 billion

      I would like to see an article that has the number of viewers of last year's Super Bowl. Not a speculation of how much many might watch the next Super Bowl.

    34. Re:Damn US-centric website by HillBilly · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The only way companies in the US would let soccer take off in the US if the rules were changed to allow timeouts every minute to fit a million commericals in.

      --
      "Go into the hall of mirrors and have a bloody hard look at yourself" - HG Nelson
    35. Re:Damn US-centric website by drsquare · · Score: 1
      it's still relatively young but things like this (charging to see the games) are impeding the wide adoptation of it. Companies are so short-sighed and just want to profit as much as they can, instead of stepping back and letting us American see the games for free and help build a soccer fan-base that could be comparable to any other.


      Aren't Americans used to paying for cable TV anyway? All the World Cup games are on ESPN, with some on ABC, what percentage of households do they reach?

      Not many broadcast channels in America would be willing to flood their schedules with the World Cup. Can you imagine some fat American housewife turning on to watch Oprah only to find it's been cancelled for Ecuador vs Poland?
    36. Re:Damn US-centric website by drsquare · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Watching people get excited over an almost goal makes me laugh everytime.


      Watching people get excited at a basketball score every 2 seconds makes me laugh everytime. That really is the sport of people with ADD.

      Are you telling me gridiron fans don't get excited when one of their players is tackled just before reaching the tryline? Or that a baseball fan isn't excited when a player hits the ball that just falls short of going into the crowd?

      And penalties is no way in the world to decide a game - what a joke.


      Why not? It's the greatest and most nerve-wracking spectacle in sport. Nothing comes close.

      It's beautiful in its simplicity. A simple, twelve-yard kick. Not like in ice-hockey where you get to run up and get comfortable on the puck, you have to hit it cold. A penalty kick is the easiest thing to do in football, but in a situation where if you miss, your country is eliminated from the world cup, breaking the hearts of tens of millions of your countrymen watching on TV, it becomes the hardest thing to do in the world. It's so straightforward to score a penalty, that humiliation of missing is crushing, the pressure is unmatched anywhere in sport.

      The sixty-yard walk from the centre-circle to the penalty spot becomes sixty miles. The eight-foot by eight-yard goal becomes eight by eight inches. The six-foot seven goalkeeper becomes sixty feet tall, the ball is a lump of iron. Your legs become heavy, a billion people are watching you, waiting for you to fail and humiliate yourself.

      A joke? I don't think so.
    37. Re:Damn US-centric website by drsquare · · Score: 1
      According to this article, about 130 million US viewers watched the 2006 Super Bowl. The Worldwide figure is about 1 billion (or, as you would put it: 1,000,000,000)


      Actually, that billion was a potential audience, i.e. how many it was broadcast to. I think that actually two million watched it outside of North America.
    38. Re:Damn US-centric website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Worldwide figure is about 1 billion

      I find that extremely hard to believe, unless seeing a 30 second clip in local news broadcasts counts.

    39. Re:Damn US-centric website by nutshell42 · · Score: 1

      I'd say two million might be too low but I'd be surprised if the non-US audience was anywhere near the 130 million (or whatever) in the US.

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    40. Re:Damn US-centric website by Roadmaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what you're saying is that you prefer the game that's good for the tv company, the one where you get to enjoy the most advertisement... because, you know, you could switch channels...

    41. Re:Damn US-centric website by deltagreen · · Score: 1

      That's just a myth, according to a writer at Sports Illustrated. It's potentially viewable for 1 billion people, but actual viewership is probably more around 2 million outside of North America.

    42. Re:Damn US-centric website by glesga_kiss · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think it's the 2x45 minute playtimes. Makes it hard on TV companies to promote (less time for ads) and requires a lot of stamina for a casual player.

      TV aside, you're wrong there. Ever heard of the phrase "jumpers for goalposts"? Perhaps not, it may be a UK-only thing. Anyhow, soccer is one of the most accessible sports out there. All you need is a ball and something to mark the goals, which is more than enough for kids to develop a lasting interest. Hell, a year or so ago some friends and I were on a country road in a minibus. The road was blocked a mile away due to an accident. We got the ball and had a kick-around in the field next to the road. Most of us were over 30 and many have kids.

