Ann Coulter Doesn't Like Soccer, Because Liberals and Immigrants Do


papers please!

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter's latest column pokes fun at soccer for being a lame sport enjoyed by liberals because, she believes, no one gets hurt, there are no individual successes, and a lot of matches end in scoreless ties. The last observation is difficult to dispute, but the first two are on flimsier ground. She points out in football there are few scoreless ties even though it's "a lot harder to score when a half-dozen 300-pound bruisers are trying to crush you." I suppose it's all a matter of perspective. I've heard rugby fans, for example, scoff at how dull football is, and despite Coulter's romanticized notion of it, like most things American football seems to be becoming about safety first too.

Nevertheless, Coulter chose a fun, newsy topic and hooked it in to her wheelhouse—conservative horror at the changing world around them—so good for her. I'm not going to defend soccer point by point from her column. Soccer doesn't need it, I don't need it, and you don't need it. I did, however, find this kicker about soccer and immigrants interesting:

If more "Americans" are watching soccer today, it's only because of the demographic switch effected by Teddy Kennedy's 1965 immigration law. I promise you: No American whose great-grandfather was born here is watching soccer. One can only hope that, in addition to learning English, these new Americans will drop their soccer fetish with time.

It's a stunning bit of historical illiteracy—if your grandparents were born 100 years ago, they could well have been the children of the generation of immigrants that at the time were flooding into this country from Europe. That wave of European immigration actually helped soccer become quite popular in the U.S. in the early 20th century. In fact, a mostly-amateur team consisting of six players born in Great Britain took the USA to third place in the 1930 World Cup, the first World Cup and to date America's best finish in the competition. The French called the American team "shot putters" because of how bulky the players were—sounds pretty "American" to me.

Immigrants today may look different than the ones a hundred years ago (although "race theorists" of a hundred years ago often tried to differentiate southern Europeans from their less recently settled in the U.S. northern European kin), but they're largely interested in the same things—building lives, families, and businesses in the U.S. And following soccer. It shouldn't be a surprise that a nation made up of immigrants remains influenced by each successive generation of it.

Ann Coulter wisely kept her soccer comparisons to football, invented in the Ivy League (liberal elite alert!), and avoided invoking that great American pastime of baseball. Baseball itself, of course, was brought to the U.S. from England by an even earlier wave of immigrants than the ones that helped produce America's most successful World Cup team ever. With America it's immigrants all the way down.

NEXT: Remy: God Bless the USA (Veterans Affairs Scandal Edition)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Soccer sucks.

    And immigration romanticism is full retard.

    1. The first non-redskinned Americans were immigrants and Ed is right that it’s immigrants all the way down. That’s not romanticism, just a statement of fact.

      1. I’m not an immigrant! My mother came here by boat from England but I was borned here! 100% native.


      2. The first non-redskinned Americans were immigrants…

        FTFY. Just because there wasn’t anyone here when the Indians first migrated over doesn’t mean they weren’t immigrants as well.

        Unless you’re a black person who was born and resides in Africa, there’s immigrants in your ancestry somewhere…

      3. They weren’t “immigrants,” they were settlers, invaders, conquerers. Look how well that turned out for the native population.

        Every time someone brings up “but we’re *all* immigrants” I’m reminded of the fate of the Native Americans who were too disorganized to resist the alien invasion on their shores, or wrong-headedly welcomed it.

        What most people don’t know is that most black South Africans are the children of immigrants pushing south into the largely unpopulated southern tip of Africa *after* the Dutch had already settled it.

        Fail to control your borders, lose your country.

        1. What a bunch of shit. The natives never had ‘countries’ or borders and the settlement process is nothing like illegal immigration. For one thing, there’s no mass outbreak of highly-lethal disease.

    2. Watching sports on TV (and watching TV in general) sucks.

      1. I mostly agree however I’m nearly powerless to resist watching AMA Supercross with my DVR remote in hand to FF to the action.

  2. Why are we paying attention to Ann Coulter?

    She’s a troll.


    1. jinx

    2. Why do we pay attention to soccer? What next, fretting over Ed Schultz’s opinion of tractor pulls?

      1. You don’t have to. No one is making you.

        1. I know that; I’m curious why anybody else cares. I can guess. Soccer is cool, Coulter is uncool and one can therefore raise one’s coolness coefficient by attesting to soccer fandom (+1) and slagging Coulter (-(-1)) for plus 2.

          1. I’m curious as to why people care about .

            Coulter IS a slag. A mannish slag who is a rather poor professional troll (at least on this subject). Those arguments are so old its ridiculous. Show some creativity and stop embarrassing yourself, Ann.

            1. That was supposed to be “I’m curious as to why people care about (insert activity x)”.

              Dumb auto-tags.

              1. I think it’s a status marker in certain groups to hold certain opinions.

                Examples: soccer is a most absorbing game to watch.

                Baseball is boring.

                I can’t remember when I last watched an American film.

                I’m spiritual, not religious.

                And so forth, you’ve probably heard more of them than I have. Fun to spot them, even my own sometimes.

                1. That can literally apply to anything, though.

                  Sure, some people, typically hipsters, use it as a signaling mechanism.

                  I assure you that the vast, vast majority of fans (as opposed to bandwagon-jumpers) are not signaling anything unless pushed, because for whatever fucking reason, people seem to actually care enough to single the game out for extra spittle-flecked rants and smarmy sarcasm while for pretty much anything else they claim to not care about they actually, you know, ignore it. So soccer fans bite back. Because people have a weird obsession with soccer and soccer fans. Why?

                  1. “Because people have a weird obsession with soccer and soccer fans. Why?”

                    Probably another status marker. Trashing soccer differentiates you from hipsters and weenie europhiles and marks you as a red blooded American.

                    1. So you were signaling your status by wondering aloud why anyone cares? If you didn’t care…

                    2. There is much in what you say. It gets meta very quickly.

                    3. Of course, implicit in that is the fact that giving a shit about soccer marks you as a hipster or weenie europhile.

                2. Homple: They’re called Canadians.

  3. This is nothing a little milk can’t fix. /Ernest

  4. Coulter is witty, but not intelligent.

    1. Her act was old 20 years ago.

      And it’s boring, Boring, BORING!


      1. I meant ten years ago.

        …but it’s still boring.

        1. It’s so boring it FEELS like it’s 20 years out of date.

          1. +1 media whore

  5. (although “race theorists” of a hundred years ago often tried to differentiate southern Europeans from their less recently settled in the U.S. northern European kin)

    Progs still haven’t lost their obsession with “diversity”.

    1. Progs obsession with diversity is pure posturing.

      What they really love is conformity.

      1. Nice…

      2. Well said, VGZ. Proggies love obedience, conformity and compliance just like the former Soviets and nazis. If you differ with them and their opinions, then you’re a racist, homophobe, fascist, etc. There is nothing more intolerant than progressives and their adoring fans. Just ask Michelle Malkin sometime.

  6. Ed sounds a little butthurt.

    1. Remember, Ed was the one who claimed it wasn’t cricket to use any weapon with which you could hurt someone at a distance. So there’s a kind of totality of circs here.

  7. Vicious dogs maul their victims –

  8. More ass-shaking than all HM’s videos put together –

    1. I was hoping for donkeys having seizures. I’m disappointed.

      1. try this. its close

        1. Psy wishes he could do the horse gallop as well as the woman in the purple pants.

  9. Janet Yellen discusses the federal funds rate –

    1. If that wasn’t an unintentional link, I’ll give you a golf clap.

      1. Quite intentional.

  10. More accurate headline: Professional troll trolls super fucking hard, libertarians and liberals give her the attention she craves.

