Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IT Meets the World Cup

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the tech-lends-a-foot dept.

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."

18 of 204 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    3. 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.

      --
      Go somewhere random
    4. 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.

  2. 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 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.

  3. 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...

  4. 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 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.

    3. 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).

  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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.
  10. Re:Don't mention the World Cup by gdr · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wrong