      On the other hand, some of us did play a little American Football when we were younger. I also played the Madden series a bit. Your football is way less accessible, there's far steeper learning curve. Watch soccer for five minutes and there isn't really much else to know. Of course, there's a lot more to it than that, tactics, formations, the "flow" of the game, but it's enjoyable even on a surface layer.

    43. Re:Damn US-centric website by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      The two most populous nations in the world and seven of the top 10 have no representation in Germany this World Cup

      That would be because they didn't qualify for the finals.

      All countries are first drawn into qualifying groups within their supra-regional-FA (e.g. UEFA for Europe). Group winners (and /some/ 2nd placers, depending on the number of finals places that regional-FA has) then qualify for the finals. The 32 countries at the finals therefore are the 'best' from each supra-region.

      From the UEFA zone, the notable 'failed to qualify for the finals' countries were Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Ireland and Greece (all of which have had some successes at previous World Cup finals, and/or at European Cup finals).

      The event being held in Germany over the next month is the culmination of nearly 2 years of international football, between *all* nations (that have a FIFA recognised national FA at least).

      Notes:

      - FA = Football Association (in general terms. E.g. the FAI is the Rep. of Ireland. UEFA is the conglomerate body, to which all European FAs are associated and which in turn governs them. FIFA, to which all the supra-regional FA-conglomerates are associated. Not to be confused with "The FA", which is the english FA, which don't have their country in the name of their FA, as they were the first.)

      - Football: The game, involving a ball (that means spherical ;) ), played with the feet, hence "football".

      The word "soccer", deriving from "'socca", deriving from the "association" in "association football", referring to football as it was governed by the english FA, is used only by those who play/follow sports derived from football. Initially used by Rugby football followers (a game played with a non-ball shaped "ball", mostly with the hands), then also used by followers of Gaelic football and hence also used by followers of their derivatives (such as Rugby League, American Football or Australian Rules football (which is a mix between Rugby and Gaelic football)).

      Serious use of the word "soccer" immediately identifies the user as being a football heathen. ;)

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    44. Re:Damn US-centric website by aCC · · Score: 1

      China? What's their problem?

      Having lived in China for 3 years I can assure you that football (or soccer) is huge there. They just haven't got good enough players so they didn't qualify for the world cup, but it's definitely the no. 1 sport in China.

      You can count the most populous nation as a football nation.

    45. Re:Damn US-centric website by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      According to this article, about 130 million US viewers watched the 2006 Super Bowl. The Worldwide figure is about 1 billion (or, as you would put it: 1,000,000,000). Not bad for a sport that's played at a high-level professionally in only 4 countries (and even in the European countries, played primarily by Americans).

      That's... quite amazingly implausible. One billion? That's a sixth of all humanity. A bit more than three times the entire population of the United States. Even in the USA, the game only attracted about 50% of the population, and interest in the sport drops off exponentially with distance from North America.

      You seriously think a billion people watched the game? No. Perhaps, as other replies have suggested, a billion people had the game available to watch. Perhaps a billion people saw a brief clip from the game on the next day's news round-up. Perhaps a billion people were aware that there was a game of American football being played that day called the Superbowl - I was one - and perhaps a billion people even heard who won - I wasn't one. It's stretching the meaning of 'broadcast to a billion people' quite a lot, but Americans are good at marketing.

      But there's absolutely no way a billion people watched the whole thing. Not unless the Chinese and Indians have really gone mad for gridiron without me hearing of it. Other than a World Cup final, probably the only thing that could attract a global audience in the billions would be a moon landing. Over to you, America...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    46. Re:Damn US-centric website by K8Fan · · Score: 1
      Elemantary schools may be trying emphasizing soccer over football, but Universities and many High Schools are still completely focused on football.

      Sure...currently. But the kids currently in elementery schools will enter junior high and then high school never having played American football and with a decided preference for the football the rest of the world plays.

      Granted I went to Texas Tech...

      Oh...OK. I wasn't talking about Texas, I was talking about the US. As the TV ads say "Texas. It's like a whole other country."

      --
      "How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
    47. Re:Damn US-centric website by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Are you telling me gridiron fans don't get excited when one of their players is tackled just before reaching the tryline? Or that a baseball fan isn't excited when a player hits the ball that just falls short of going into the crowd?
       
      The difference is that the entire game doesn't consist of this, whereas is Soccer it does - the exception being an actual goal.
       
        hy not? It's the greatest and most nerve-wracking spectacle in sport. Nothing comes close.
       