    1. +1 hate-fuck

      1. I guess if you’re into that sort of hag.

  11. You can have your soccer – give me women’s beach volleyball!…..34×731.jpg

    1. Ha. That picture was taken not far from where I live. The captions variously say Santa Monica or Venice, but I think it’s a touch further south in Playa del Rey.

      1. So you know her and she don’t go far?

        1. Lord no, it’s the relationship of the buildings to the beach and the volleyball nets each town has a different layout and that looks more like PDR than Venice or SaMo.

          If I’m un-lazy tomorrow I’m gonna bike through there.

    2. You’re a bad, bad person.

  12. Many people in this community don’t like women having sex with minors –…..16292.html

  13. Successful Troll is Successful.

  14. So is there going to a Sheldon Richman article about the World Cup is a rebellion against American Imperialism and libertarians must be soccer fans because nothing is more individualistic than liking soccer because other countries do?

    1. Coming soon, I’m SURE.

    2. Could probably work the j00000s oppressing Iran into there too.

  15. “Ann Coulter Doesn’t Like Soccer, Because Liberals and Immigrants Do”

    Which is funny, because liberals seem to like it mostly because Conservatives ‘Don’t’. Or because they think its “internationale” and therefore ‘sophisticated’. They eat it up like stinky french cheese that no one really likes that much but which they think makes their tastes seem sophisticated.

    Its a bizarre M?bius Strip of simultaneous *appeal and revulsion*, intertwined.

    Like sex with Anne Coulter.

    Frankly, i find soccer so boring that i get more excited watching college baseball (*Vanderbilt, NCAA/College World Series Champs! first time ever winnning an NCAA title since…. women’s bowling! Whoo hoo!)

    I did enjoy working for a UK company, which meant when ‘world cup’ was on, they’d lock off a conference room for a few weeks, and have projection TV going all day every day. We’d get beer in the afternoon after the AM business with England had been conducted. Fuck, I’d watch cricket if it means ‘drinking AND getting paid’. Good times.

    1. Of course isn’t soccer everything the proggies accuse NASCAR of being?


      2. Winston|6.28.14 @ 11:20PM|#
        “Of course isn’t soccer everything the proggies accuse NASCAR of being?”

        Take one of the rental rides and try to figure a way around that damn bump into turn 3 at Fontana.
        If you do, you can cut your lap times measurably

      3. NASCAR is the epitome of a commie sport if there ever was one.

        Absolutely no one is allowed to excel. Every single little thing, every little cunning engineering tool not listed as explicitly not allowed soon gets squashed as other teams get wind of it. This is what happened to Toyota when they used some trick curburator or intake for their V8 a while back. (At least F1 is one step better being socialist instead of downright commie. Usually if there’s a good enough engineering advancement, they say everyone should have it)

        For motorsports, the only free, no barriers, no restrictions competitions are amateur or unsanctioned drag racing and Pike’s Peak for sanctioned racing.

        1. RIP Can-Am…

      4. Of course isn’t soccer everything the proggies accuse NASCAR of being?

        In honest-to-goodness soccer-playing nations? Not only yes, but hell yes.

    2. Please do not knock soccer. It is the only thing that cures my chronic insomnia.

    3. “Which is funny, because liberals seem to like it”
      I’ll have you know that I’m a (classical)liberal, and the only sport I watch on television is (American)football. I find it bright and colorful, plus I can follow it without really knowing all the rules.

  16. Also shouldn’t proggies hate soccer? It was invented by aristocratic upper-class European cismales and they forced the working class to make it professional and capitalistic so they could survive and it was spread by British Imperialism.

    1. Rugby was always the upper-class version of football. Soccer was always the working-class version.

      But you are right, there are many aspects of especially the World Cup that should instantly turn off doctrinaire proggies. But as always with proggies, it’s principals, not principles, and they haven’t seen a principle they don’t love to change situationally.

      1. Rugby was always the upper-class version of football. Soccer was always the working-class version.

        Ever hear of that quote about Rugby being a “ruffian’s game played by gentleman” while soccer is a “gentlemen’s game played by ruffians”?

        Anyway by saying that Soccer was invented by aristocrats I was referring to the fact that Soccer (and Rugby for that matter) grew out of the games played by the elite English boarding schools.

        1. Fair point.

      2. My boss when I was at Prod Devel was a Brit (who got his US citizenship while I was there). I assumed he’d played soccer in prep school – nope, rugby.

        That made me like him even more…

  17. Funny thing, though: a metric shitload of conservatives really DO like soccer, and a hell of a lot of liberals hate it with massive vitriol. Some of the worst and most hate-filled rants have been from Team Blue members.

    I’d say that, as a percentage, libertarians are pretty close to any other political persuasion.

    The perception that it’s a “liberal” sport is really fucking stupid and outdated.

    1. Coulter’s obviously trolling, but most of the increased soccer interest is primarily due to 1) a lot of Millenials who played it as 6-year-olds (but never stuck with it once actual effort and competition were required rather than running around like a spaz); and 2) status-signaling from SWPL nerds who affect a love of the game without actually understanding its nuances (“LOOK I LOVE FUTBOL I’M CULTURED AND SOPHISTICATED!”).

      1. I think your 1) is less about Millenials and more about a surge in people who have had it in their families for 2 generations now.

        Sure, lots of them quit the game early. The vast majority of ‘Murican sports fans didn’t even get THAT far as kids.

        SWPL signaling is restricted to annoying hipsters. They’re nowhere near a majority of soccer fans.

        1. SWPL signaling is restricted to annoying hipsters. They’re nowhere near a majority of soccer fans.

          Considering MLS is most popular in the SWPL enclaves of Seattle and Portland, I’ll have to take exception to that assessment.

          1. Top 10 attendances last year (all above the average but one):

            Kansas City
            New Jersey
            Salt Lake City

            Kind of a mix, no?

            1. Not really. You’ve got a mix of fairly liberal/SWPL areas along with a few Southwest/Western cities which are bound to have a very high Hispanic population. I don’t think that helps prove your point.

              1. Kansas City?

                Salt Lake City’s fans are actually not very skewed toward Hispanics. Houston’s are, but they are multi-generation, red-blooded, English-speakers, for the most part. New Jersey is full of lots of people.

                LA is not nearly as Hispanic-skewed as you’d like to think.

                Toronto is full of immigrants of all sorts, again, most of whom are multi-generation Canadians.

                The vast majority of MLS fans are people who have had the game in their families for a while and are largely ‘Murican. The huge majority of first- and second-generation Hispanics, particularly Mexicans, don’t give a shit about the MLS and follow LigaMX exclusively.

                1. MLS has had an interesting history. At first, it was convinced that it could pander simultaneously to soccer moms and first-generation Hispanics. It aggressively marketed to both. After the first year novelty wore off, that strategy failed.

                  They tried to market aggressively to craft-beer loving SWPL hipsters after that. It also failed to do much good.

                  It was only after they re-thought things and aggressively expanded to areas that had already had a major following (for all the shit people give Seattle and Portland and Vancouver, they have a VERY long history pre-dating their hipster paradise reputation for supporting soccer). They demanded local ownership as much as possible, single-ownership (i.e. one owner per team), a credible plan for appropriately-sized stadiums, and the establishment of youth academies. They marketed to no specific group other than people who had been around the game for a long time. They didn’t pander to particular ethnicities. They didn’t treat people like neophile idiots. They dropped the stupid gimmicks and they helped encourage the organic formation of supporters’ clubs. They backed off the “forcing fun” and knocked off the pandering to kiddies and their parents.