      Sure, I will admit it is nerve racking - but it is a stupid way to decide a game. What does all the skill of the previous 90 minute game have to do with penalties - nothing. Might as well flip a coin. It is more a test of who can't screw up kicking a goal. Is this a fair measure of a football player? It is like having a written driving exam as the only measure of someone getting a drivers license, skipping the practical part - brillant.

    48. Re:Damn US-centric website by drsquare · · Score: 1

      The difference is that the entire game doesn't consist of this

      No, the entire game consists of adverts, replays and idiotic banter from the commentators. In a score/minutes watched ratio, American football is actually pretty low scoring. And low playing. There are few near-scoring opportunities at all, most of the time they're just running into each other in the middle.

      It is more a test of who can't screw up kicking a goal. Is this a fair measure of a football player?

      Yes.

    49. Re:Damn US-centric website by mgblst · · Score: 1

      If you really believe that, then why don't they just have a game of penalties - that would be really exciting...

    50. Re:Damn US-centric website by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Because they're a tie-breaker? After 120 minutes there is a need to end the game abruptly, other methods have been suggested or tried, and they have not been as fair or as satisfactory. Replays are not practical anymore.

    51. Re:Damn US-centric website by RexxFiend · · Score: 1

      you missed out Scotland from your list.

      (ok we never get past the group stage but we usually always qualify).

      --

      A crash reduces
      Your expensive computer
      to a simple stone.
    52. Re:Damn US-centric website by mgblst · · Score: 1


       
      How can you say that penalties are fair or satisfactory?? They aren't, and you can't with a straight face. It is one of the major problems with football that they are needed. Football sucks, there is no way around it... arguing more just proves my point, somehow. I mean, I enjoy a game every now and again, and will even watch most of the world cup, but it is not like it is a real sport. Seeya

    53. Re:Damn US-centric website by drsquare · · Score: 1

      You're joking right? As opposed to baseball or basketball games that last seven days, or gridiron games that are so boring the stadium is empty BEFORE it finishes?

  11. spare us please! by cliffski · · Score: 0, Troll

    I thought slashdot would be the one place us geeks could get away from this football-talk.
    Yawn.

    --
    DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    1. Re:spare us please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us geeks actually enjoy football and would rather you didn't claim to speak for us.

    2. Re:spare us please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh shut up! Why do you even bother responding? You could have skipped the article the moment you saw the headline.

    3. Re:spare us please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How else could he flaunt his obvious intellectual superiority without taking the time to stick his nose in the air and comment on the plebs and their barbaric pastimes?

  12. Soccer is a boring sport that kids play... by spike2131 · · Score: 0

    The Football World Cup sounds cool though, is that like the Super Bowl? Go Redskins!

    --
    SpyDock: Scientific Python in a Docker container
    1. Re:Soccer is a boring sport that kids play... by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Kind of like the Super Bowl except more people watch a single World Cup than like every Super Bowl combined. Kind of like comparing the Super Bowl to a local youth championship in some sport.

      --
      "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
    2. Re:Soccer is a boring sport that kids play... by spike2131 · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm sorry to miss it then. I'll be busy watching paint dry...

      --
      SpyDock: Scientific Python in a Docker container
    3. Re:Soccer is a boring sport that kids play... by nicklott · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "A cumulative total of 30 billion viewers tuned into the FIFA World Cup 2002, of which one billion watched the Brazil-Germany final alone."

      http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=57 4061

    4. Re:Soccer is a boring sport that kids play... by dohcvtec · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm sorry to miss it then. I'll be busy watching paint dry...

      I bet you'll be watchin' that thar paint dry, cuz ya caint wait ta dig in 'n start eatin' them paint chips! They wondermous, I ga-ron-tee!

      --
      -- Never hit a man with glasses. Hit him with a baseball bat.
    5. Re:Soccer is a boring sport that kids play... by angle_slam · · Score: 1

      According to this article, more than 1,000,000,000 watched the last Super Bowl. So unless, you're comparing 64 games to 1 game (which is beyond stupid), I doubt that the World Cup Final will have even 50% more viewers than the Super Bowl, which is pretty amazing considering that the Super Bowl is played almost completely by Americans.

    6. Re:Soccer is a boring sport that kids play... by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 1

      According to this article, more than 1,000,000,000 watched the last Super Bowl.

      ah.... no it doesn't. First off, that article was written BEFORE the last Super Bowl was even played! So unless they can see into the future, I'd really question the acuracy ;-)

      Second, that article is about the techology being used for the broadcast. It seems no effort was made at all to bother with facts about number of viewers. For number from people who actually track such things just Google "super bowl tv world viewers" and pick any link in the first say ten pages of results to get some more realistic numbers. I don't think ones ever even gotten very close to 200 million. If memory serves the high was around 140 million while the average is more like 80.

      Third, besides the fact it was written before the event, apparently made no effort of accuracy with the given stats, they STILL didn't say more than 1,000,000 watched the Super Bowl. In case you didn't bother to read the article you posted, here it is again:

      more than 130 million viewers in the United States and perhaps 1 billion viewers worldwide

      Hey, I'm going out to dinner with 4 friends tomorrow night and perhaps 1 billion people around the world will be thinking about having dinner with me ;-)

      --
      "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
  13. laugh if you will... by preppypoof · · Score: 2, Insightful

    soccer is still not a widely accepted sport in the US, so while you laugh at what a "stupid" sport soccer is, the rest of the world is laughing at us for not supporting what could be a World Cup Championship calibur team this quatrain. when a foreign country wins the World Cup, there is literally partying and dancing in the streets, but sadly, that would not be the case should the US take the cup.

    1. Re:laugh if you will... by dissolved · · Score: 1

      A large portion of the rest of the world laughs at sports where:

      - you have three teams (offense, defense and "special") which you bring on every 30 seconds. wearing an insane amount of armour and not really doing a lot.
      - driving around a circle all day
      etc. etc. I myself love Ice Hockey & Basketball even though I'm nought but a limey. It'd be nice if the US did more to embrace world cultures. As someone once said about football "If you only see the ball, you've missed the point". It's a world-uniting event.

    2. Re:laugh if you will... by n0dna · · Score: 1

      "when a foreign country wins the World Cup, there is literally partying and dancing in the streets"

      You forgot to mention "when a foreign country loses the World Cup, there is literally kidnapping and execution in the airports"

      Wake me when it's over.

    3. Re:laugh if you will... by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The US team this year is actually well rated, and is likely to impress. But i see more support for them from other countries than the US.

      --
      Have a nice day!
  14. Re:Mad Soccer fans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would appear that sarcasm is an American concept as well...

  15. Article Summary for US Readers by Aqua_boy17 · · Score: 1

    For busy /. readers in the US with limited (if any) interest in the World Cup finals, the following brief article summary is provided as a service:

    Hackers say to FIFA "i got ball" then call them stupid white bitches and threaten to whack them upside the head with their own sidekicks.

    --
    What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
  16. streaming splitting and caching proxy by poleshifter · · Score: 1

    Blue Coat Systems sells appliances that claim to cache (stored) and split (live) streaming video. If true, these (or things like these) could be deployed at the bottlenecks.

  17. In Soviet Russia? by FloridaGamer · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia, fault-tolerant IP network designs, builds, and operates YOU.

  18. Another use of technology in World Cup by zaguar · · Score: 2, Informative

    Students predict the outcome of the World Cup

    They use some algorithms and a lot of data. For the record, with 83% accuracy, Brazil will beat Italy.

    --
    "Sure there's porn and piracy on the Web but there's probably a downside too."
    1. Re:Another use of technology in World Cup by Inda · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Being a huge football fan (21 minutes to go!) I have to say "Bollocks".

      "The first stage was gathering a lot of information. We went back 20 years and collected all sorts of information about the teams; things like team performance, score and scorers."

      Shame that the none of the teams and player are the same as 20 years ago. Injuries are going to play a major part in this year's cup and there is no way you can account for them.

      Want to predict the outcome? Go with the bookmakers. They are rarely wrong.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    2. Re:Another use of technology in World Cup by obdulio · · Score: 1

      like they did in 1982 ;-)

      --
      PENAROL: Seras eterno como el tiempo y floreceras en cada primavera.
    3. Re:Another use of technology in World Cup by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      For the record, with 83% accuracy, Brazil will beat Italy.