                  In short, there were a ton of strategies that led to where we are now in MLS, which is actually a very good mix of actually knowledgeable fans who actually understand the game. Among that much larger group is a group of hipster SWPL joiners that everyone seems to focus on.

                2. I was in Salt Lake the weekend that the MLS championship game was being played. I went to a sports bar trying to watch God’s own game…college football…when the bar was taken over by a bunch of hipsters wearing funny looking wool hats in Salt Lake colors. If that sports bar was any indication they were all hipsters in Salt Lake.

  18. football, invented in the Ivy League

    Well, yeah, approximately. Before the 20th C., if you mentioned “football” in Britain, you were as likely referring to rugby as soccer. Rugby was brought to Canada, and then a series of games between McGill & Harvard in 1873 popularized it at the latter school, and it was on from there. However, the 1st mention I’ve seen of a distinction between the pack of forwards in rugby and the line of them that they became in American & Canadian football was by U. Mich. vs. U. of Toronto a few yrs. later.

    The form of football most popular in the USA earlier had been a pre-soccer game of the general run of that British style of football. It is likely that had it not been for Harvard’s influence, that form of football would’ve persisted a while in the USA and then been replaced by soccer, although it’s conceivable that a distinctly American form of the game could’ve developed, as in Gaelic & Australian football. However, given that the slightly later attempt to popularize such a game as speedball never popularized it as a varsity or spectator sport (but it’s popular in intramurals, Girl & Boy scouts, etc.), the latter probably would not have gotten far.

    The distinctly American team ball sport?more so than even lacrosse, and even though invented by a Canadian?is basketball.

    1. Soccer was actually quite big (though not nearly as big as college football) in the early part of the century. Baseball owners often owned soccer teams in order to fill winter dates in their stadiums.

      This, unfortunately, led to the Soccer Wars. This infighting plus the massive popularity of college football pushed soccer to the wilderness for a long time.

    2. All two of my kids (1 of the girls and my boy) played rugby. That’s how I learned about it.

      For me, as a spectator sport (live), it’s superior to murcan football, and definitely soccer (which I just don’t like).

      For TV, sevens are better, but I still like murcan football best on the little screen.

      Anyhoo…AUSTRALIAN RULES FOOTBALL for the mega win! It was on Fox Sports 2 this AM – I hadn’t seen it in years. We used to watch in college. My favorite is the ref signaling the goal (step forward, point both fingers at side like they’re shotting pistols). Classic….

      1. I HATE Sevens. I used to just not like it much, but the more I see of it, the more I dislike it.

        Full-up Union or nothing.

        Too many whistles in Aussie Rules, but it’s enjoyable. It’s nice to see it back on somewhat accessible TV again.

        1. YEah, one of my brothers Army buddies – whom we watched play 25-ish years ago in our initial intro to the sport – hates sevens.

          I like the action. They just showed the college championship – some very entertaining, high-quality games.

          1. WAY too open, and WAY too short. If you’re going to play with half the players, play on a field 2/3 the normal size and play for more than 10 minutes.

            I find the quality to be pretty shitty. After a while, it just becomes a bunch of try-swapping line-breaks for 70 yards or more.


      2. Australia Football? Yep. Great game of Aussie Rules is better than any other sport.

        1. Plus, it gives steady work to guys in yellow raincoats with flags.

          1. Well, the times are a-changin’:


      3. Australian & Gaelic football (they’re very similar, but nobody tries to promote the Gaelic version other than as an ethnic thing) are too non-strategic and almost non-tactical for my taste; in that sense they’re nearly the antithesis of American, Canadian, rugby (Union or League), or soccer football. What can you say about games that have exalted, of all things, the fair catch (which has been abolished in Rugby League & Canadian football, and de-emphasized in Rugby Union)?! Gaelic & Aussie rules emphasize either dumping a 50-50 ball into the other end or progressing in a series of chicken passes requiring less skill than soccer or American-Canadian football. American football was somewhat like that for about a decade a century ago, when a kick’s hitting the ground put the kicking team, other than the kicker, onside, so teams frequently lined up in deep punt formation to threaten to dump the ball into the other end & scramble for it; the XFL revived that rule.

        1. Exalted…the fair catch

          Maybe, although it’s not quite the passive event someone reading your post could imagine:

    3. Robert, people tend to forget the role of Canadians in helping to invent North American football through McGill.

      But lacrosse is distinctly Canadian having been played here since at least the 17th century.

      Canada invented or had a hand in developing four sports: Basketball, football, hockey and lacrosse.

      Volleyball is a distinctly American sport.

  19. This woman is *smoking hot* –…..61441f.jpg

    1. BURN!

    2. Happens to the best of us if we’re no careful.
      Have you read Candide?

  20. I’d like soccer more if instead of that massive goal with a goalie they had a tiny net that was some distance from the ground and with the opening of the goal parallel to the pitch.

    Perhaps make the pitch smaller and let the players use their hands. Maybe play the games indoors.

    Just a few ideas to make the game more watchable. I’m sure with some effort a great game can be had out of this mess that is “futbol”.

    1. Perhaps make the pitch smaller and let the players use their hands. Maybe play the games indoors

      2 out of 3?

      1. Futsal is a hell of a lot of fun and a great, great training tool.

        It’s NEVER going to be anywhere near as popular as full 11 v 11 outdoor.

    2. Indoor soccer is awful and terrible and so is beach soccer. I played both and hate them equally.

      1. Indoor can be fun to play. It’s our only option for about 6 months. Beach is just a gimmick.

  21. Fun fact: “Soccer” is not an Americanism. It was coined by the Brits themselves to differentiate it from rugby. It refers to the fact that Soccer was the sport played by the Football Association.

    1. I enjoy pointing that out to idiot Brits who get snippy about “soccer” vs. “football”. Most of them have no idea and thus think that fact is really a Septic trick.


      Brits can be pretty dumb when it comes to these things.

      For me, I’ll call it whatever rolls off the tongue better at the time.

      1. Septic trick? Blood magic?

        1. The English especially like to refer to us as Septics, which is short for the rhyming slang for Americans (Septic Tank Yanks).

          It’s really fucking stupid, but there it is.

          1. Ah. Outside of “limey” I don’t have any nicknames, weird or otherwise, for them.

    2. That’s the ONE thing I like to point out to smug, smart-ass, non-North Americans and progs alike. Soccer is not even a North American term.

      And besides, I make no apologies for using the term soccer.

      Here in North America we play football so it would be pretty confusing if two sports shared the same name.

      1. It’s already confusing in Australia, where “footy” is used to refer to both Aussie rules & soccer (although not to rugby AFAIK).

        Soccer is called that in almost all the countries where another type of football predominates. In Britain that was the case until it eclipsed rugby, so now they think of it as a foreign term even though they coined it. In fact that slang came into use at a time it was still competing for dominance against yet other forms of football in Britain.

    3. Fun fact: “Soccer” is not an Americanism.

      Indeed. It comes from “association football”.

      1. The really weird thing is that in the USA in the early-to-middle 20th C. there was a vogue for calling touch football “association” or “association football”. I don’t know how that came about, because I don’t think there was any ass’n for it lending its name. Maybe it was just because people played it to be social, or maybe someone heard the term “Association football” and misconstrued it as touch.

  22. Oh, PS – way to pick up the story Reasonoids have been posting and commenting on for days now.

    More “way to” for knowing Reasonoids so well that you knew we’d all flock here on a weekend and comment AGAIN.

    Bravo, Ed – bravo!