      83%, huh? Last I saw (before the opening matches) Brazil were the favourites to win the World Cup, at 5-2 odds; England were second, at 7-1, and Germany and Argentina were both on 8-1. That's a 28.6% probability that Brazil will win, saying nothing about the other finalist. Now these guys think that it's an 83% probability that Brazil will win, specifically beating Italy in the final?

      Well, I for one will trust Ladbrokes and William Hill's judgment of the odds. 83% is _really_ high. If they're so sure of it, I'll see them on betfair.com...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  19. Locale not Language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >in most latin derived languages (except english) it's just called football however.

    I think you'll find it's called football in English as well, particularly in the British Isles.

    In the US, American Football is called Football
    In Australia, Australian Rules Football is called Football
    In the UK, Association Football is called Football

    The usage of the name depends upon the predominant sport, and therefore it is inaccurate to state that it is called Soccer in English and not football, as it is dependent upon locale, not language.

  20. Re:Why football (soccer) isn't more popular in N.A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wow. the ignorance in your post is something you don't see that often in /.

  21. How is soccer different from hockey ? by Alphager · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    How is soccer different from hockey ?

    1. Re:How is soccer different from hockey ? by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

      No difference. The games are exactly alike. Except soccer is played on grass and hockey on ice. And an ice rink is just over half the length and width of a soccer pitch. And hockey players move with twice the speed of soccer players. Also hockey games will feature 10 times as many shots on goal, and 5 times as many goals as a soccer game. Oh yeah and in soccer full body contact is banned, where in hockey it is mandatory. Other than that, no difference.

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    2. Re:How is soccer different from hockey ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot score goals with head in hockey... Or can you :)

  22. Re:Why football (soccer) isn't more popular in N.A by Carewolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So it's great when it happens a 100 times in a game?..

    The excitement will take no end at the 101th time someone scores... yeaaaaayy

  23. I'll tell you why... by citizenklaw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Advertising. Plain and simple.

    Soccer does not stop for anything. There's no stopping for injuries, time-outs for strategies, etc. Soccer is the most dynamic sport on the planet, period. I really admire those guys spending 90 minutes running and doing stuff. I think that Soccer, as a TV spectator sport, has not catched on major networks because advertisers here in the US do not like it. There's no place for 30 second ads! Gasp! Egads! There's no place for gimmicky Super Bowl ads!

    I really like Soccer, on TV and on the flesh. I really hope that the US team goes far this time, even though I'm rooting for other teams. That's the only way US spectators will notice and learn what the rest of the planet knows. Soccer RULES!

    --
    the future is but past forgotten
    1. Re:I'll tell you why... by Mushdot · · Score: 1

      I totally agree that it is due to advertising. Wasn't there a bit of controversy around the time the US held the world cup in that they wanted to break the game up into quarters (something like that) in order to slot advertising in?

    2. Re:I'll tell you why... by citizenklaw · · Score: 0

      I think so.

      I just find the glut of advertising in sports just plain stupid. Even more dumb is setting expectation on new ads (as in the Super Bowl). For Christ's sake, they're ADS!

      --
      the future is but past forgotten
    3. Re:I'll tell you why... by Obi-w00t · · Score: 1

      Advertising. Plain and simple. Soccer does not stop for anything. There's no stopping for injuries, time-outs for strategies, etc.
      Well, that's not strictly true. Most teams will kick the ball out of play if they notice a player is injured, so as not to gain an unfair advantage.
      I really admire those guys spending 90 minutes running and doing stuff.
      Apart from the substitutions. I think that Soccer, as a TV spectator sport, has not catched on major networks because advertisers here in the US do not like it. There's no place for 30 second ads! Gasp! Egads! There's no place for gimmicky Super Bowl ads!
      In the UK we miss out on those ads. Most of the time it is amusing to watch American football, if only for the padding, the over-the-top fanfare and the exhaggerated celebrations. Think lots of "Yeeeeeaaaaaah!"s and "Wooooooooooooooooooo!"s. Why do they make it so you can hear those celebrations? It does not add anything to the content of the game. I really would not want to hear David Beckham's whiney voice shouting every time he scores (which, despite this, I hope will be many, many times).

    4. Re:I'll tell you why... by angle_slam · · Score: 1

      Where the hell did you come up with that fake story? Soccer has been ad-free in the US for 2 decades. They put ads on the bottom of the screen.

    5. Re:I'll tell you why... by Mushdot · · Score: 1

      I didn't think it was gospel, perhaps I should have done some research before posting.

      I went to uni with an American friend and he told me that he'd heard there were plans afoot to try to make changes to make it more ad friendly for US audiences. This was just before the competition went to the US.

    6. Re:I'll tell you why... by PurifyYourMind · · Score: 1

      I know it'd be obnoxious (what advertising isn't?), but you know those bars they'll but on the bottom or side of a show that's rolling credits? The network will advertise upcoming shows, etc. before the current one even ends. There could be something similar... a "banner ad" approach so to speak, so the game wouldn't be interrupted by changing the whole screen to a commercial. Food for thought.

    7. Re:I'll tell you why... by citizenklaw · · Score: 1

      Why add another info bar to the ones already in place? If they alternate the scoring bar with meaningful and minimum advertising that's ok. It would *work* a bit in Soccer because matches are often so contested that there's no scoring.

      Meaningful for me would be an ad that fills the TV length as it sits on the bar. No more no less, followed by a URL for more info. That's it.

      --
      the future is but past forgotten
    8. Re:I'll tell you why... by Carlos+Laviola · · Score: 1

      The hell you're talking about, man? Football, or, as you put it, soccer, is divided into two 45 minute periods with a 15 minute break, and there's overtime in case the clock keeps running while something unexpected is going on.

      I think that's quite enough time for ads. I think americans just don't like the sport much.

  24. This time last time... by VlartBlart · · Score: 1, Informative

    I'm currently watching the BBC tv coverage on one monitor via my slingbox, BBC online live coverage on the other monitor and listening to talksport radio on my ipaq - I couldn't do any of these last world cup.

    Don't ya just love technology :)

  25. Re:Why football (soccer) isn't more popular in N.A by lbrandy · · Score: 2, Funny

    wow. the ignorance in your post is something you don't see that often in /.

    Wow is right. You must be new here. Welcome.

  26. Re:Why football (soccer) isn't more popular in N.A by toneh · · Score: 1

    I think you hate what you don't understand. I took the time to check out American Football once. If you think World Football looks stupid from the outside, I won't even start talking about how stupid American Football does. But it *is* an interesting game, after all.

    World Football has lots of strategy. But you don't get to see it unless you get into it. Sorry.

  27. Re:Mad Soccer fans? by ReidMaynard · · Score: 2, Funny

    For the last time, it's called Football!

    Thanks goodness it's the last time, I'm tired of ya'all callin Soccer Football.

    --
    -- www.globaltics.net

    Political discussion for a new world

  28. Re:Why football (soccer) isn't more popular in N.A by tumbleweedsi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am probably going to get modded troll by every north american here but this needs to be said. Football, or "soccer" as you so quaintly call it does not lack the strategy of american games however it does lack the 30 second break every two or three seconds so the teams can take a breather and the TV pundits can explain what just happened. Hockey is, and always will be, much more interesting when it is played by 18 year old girls rather than burley frat boys in pads and american "football" is an enigma: as Giles from Buffy said once, I have never understood why a nation which prides itself on its virility has to put on 40lbs of protective clothing just to play rugby. Football (not the american sort) has been labelled "the beautiful game" throughout the world because of the grace and skill needed to play it at a high level. The game has a true World Cup in which countries come together and compete on a level field... you do not need to be an american college frat boy to get into the team and some of the best players in the world have come from the poorest parts of the world. If you have not developed a love for fast paced games then it is likely you have not taken the time to understand how they are played and never felt the rush of watching your team win from a losing position.

    --
    Be nice, sponsor me: http://jailbreak.ragabonds.org.uk
  29. RSS World Cup poor by Chopo · · Score: 1

    The RSS feeds you can get on the World Cup that focus on providing tools for scores and stat fanatics is poor. A real RSS explosion/tool explosing would rise if that info would be more easy free available. Microsoft did some nice work with a EXCEL but then you would need licences.. RSS discovery next World Cup then?

  30. Re:Why football (soccer) isn't more popular in N.A by B5_geek · · Score: 1

    You might have misunderstood my point.
    I dislike basketball too, it appears that the only difference between the two are the fequency of goals.

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
  31. A faster sport by Epeeist · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    You need to start watching people fencing saber. I was at the World Under-17 championships last year as one of the coaches to the British squad.