  23. This dog can lick anyone –

  24. Heavy Metal poster….._metal.jpg

    1. That’s ironic since you are the least metal person that frequents these comments.

      1. I’m no stranger to metal, I’m just too shy to say it. I’m never going to give it up.

  25. Ann Coulter and trannies on the same day. Is Reason becoming HuffPo?

    1. Not until the trannies post and gripe about Coulter.

    2. Redundant.

    3. Michael Savage has called Anne Coulter a tranny

  26. Elmo from Sesame Street becomes a conductor…..k=poaPbFii

  27. I realize Ann Coulter is just a troll, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    Soccer is popular worldwide because it requires no skill and relies on chance and luck–meaning that eventually everyone’s team will ‘get their turn’ and win. This is contrary to the philosophy of the US, where most believe that only people with actual skills and talents should prevail over the stupid and lame. The fact that so many people in the U.S. are now embracing this ‘no losers–everyone wins’ philosophy is very disturbing and not a good sign.

    Btw, I hate and refuse to watch all ‘professional’ sports, but soccer (or futboll) is the worst of the worst! Suck it, haters!

    1. Luck?

      Is that why only 8 nations have ever won the Cup, and one of them has won it 5 times?

      No skill? Yeah, let’s watch you even do the most basic of tasks.

      Soccer, actually, is much, much, much more in line, philosophically, than pretty much any other team sport, and especially football.

      1. Yup! I vividly recall a few years back when the U.S. team (that every agrees sucks) nearly beat the Italians who eventually went on to win the World Cup. In what other sport does one of the worst teams come within one goal of beating the very best team? I reiterate, winning in soccer is PURE LUCK and eventually everyone gets their turn. That’s why the non-competitive socialists around the world love it so much.

        1. The US team is consistently in the Top 30 out of more than 200.

          Right now, by most reckonings, they hover around 12-15. “One of the worst teams” never comes close to sniffing the World Cup, because the tournament is a 3-year process.

          Montserrat is one of the worst. Cambodia is one of the worst. Nepal is one of the worst. American Samoa is one of the worst.

          The US is solidly in the second tier and can often beat those above them on any given day.

          1. Look, I admit I don’t watch ANY professional sports. But what I’ve tangentially gleaned by having your sports shoved down my throat has made me develop this conclusion. If you love soccer, if watching it makes you happy then good for you. Why do you care what some anonymous guy on the internet thinks? You doth protest too much, methinks…

            1. So you got caught out spouting nonsense, so now it’s ME who’s protesting too much?

              1. I expressed my opinion, which (for now) I’m allowed to do. I love science fiction, but people tell me all the time how stupid and juvenile my interest is. But I don’t care! Grow up and stop caring what other people think about your silly pastimes. When it comes to your idiotic sports all I can think about is how much time, effort and money is wasted on your pointless games. Wouldn’t all that energy be better spent curing cancer, AIDS or developing clean energy? But no, waste all that effort and valuable resources on these ‘contrived conflicts’ that benefit NO ONE!

                1. You’re changing the subject. You made a stupid, unsupportable statement, and rather than defend it any further, you just pretended it didn’t exist, then moved the goalposts.

                  Good work, Slick.

                  1. Soccer sucks, the players are lame and anyone who watches and enjoys it is an idiot! There, that’s my honest opinion and no one in the world will ever convince me otherwise. If that bothers you, then too fucking bad. Grow up and stop caring what other people think of your imbecilic pastimes.

                    1. So you’re just a run-of-the-mill douchetard who is signaling how awesome they are by bad-mouthing something they claim to not care about at all?

                      Why didn’t you say that to begin with, rather than try to dress it up in some twisted form of logic and try to have an actual argument about it?

                    2. No, I am and EXCEPTIONAL douchetard. I expressed my honest opinion and then insecure people who are incapable of defending their viewpoint without calling names felt the need to attack me. But that’s OK. I only care about the opinions of people I respect.

                    3. Antilles|6.29.14 @ 1:09AM|#
                      No, I am and EXCEPTIONAL douchetard. I expressed my honest opinion and then insecure people who are incapable of defending their viewpoint without calling names felt the need to attack me. But that’s OK. I only care about the opinions of people I respect.”

                      So you’re a fucking ignoramus and rely on others to tell you so?
                      Well, you’re a fucking ignoramus.

                    4. Again, I don’t respect people like you so your opinion doesn’t matter, or affect me in any way. Best go back to watching your mindless ‘soccer.’

                    5. I think Sevo broke him.

                    6. I think I shed a tear. That was beautiful self-pitying.

              2. Except your own comment supports Antilles’ claim. If the U.S. is “solidly in the second tier”, then it doesn’t stand to reason that they should be credibly in the running for the best team, does it?

                1. He said “one of the worst”. The top tier is Brazil, Argentina, Spain, Netherlands, Germany, Italy. Add Colombia this tournament and maybe Chile and subtract Spain and Italy.

                  1. Oh, and France.

        2. You sound just like your enemies who attribute the success of anyone they don’t like to “pure luck”.

          This is called projection, btw.

          I guess you must really, really hate gambling then. And inheritance. And gifts. And connections.

          1. Actually, you nailed me! I NEVER gamble (the odds are ridiculous and only a fool would think they might win), I inherited NOTHING when my parent’s died (other than their debt and funeral costs) and I don’t ever receive gifts (although I give many) because I don’t celebrate idiotic ‘holidays’ like birthdays and Christmas. I’m the unluckiest person I know and owe all my (admittedly meager) accomplishments to hard work and perseverance. Those who rely on ‘luck’ to accomplish their goals are pathetic and stupid.

            1. So, tell me again how soccer teams/players rely on luck, Smokey?

            2. Luck favors the prepared mind.

        3. Antilles. Hate to break it to you but even Brazil and Germany won a bunch of ‘lucky’ games. You choose ONE lousy game to prove your point of ‘luck’ is absurd.

          If you look at the WC since 1930 you’ll see a lot of ‘luck.’

          You have to look at the consistency of nations.

          Brazil 5 cups and seven finals.
          Italy 4 cups and six finals.
          Germany 3 cups and seven finals.
          Argentina 2 cups and four finals.
          France 1 cups and two finals.
          Netherlands 0 cups three finals.

          At some point it takes a little more than luck.

          As for that USA/Italy game, jesus, move on. It’s but a piss in the bucket. That Italy drew that game doesn’t detract from A) they had a fantastic tournament and B) their win.

          Besides, NO ONE would have beaten Germany like Italy can in that semi.

      2. OK, in retrospect I must admit that’s it’s not ALL luck. It’s also the referees (who have unprecedented latitude in their calls) and will never allow countries that matter (like the U.S.) to win, and will favor useless countries who contribute nothing to the world (like Italy) to prevail in an effort to boost their pathetic population’s self-esteem. Just like the Oscars it’s all political and a win means NOTHING!

        1. Wipe the spittle off your lips.

          1. Thanks for pointing that out, Timon 19. I realize I’m pretty passionate about my deep-held beliefs…

            1. Antilles|6.29.14 @ 12:44AM|#
              “Thanks for pointing that out, Timon 19. I realize I’m pretty passionate about my deep-held beliefs…”

              And a fucking ignoramus.

        2. Spaghetti, lasagna, pizza (non-deep-dish), salami, pasta alla putanesco, etc… egads, such a Philistine.

      3. So soccer is closer to Ayn Rand than to Marx?

        1. It’s not objectivist. Or were you suggesting that the US is objectivist?

          Soccer is nowhere near Marxist. American Football is much closer.

          1. Just setting out guideposts. Nothing special.

        2. Your comment makes no sense. Ayn Rand believed in rewarding those who accomplished something of value. On the other hand, Karl Marx wanted to reward those who offer nothing (at the expense of those who make the world function).

      4. [Yeah, let’s watch you even do the most basic of tasks]

        One could say the same after watching Crappie Masters on the fishing channel.

    2. Soccer is popular worldwide because it requires no skill and relies on chance and luck–meaning that eventually everyone’s team will ‘get their turn’ and win.

      That’s not the case at all.

      Soccer is popular worldwide because it’s easy to get a decent pickup game going no matter your income level–you just need a couple of people and something round to kick around.

      To say that it’s because everyone will “get their turn and win” is just silly. The Premier leagues THRIVE on cutthroat competition and talent raids–the most successful franchises are run by massive corporate conglomerates that spend like drunken Congressmen, there’s no salary cap, and no commie “parity” draft to give shitty teams the exclusive rights to sign talented players.

      You don’t have to be a faux-intellectual SWPL to appreciate soccer in its proper context, even if you’ll never be a huge fan.

      1. RRR, my fondest memories of soccer wasn’t my organized games. It was the time I had a chance to train with French team Brest in 1990 and when I played a pick up a spontaneous game in Calabria with a bunch of Serie B players. After the game we headed to the beach enjoying all the typical beauties and tastes Italy has to offer.

        The beach water was simply divine.

    3. No skill? Jaysus, try doing professional soccer stuff at a dead run for 90 minutes with a little break and no substitutions and get back to us about no skill.

      1. So tell me. What’s the soccer equivalent of the brush back pitch? I mean, after some girly wad writhes around on the ground like he’s slain after a trip, how does one make him polite?

        1. Harvard|6.29.14 @ 12:42AM|#
          “So tell me. What’s the soccer equivalent of the brush back pitch?”

          So tell me, what’s the baseball equivalent of 30 minute innings with no batter or pitcher calling time?

        2. What the fuck does the existence of the brush back pitch have to do with the skill or lack thereof required to play soccer?

          Nevermind that baseball and soccer employ completely different skill sets such that your requested equivalent is not easily found…

          …a game which we can play in the other direction all day long, but again, the point?

        3. A nice, clean, hard tackle.

          The South Americans are little less subtle and will chip at your ankles, tackle or chop you.

          1. A LITTLE less? Shit, they will kick lumps out of you and yell at you for having the temerity to get in the way of their foot. The Guatemalans and Hondurans are worse yet.

    4. I know almost nothing about soccer.

      However, we can tell your statement it requires no skill and relies on chance and luck is false just by looking at the market: if what you said was correct, then there wouldn’t be soccer stars raking in millions.

      1. …”if what you said was correct, then there wouldn’t be soccer stars raking in millions.”

        I worked in a field that was extremely highly paid and didn’t require a lot of time.
        One afternoon, a compatriot and I were drinking beer and he griped it was tough to do the job. I agreed; and mentioned that if it wasn’t tough, they (the customers) wouldn’t pay us the big bucks.
        So shut up already!

      2. You can say the same thing about every other aspect of the entertainment industry (of which ‘professional’ sports is an offshoot). It’s all about being in the right place at the right time and having the right friends and the right look. Pure luck, chance and nothing like having a real job that matters–such as an engineer, doctor, entrepreneur or janitor.

        1. Ah, I’m beginning to see what the real thing is here: you resent successful people.

          1. Not at all. I have tremendous respect for those who achieve success by doing things that actually matter. The entertainment industry (and sports) do not. They contribute nothing to the world and consume valuable resources that would be better spent elsewhere. I’m a Libertarian and truly feel that taxes on the so-called wealthy are too high, and should be scaled back to a reasonable flat tax that EVERYONE pays. But go on and keep making baseless assumptions. I’m a unique individual and can’t be pigeonholed so easily…

            1. The entertainment industry (and sports) do not. They contribute nothing to the world and consume valuable resources that would be better spent elsewhere.

              Antilles, are you autistic?

              There’s nothing wrong with that — but it would explain a lot.

            2. “WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!!”

              Dude, the entertainment industry DOES contribute. You just don’t LIKE what they contribute. Lots and lots of other people DO.

              By fucking definition, they contribute to the world you live in, where you can simply ignore them (or in your case, whine about them on a libertarian board in a thread about soccer of all things).

              1. Entertainment is a luxury after the necessities are taken care of. And it should be free–performed by people who are doing it for the love of it rather than collecting obscene multi-million dollar paychecks. I love music and movies, but don’t make them out to be more than they are. You have to admit that it’s a crime that people in Hollywood make millions pretending to be heroic people who struggle to get by. Sports are no different–exclusive clubs where unimportant people who are lucky enough to have connections succeed while everyone else is left out. How can you defend that?

                1. Sweet Jesus, you’re mental.

                  Are you Tony in disguise, letting the mask slip a bit?

                  1. OK, now you’ve crossed the line. I AM NOT FUCKING TONY! Personally, I think he’d side with your on this issue…

                    1. I AM NOT FUCKING TONY!

                      My boyfriend will be glad to hear that.

                2. Antilles|6.29.14 @ 1:18AM|#
                  “Entertainment is a luxury after the necessities are taken care of”…

                  OK, slimy twit, please tell us what the “necessities” are.

                  1. Gee…how about food, shelter and civilization?

                    1. Define “civilization”, Dumb Tony.

                    2. Dumb Tony. Well done. It’s fitting and funny.

                3. Entertainment is a luxury after the necessities are taken care of.

                  The economy is not a zero-sum game; spending on entertainment does not prevent us from obtaining necessities.

                  And it should be free–performed by people who are doing it for the love of it rather than collecting obscene multi-million dollar paychecks. I love music and movies, but don’t make them out to be more than they are.

                  “People who do something that improves my well-being should do it for free.” Yep, sounds pretty libertarian to me.

                  Sports are no different–exclusive clubs where unimportant people who are lucky enough to have connections succeed while everyone else is left out. How can you defend that?

                  Let’s pretend that’s true, for the sake of argument (it is partly but not wholly).

                  I can “defend that” because the satisfaction I get from consuming the fruits of entertainers’ labors is greater that the satisfaction I would get from retaining the money I spent on those labors.

                  1. I can defend that as well because I am in that particular industry. I am a Crafty; I provide craft services and location catering for film and television productions. By doing so I provide for my family, employ three people, and spend a considerable sum of money at local (Brooklyn and Queens) grocers/food jobbers. For every brain-dead actor you see on the screen, there are scores of others, toiling away in anonymity. Are you truly calling on all of us to work for free? Grips, electricians, Teamsters, camera crew, art department, painters, script supervisors, line producers/accountants, hair stylists, makeup artists, editors, audio engineers, etc. should all just work for the love of the craft because you don’t think it’s fair for the talent to be so well compensated? FUCK OFF SLAVER!!!

                4. You have to admit that it’s a crime that people in Hollywood make millions pretending to be heroic people who struggle to get by. Sports are no different–exclusive clubs where unimportant people who are lucky enough to have connections succeed while everyone else is left out. How can you defend that?

                  I do not have to admit that ‘it’s a crime’ that people in Hollywood make millions. They make millions because shitloads of people buy the DVDs and go to the movies they sell. Why should I care that they receive money which is freely given to them?

                  As for the idea that sports are an ‘exclusive club’ for people who ‘have enough connections to succeed’ what universe are you living in? Most great athletes are NOT people who have privileges or connections growing up. Most athletes come from poor communities where there aren’t many opportunities. Everyone plays basketball in the ghetto because, unfortunately, none of them become doctors.