    First period (this stops when someone reaches 8 hits): 8-4 to Alex O'Connell after 27 seconds of fencing time.

    Half time break: 1 minute

    Second period (this stops when someone reaches 15): 15-11 to Alex O'Connell after 29 seconds of fencing time.

    An ideal sport for those with the attention span of a small goldfish.

    See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5396021508 615883493 for a (not very good) example.

  32. Re:Mad Soccer fans? by Bedouin+X · · Score: 1

    Where apparently (admittedly bad) humor is lost on my countrymates.

    --
    Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
  33. Re:Why football (soccer) isn't more popular in N.A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I live in Canada. I like hockey & (American) Football (NFL/CFL).
    I hate soccer for the same reasons I hate basketball and golf.
    It is slow, boring and from the looks of things involves very little strategy."

    Fyi: Football (soccer) is all about strategy, it's the "chess of the green fields", goddammit. I like hockey too, and while strategy is an important element in that game too, it's in no way comparable to football. Slow-paced doesn't mean boring. Despite of being a fast game, hockey games can be very boring sometimes too.

  34. PeerCast! by hkfczrqj · · Score: 1

    Anybody remembers PeerCast? I think it was made for situations like this :) Some people in Japan already set up some stations, but not enough...

    Can somebody set up one station closer to the US, to get my fix at lunch/work? (I don't mind the language).

    1. Re:PeerCast! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  35. Re:Mad Soccer fans? by skyh0rse · · Score: 1

    You kick a ball with your foot. Ball, Foot. Football. Soccer ?? What, is it because you play wearing socks? It actually is an abbreviation for Association Football. FOOTBALL! American "Football" is just plain unoriginal.

  36. Here is the real fun ... by gerddie · · Score: 2, Interesting
  37. Damn US-centric website by Fuzzball963 · · Score: 1

    I loved playing soccer when I was in highschool. There was something simplistic about the game and yet fun. I for one would love to watch all the World Cup matches but unfortunately ESPN isn't carrying them (unless I'm misreading the schedule) and as has been mentioned before the BBC is only for UK residents so I guess I'm out of luck :(.

    --
    "The boy is dangerous, they all sense it, why can't you?"
  38. Dupe comment thread by Draconnery · · Score: 1

    I believe the post-storm you have generated is a dupe from the "Soccer" vs. "Football" terminology argument started in recent days regarding the article suggesting a World Cup-related internet meltdown.

    Get over it, kids, you understand shit when you hear people talk about it.

    For the record, I played Soccer as a kid here in Detroit, but I tend to think the countries that actually play and watch a sport get to name it. Either that, or the countries that have been around longer. So, I played Soccer, but I love to watch World Cup Football action.

  39. Watch the World Cup On-line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where can a body watch the World Cup games on-line? I know the BBC is streming them but you can only watch if you live in the UK... suggestions?

  40. Oh, quit knocking soccer! by Corbets · · Score: 1

    You can quit making fun of the American way of describing your "football" as "soccer" now, thanks.

    Every region has different words for the same thing, even if it's ostensibly the same language. Bangers? Sausages, but we wouldn't call them that in America. Go to the UK and they'll know what you mean, though. Mates? Friends in Australia, someone you have sex with in the Midwest, and who knows, maybe an officer of a ship in the navy (not having been in it, I don't know :). English and most other major languages have differences across regions (compare High German with Swiss German once!), and whatever historical reasons there are, they hardly matter - it is what it is, and you all understand when we say soccer. Life goes on!

    1. Re:Oh, quit knocking soccer! by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Mates? Friends in Australia, someone you have sex with in the Midwest, and who knows, maybe an officer of a ship in the navy (not having been in it, I don't know :)

          Actually, "Mate" is also a very popular infusion in some South American countries, notably Argentina and Uruguay. But again, "football" means the the same both in USA and England. Why does american football is called, well, football is beyond me.

  41. Re:Why football (soccer) isn't more popular in N.A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Smith steals the ball, weaves his way through traffic, shoots AND SCORES!!"

    How is that so different from Ice hockey? (besides the use of a ball obviously).

    It must be convenient that the inherently superior sports you like just happen to be the ones played in your country.