                  Your argument is therefore the opposite of the truth. Athletes tend to work incredibly hard to get into the position they’re in, and the tend to be the sort of people who rise from very impoverished backgrounds.

                  Why do you want to deny athletes their money when oftentimes they’re the only people from that community who became wealthy? Why should you deny the poor an avenue out of their poverty?

                  1. If people on the left are going to lament that it’s wrong for doctors and nurses to profit from curing sick people, I’m going to counter with the argument that people who do things that don’t matter (like act or sing or play sports) should not profit either. Do I want the government to step in and regulate it? Absolutely not. I just want people to evolve, get smarter and reject stupid, pointless activities. As for soccer being a way for people to escape poverty, that’s outright stupid. The number of soccer players earning money are too few and the odds too great. Better those individuals in poverty educate themselves in engineering or programming or some other marketable skill that will make the world a better place–unlike insipid soccer, or any other professional sports.

                    1. Yes, because po’ folk can so very easily just start programming (because they all have computers and sweet, sweet time!).

                    2. I grew up in poverty in a single-parent household, was denied the opportunity to attend college and then taught myself Graphic Design and 3D animation well enough to secure a comfortable career. If a ‘dumb ignoramus’ like me can do it, then anyone can!

                  2. Re: Irish
                    And the people who become pro athletes are by and large not the people who would be curing diseases or whatever this tard thinks we ought to be doing with our time and money in his socialist paradise, so there’s really no resources being lost. But that kind of math is obviously too advanced for it.

                    1. What have I said that is even remotely socialist? I despise every aspect of the Socialist philosophy and would like to see every government program that steals from the Makers and gives to the Takers abolished. But nothing I say matters because you’ll just continue to make assumptions because I’ve committed the inexcusable ‘crime’ of defying the majority and not loving the latest fad: soccer. Gotta go, there’s a bowl of potent Indica calling my name…

                  3. It’s much better for poor kids to run around and steal stuff or break windows than kick a ball around a field. Maybe they should stay home and watch TV.

            3. Antilles|6.29.14 @ 1:01AM|#
              “Not at all. I have tremendous respect for those who achieve success by doing things that actually matter. The entertainment industry (and sports) do not. They contribute nothing to the world and consume valuable resources that would be better spent elsewhere.”
              You’re a fucking ignoramus.

              “I’m a Libertarian”
              You have no idea what that means; you’re a fucking ignoramus.

              1. Have I suggested at any point that the government should get involved and control what people do and how much they earn (no matter how obscene)? I have not. I simply want the public to become more educated and reject ridiculous things that don’t matter. It’s you people who get your panties in a bunch when you hear an alternative point of view you don’t agree with, and attempt to silence it by shouting them down. But that’s OK. I’ve had to stand up to bullies my whole life. I’m not about to back down now. Bring it on!

                1. My goodness, you’re projecting like a BOSS!

            4. Uh-huh. Without actors, game designers and soccer players, my Saturday would have been pretty fucking boring.

              1. I’m gonna have to jump in here and agree with Wedge. It is a crime that such high salaries are paid in Hollywood, though not for the reasons that he mentions. I’m surprised to see so many libertarians jumping to the defense of movie and music performers when their entire livelihood is supported by the edifice of intellectual property protections. Or are we just supposed to forget about that part?

                1. Which is certainly not to say that movies and music wouldn’t be important in a system which didn’t feature absurd copyright protections. I’m sure that we’d still have a number of stars who people would line up to see. But much of today’s entertainment sector survives by resting on the intellectual property edifice.

                  1. Shit. I used the word “edifice” in two sequential posts. I feel like a fucking tool.

                2. Thanks, DJK. I realize that the market drives and determines the salaries of entertainers, and have never expressed a desire for the government to control, regulate or limit those types of earnings (or ANY earnings). Good point about the entertainment industries’ aggressive protections of their Intellectual Property: they’ll make us pay for their crappy entertainment–one way or another!

        2. “Pure luck, chance and nothing like having a real job that matters–such as an engineer, doctor, entrepreneur or janitor.”

          Yep, I just sat there and watched the money roll in! My efforts had nothing to do with it at all. Why, anyone could do it.
          Except somehow all those other people who had a chance to do it didn’t and I did.
          Wonder why?

        3. So, in a game where there’s “no skill” involved, clubs are paying players millions just because they “[were] in the right place at the right time and [have] the right friends and the right look”?

          Give me a break. I suspect looks actually do play a role, but there are a lot of good looking men in the world — it’s not something you need to pay millions for.

          1. So, you think Channing Tatum deserved to earn $60 million last year? Are his acting skills so impressive that he deserved to earn more than almost any other actor in Hollywood? No, he was in the right place in the right time and had the right ‘look,’–just like these so-called soccer stars. Don’t be a fool and give them more credit than they deserve…which is none.

            1. Antilles|6.29.14 @ 1:05AM|#
              “So, you think Channing Tatum deserved to earn $60 million last year?”

              Care to define “deserved”?

            2. So soccer isn’t actually rewarded based on competition and being good at something? It’s all about looking like Channing Tatum?

              1. Those Ghanian players look nothing like Channing Tatum!

            3. 1. You are moving goalposts, arguing against the pay of soccer starts by talking about the pay of Hollywood actors.

              2. The Marginal Revolution called. It happened awhile ago; you ought to catch up.

              1. Jesus, you people are dense! The worthless entertainment industry encompasses movies, music and sports (among other things that don’t matter). Scoring a blockbuster movie, a hit song or a soccer win is an act of PURE LUCK. Sorry if you don’t understand the connection…

                1. You’re still here demonstrating how big of a twatwaffle you are?

                  Sure you’re not Tony?

                  1. I’m thinking shreek in that shreek finally ‘ignored’ me and I’ve yet to get a response from this slimy turd.

                  2. No, I am NOT that communist Tony or his butt-buddy shreck. I’m a registered Libertarian who agrees with almost everything published in Reason magazine. But I’m baffled why you people are so upset that someone holds a different view than you do. Unlike you, I’m not a sheep and I don’t follow the herd just because everyone else does. Why do you care what I think? I’m in no position to stop your silly soccer, or prevent you from watching it (and even if I was, I wouldn’t). But by all means, continue your name-calling. All you’re accomplishing is revealing your true, hateful, close-minded nature.

                    1. We’re not open-minded enough to close our minds to soccer or entertainment in general like you have?

                    2. No, I am NOT that communist Tony or his butt-buddy shreck. I’m a registered Libertarian who agrees with almost everything published in Reason magazine.

                      I believe you.

                      But I’m baffled why you people are so upset that someone holds a different view than you do.

                      I’m not upset you hold a different view, I think you’re obviously wrong.

                      Unlike you, I’m not a sheep and I don’t follow the herd just because everyone else does.

                      When you go with the SHEEEEPLLLLEEEEE cliche, that’s not a good sign for your argument.

                      Why do you care what I think?

                      Because you offered your opinion on a political blog and we told you why you’re wrong. Why do you care what we think?

                      I’m in no position to stop your silly soccer, or prevent you from watching it (and even if I was, I wouldn’t).

                      Most people here don’t even like soccer. I do, but my complaints with your arguments aren’t related to your criticism of soccer specifically.

                      But by all means, continue your name-calling.

                      I’m glad you gave us permission!

                      All you’re accomplishing is revealing your true, hateful, close-minded nature.

                      And he caps it off with concern trolling! He kind of fucked up the dismount, but overall a noble effort.