  42. Soccer and NASCAR have the same problems by m0smithslash · · Score: 1

    Both are non-stop. The action continues from beginning to end. Of course, there are yellow flags in racing, but they cannot be predicted and so don't work for advertisers. Soccer stops as well, for yellow cards and injuries, but also unpredictably.

    Fans are stereotyped. All we see on the news is about "soccer hooligans". We certainly wouldn't want those kind of people in our towns. Of course, all NASCAR fans are rednecks.

    The playing field is too big. Because the action is non-stop and the playing field or race track is so large, its too hard to cover it properly for television viewing. With basesball all the action happens between the pitcher and the catcher, with some in-field shots. Easy to cover with cameras. Basketball has a small court. Football has a large field but play is in short bursts. There is plenty of time to reset camera angles.
        NASCAR has fixed this a little bit with car mounted cameras. When watching a soccer game on TV it like watching it from the worst seats in the house.

    Lack of understanding of the rules and strategy. In the USA people didn't grow up playing soccer therefore they don't know the rules. It would be the same as watching a chess match if you didn't know the rules. NASCAR has its own set of rules that people don't understand.

    Fortunately, soccer is popular among the younger crowd. In a few years, the USA men may be ready to play at the world-class level of the women.

    Go Team USA.

    --
    Your friend and well-wisher
    m0smithslash
    http://www.ferociousflirting.com
  43. troll by Tiro · · Score: 1

    From Wikipedia: A persistent myth is that the "World" in "World Series" came about because the New York World newspaper sponsored it. Baseball researcher Doug Pappas refutes that claim, demonstrating a linear progression from the phrase "World's Championship Series" (used to describe the 1903 series as well as some of the 19th-century postseason series) to "World's Series" (a term first used in the 1880s and which persisted for decades) to "World Series". Furthermore, investigation of the New York World for the relevant years revealed no evidence of the supposed sponsorship. (For details, see Mr. Pappas' web page on the subject.) In deference to any controversy, more and more the term "World Series Championship" is being used, the subtlety being that it is merely a title and not a political statement.

  44. Been to club matches, never seen it by ianscot · · Score: 1
    Having been to four different club matches in Europe, I've never seen anything like the stories being regurgitated in several newspapers today.

    Granted, I wasn't attending especially thug-heavy English matches, but I never saw anything even remotely approaching "Sieg Heil" salutes and overt signs. The big club teams all have racially mixed rosters anyway; it doesn't make particular sense for fans to chant racial slurs -- not that racism makes any particular sense.

    Not that the incidents aren't real, but there's some echo chamber effect going on there.

    American sports has such a strong strain of submerged racism, though -- I wonder how pervasive that is in international "futbol." (For example: two almost identical baseball players have borderline Hall of Fame careers; one of them did it through hard work and refining his skills and so on, and the other one was a brilliant athlete. Wait a minute -- the numbers are nearly the same. How can we tell the natural athlete from the hard worker? Because the hard worker's white, and the athlete is black. See: Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker, Detroit Tigers.)

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
    1. Re:Been to club matches, never seen it by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Granted, I wasn't attending especially thug-heavy English matches

      England really isn't the centre of hooliganism any more. After the notorious Heysel incident, the 1985 European Cup final at which some Juventus supporters were killed as a result of the behaviour of some of the Liverpool crowd, all English clubs were banned from European competition for several years, and the entire English football establishment cracked down pretty heavily on the whole ugly side of football fandom.

      These days the trouble tends to be from Eastern European teams. Unfortunately, since the old reputation still lingers, a lot of foreign thugs want to have a go at the English to prove how hard they are, and so England games still attract a greater security presence.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  45. What? by donutello · · Score: 1

    There's plenty of Soccer on TV here. The fact that no one watches it is not because it doesn't have ads. The last time I watched a soccer game, I was actually hoping they would break for an ad to break up the dull monotony of the game.

    --
    Mmmm.. Donuts
  46. Damn US-centric website by Fuzzball963 · · Score: 1

    Yeah I saw that just as I posted. I guess im relegated to the netcast because the satellite is down at my place . Nasty weather. But still at least I can watch it :)

    --
    "The boy is dangerous, they all sense it, why can't you?"
  47. It has been done... by Optic7 · · Score: 1

    I haven't seen it myself, but I understand that ESPN has done something similar (reduced the game to a smaller square and did something like a picture-in-picture for the ad) this year for the MLS (Major League Soccer) broadcasts.