                2. You’re coming off as a Calvinist.

                3. This thing is hilarious. It makes only unsubstantiated, and proven false, claims an the says other people are making as hominem remarks when they dispute them. It calls itself a libertarian but then cries foul when other people use their money or make money in ways it does not approve. It lacks any basic logic but says it’s others who don’t understand when that show its statements to be false. I’d vote shreek but I think that troll is too proud to post under anything but its own handle.

                  1. I blame autocorrect for any typos as reason won’t let me sign in on my android based tablet, resulting in me posting on my iPhone.

                  2. Again, have I EVER suggested the government should get involved in your silly nonsense? But I suspect you’d like to use the government to shut me up, huh? Who’s the non-Libertarian now?

                    1. So you accuse others of putting words in you mouth and then do the exact thing you decry in the next sentence? You’re batting 1.000 here. Oh, I guess you don’t get the reference.

                      You do realize that your precious sci-fi is part of the entertainment industry, right? And that you are using the same tactics that those bullies used on you, but online since it doesn’t require any physical ability, and same mindless hate? No, I guess that would require some logic and intelligence to make that kind of self assessment.

                    2. I have always enjoyed books, movies, music and video games. They’re enjoyable pastimes but I also realize that they ultimately don’t matter. 90% of all entertainment is garbage and the people who produce it (just like professional athletes) are paid way, way too much. Do I want the government to regulate it or tax those lucky few any more than the rest of us–no. My hate of professional sports stems from the fact it’s constantly shoved in my face and I’m expected to like it–just because I’m a guy. My attitude about sports is the same as my attitude toward gay porn: I don’t care that it exists or that people enjoy it–just don’t force me to watch it and like it.

  28. “Wow, Grandma, you stitched this for *me*?”


  29. So what is the libertarian sport? Can’t be a team sport since we are all atomistic individualists. Can’t be a motor race since they involve ROADZ! I know the Reason editors’ favorite sport is autoerotic asphyxiation.

    1. Tennis? Any of the shooting sports? Deep sea fishing?

      1. The high dive…..00×281.jpg

      2. Skeet Orphan Shooting.

    2. Hey, certain motorsports still would qualify, cuz PRIVATE roadz. As I mentioned above: amateur/unsanctioned drag racing, and Pike’s Peak racing. Ok Pike’s Peak is on a public road, but the same could still be done a private one. Germany’s N?rburgring unsanctioned competition is another.

      Other than that, Pankration and MMA similar to Vale-tudo, basically the very first UFC before it was completely banned, regulated and neutered

    3. chess boxing

    4. Vulcan chess?

    5. The only truly libertarian sport is Muay Thai. A contest of individual vs. individual which tests, speed, power, technique, and the willingnes to brutalize another human being. Kids can fight as young as seven. Women can also fight.

      1. Check out Lethwei, the more brutal Burmese form of Muay Thai.

  30. invented in the Ivy League (liberal elite alert!),

    Back in the late 19th Century New England was pretty Republican so I can imagine that Ann would claim that American Football is a Republican sport.

    1. It was definitely that. Come to think of it, the polarity of football-Republican, baseball-Democratic might’ve originated then.

    2. It was definitely that. Come to think of it, the polarity of football-Republican, baseball-Democratic might’ve originated then.

  31. This is the song of everyday on Reason.

    And of the other days:

    1. The first is the song of my life.

      The second one… I’m… ok.

  32. Ginger Rogers wears several monocles in 42nd Street. Is she a libertarian woman?

  33. Damn, it feels good to be a gangsta

    1. Who and Who?

      1. Listen and you won’t care.

  34. Creeping Death – a cappella version

    1. Classic!

  35. I take back my (implied) statement that Antilles is autistic. That is an insult to autists.

    This is not based on a misunderstanding of what neurotypical people value. He/she (presumably he, since the character Wedge Antilles is a man) is just a troll.

  36. I blame Ann Dvorak for That and Eros.

  37. So between Charles Bradlaugh and The Marquess of Queensbury who was more libertarian?

  38. I have been enjoying the World cup for the most part, but these are the two problems I have with the game. 1. When watching you dont know exactly when the game is going to end. What is that? Only one ref knows the answer and the game ends when he says so? Its strange.
    2. How can games of such importance be decided in a shootout? It should be sudden death overtime, I dont care how long it takes to score. Its like ending the Stanley Cup with a shootout or an NBA championship with a best out of 20 free throws.

    1. All decisions on fair and foul play and all the other parameters of the conduct of the match are arbitrated by the referee (with advice and assistance from the linesmen and the 4th official).

      The game is nominally 90 minutes. The referee keeps the time and accounts for stoppages in keeping with the first paragraph. An attempt was made in the last decade and a half to offer some more transparency into the amount of stoppage given by having the referee tell the 4th official to display the minimum number of minutes to play.

      But EVERYTHING is at the referee’s discretion. Anyone who has watched an NCAA soccer game (which has the stadium clock as official and counting down) knows that the endings are very often…awkward. The nature of the game does not lend itself to a hard stop.

      As for the shootout, I find that hardly anyone likes them, least of all soccer fans. However, you would NOT like the quality of the match after multiple overtimes, and it would become a logistical impossibility to make it go on forever. It’s a necessary evil in a way.

      They’ve tinkered at the edges of how to find a winner. What they have now is probably the best option – two 30-minutes periods of OT (unlimited scoring), followed by the crapshoot if neither team can win by the end of 120 minutes.

      Sudden death is probably the worst option. When they used it, matches were vastly more likely to go to shootouts, as no one was willing to take any risks at all.

      1. “How can games of such importance be decided in a shootout?”

        It’s something I’ve wrestled with as a soccer fan as well. It’s a bit ridiculous a team game be decided this way. Before 1982 (I think that was when it was first introduced – coulda been a little before I forget) it was decided on a ‘Replay’ where teams would play the next day to settle a winner.

        People say you need the shoot-out because you can’t go on forever.

        Perhaps but maybe they could do something to equalize things. I thought MLS had an interesting concept when they allowed the player and goalie to move about freely. Dunno why they cut that out. Maybe Timon knows why.

        While I don’t deny the drama behind it, I really do hate it in hockey. As a matter of fact, I can’t stand how the NHL gives away points for losses.

        1. If I we had a perfect world and I could make these decisions, I’d prefer the replayed match idea. Unfortunately, the modern game really can’t accommodate it.

          The MLS shootout was basically the recycled NASL shootout. It was a pander to non-soccer fans that MLS was never going to attract anyway. The fact that they used it for ALL games coupled with the fact that pretty much all the existing fans hated it more than Rafa Marquez made MLS drop OT and the 35-yard shootout eventually.

          It’s hard to convey just how much most of the fanbase hated the shootout. The players, the coaches, and the front offices (except for the Hunt family) all hated it. You were asking tired players to take a dead run, one-on-one at a keeper who was supposed to keep you out at all costs. Injuries BECAUSE of the shootout were way too frequent. All so they could avoid having tied games. Stupid.

  39. OT: I just went over to and made a long and exceeding good point about how wrong that crazy motherfucker really is.

    I have yet to see if he’ll even allow my post to go through. I saved it to a text file so that I can just keep sending it over and over again until he relents or bans my IP address.

    If that happens, I think I’ll buy the domain name, and just post regularly about how much of a dumb fuck this dumb fuck is, with his dumb fuckery and whatnot.

    Who’s with me?

    1. Ooookay. Posted it twice now. Asshole keeps deleting it.

      What a disingenuous little cunt he is.

  40. The darker your skin, the more likely it is that your ancestors were here before Ann Coulter’s. I would actually respect this genetic panic more if people would just come out and say they are afraid of white people not being in charge of everything. It’s fine. I get it. Being in the minority is challenging. But I’m confident that the new browner generations will not treat us nearly as poorly as we treated their ancestors. They probably won’t even go full genocide.

    1. Yeah. I almost forgot, for a moment.

      There’s cunts everywhere. Even in the comment section at Reason

      Thank you for being here to remind me, Tony.

    2. You’re even wronger than usual on this, Tony. Right now in California there are so many Hispanic legislators and guilty, white liberals that the ‘darker’ skinned citizens have more rights and protection than the white majority. I don’t want to see how bad it’s going to get when we become an official minority. Will that future government offer Affirmative Action or Hate Crime protection to the newly-formed minority? No, way. I don’t care who rules over me, just so long as they treat me the same–no better, no worse–than anyone else.

      1. Wait a minute…’Merkin?

  41. Speaking of the World Cup, I’m in Zurich for work – the Swiss seem to love them some soccer. Anyone been to the city before? Recommendations on places to eat? I’m staying close to the ETH main campus. Money isn’t too much of an issue – company card. I have no idea how I’d manage to afford this city if that weren’t the case.

    1. Never been there. My daughter-in-law was there about a month ago for a job interview. She said it’s so ridiculously expensive there that even though the job pays more than she’s making now in Lisbon, the cost of living would have wiped it out and then some.

  42. Here’s the long and the short of it for me.

    I find soccer boring as shit. To me, watching paint dry is more exciting.

    Also, while every contact sport has players who’ll dive and feign injury to try to draw a foul call, only in soccer is the behavior treated as acceptable gamesmanship rather than unmanly cheating. Consequently, unmanly cheaters proliferate in soccer, to the point where you can’t watch a match without at least two players falling down and writhing on the ground like they’ve been hit by sniper fire after getting bumped by an opponent, only to hop back up and rejoin play like nothing ever happened once the referee signals a foul. I can’t respect any sport that fails to vilify assclowns who do that kind of thing.


    1. You pretend that there isn’t a half a continent’s worth of media and fans (or more) that comments on that very thing more or less continuously and how it’s a blight on the game and how FIFA needs to do something about it.

      That’s leaving aside the lack of understanding about how challenges in soccer can, in fact, hurt really badly for a short period of time before dissipating.

      1. Bah! Just have Mr. T deal with it….

      2. You pretend that there isn’t a half a continent’s worth of media and fans (or more) that comments on that very thing more or less continuously and how it’s a blight on the game and how FIFA needs to do something about it.

        I’m not ignoring those people. God bless them. But despite their vocal protests the culture of the sport is what it is. Right now, the sport at its highest level is amenable to egregious flopping, and until and unless that changes I decline to take soccer seriously.

        (Oh, and spare me this horseshit about how contact in soccer can actually be temporarily excruciating. Literally nothing in the most vicious soccer match ever comes close to the routine brutality of a typical NHL game, and notwithstanding the occasional douchebag flop-artist like Ryan Kesler or Dustin Brown — again, every sport has them — guys who get hit generally try to stay in the play rather than flopping to the ice and rolling around in agony. You don’t have to Google very hard to find examples of guys finishing their shifts after breaking limbs or taking pucks to the teeth. So you ran into another guy really hard chasing a loose ball, and hurt your knee or ankle. Is it broken? Torn connective tissue? No? Then fucking sack up, you gigantic pussy.)

  43. Yeah sometimes you jsut have to rol lwith it.

  44. About that ‘differentiate’ link in the article about Mediterraneans.

    The thing I always found fascinating about the nonsense, is that a country like Italy and its genetic/DNA make up is so diverse it’s almost impossible to really conclude anything. Since Roman times – and even before (Etruscans, Cambrii, Samnites etc.) – the number of tribes and armies that have clashed with Roman/Italian civilization is rather staggering.

    Also, if you ever traveled Italy from head to toe you distinctly see the differences from region to region – tall, blonde, multi-colored eyes in the north, grey-eyed, fair colored skin in the north-center all the way down to the dark-skinned, eyes of the South (which everyone seems ridiculously obsessed about). I know that’s where the majority of immigrants came from but focusing on that ignores the sheer diversity of Italian ‘blood.’ Actually, I wonder if there even exists ‘Italian blood.’ It’s a gate-way civilization between east and west and its history evolved as such.

  45. Next to curling, soccer has to be the most boring sport played. What is the typical number of shots on goal? 3? 4? Top the stupidity of it off with shootouts rather than OT. “Cup” final to be decided on kicks, how rich would that be.

    1. So that extra 30 minutes Brazil and Chile played wasn’t OT?

  46. Every sport on earth is boring, unless you’re part of the culture or if you played it. Heck, there are UFC fights out there that are boring.
    What is also boring is some Americans always complaining about soccer being boring. Some people like it, some don’t who gives a turkey?

    1. I especially love the goal scorer sliding across the grass after a goal whilst tearing off his wife beater.

      Reminds one of a poodle scooting across the carpet on his ass.

  47. The reason soccer is catching on is because ESPN and other large media outlets are starting to cover it like a “real” sport. The game creates its own fans specifically because it isn’t boring. The second half of the U.S. Portugal match probably created more new fans from its own merit than a million hipsters deciding it was cool.

    And the hipsters like soccer, so what? Is that worse than jock frat boy meat heads, Drunk construction workers, or gangsta wanna be’s flocking to a game? Hipsters like a lot of good bands and restaurants too.

    And the whole reason the hipsters have taken to it is the chic of the underground. It’s hilarious that people bitch about soccer fan aggression when the exact opposite is true. There has been decades of being in sports bars with 30 TVs and the one Tiny one in the corner I’m watching with soccer playing still gets the channel turned. Or having to jump through the same hoops and explain the game to “real” sports fans when you say you like it. That’s why certain places became “soccer friendly” and hipsterism latched on. If you don’t like the connection stop driving in under ground.

    And the cultural conservatives lashing out at the game is especially hilarious considering its the most virulently patriotic and nationalistic one there is.

    1. Subscription based video solves the problem network TV could never resolve – how to take commercial breaks in a sport that doesn’t stop the action – and the constant running and wearing out the opposing team is important to the strategy.

  48. The sport is gaining in popularity because ESPN is treating like an adult now. It’s fan base is spreading specifically because it’s not boring. The second half of the U.S.-Portugal match created more fans by its own merit than a million hipsters could.

    Speaking of hipsters, how’s that a worse fan base than meat head jock frat boys, drunk construction workers, or gangsta wannabes? Hipsters latched on because soccer has cult chic. Soccer bars and soccer exeptionalism came about because there were decades where fans couldn’t get one TV playing in a sports bar with 37 TVs. You couldn’t claim to like the game without running the same gauntlet of having to explain yourself to “real” sports fans. You want the hipsters gone, stop driving it underground.

  49. Finally, a thread about soccer. /barf.

  50. I’m not a big soccer fan, but I’ll give the World Cup credit for the fact that there’s no 5 to 30 minutes of pregame bullcrap. When they say the game is at 4:00, the game truly starts at 4:00.

  51. I take it that very few of you are familiar with the ancient Roman author Juvenal?


  53. Her writing is the ultimate example of “All heat, and no light”, writing designed to inflame passions, but providing little insight and knowledge (she doesn’t have any). She’s still not as bad as Paul Krugman, if only because it’s obvious she doesn’t know any better.

  54. The only thing amazing about Coulter is that anyone continues to give her a forum. Why isn’t she just a lone jackass braying to her 9 Twitter followers and updating her livejournal?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.