EPL Talk: England v U.S.: Why Brits Hate U.S. Soccer Fans
Paul Bestall
· 1 year ago
I have to laugh at the hatred that is directed toward Hicks and Gillette and the other foreign owners. Randy Lerner, regardless of his nationality has so far been a fantastic chairman and good on him. British football is littered with the damage done to clubs by local businessmen, who have stripped clubs to the bare bones. Yet, people are terrified about foreign ownership above everything else and somehow paper over the horrific history of some British clubs destroyed by British chairman.
Ask fans of Doncaster, who's chairman tried to burn the ground down, Oxford United who ended up almost ruined after Robert Maxwell had finished with them, Bradford City, who ended up £36 million in debt after 2 years in the Premeirship but the owner wasn't owed a penny, Scarborough, Blackpool, Norwich City, Carlisle United,Luton Town, York City, Leeds United, Swindon Town. the list goes on. Liverpool fans all want DIC to own the club. I suggest they find out just what "businesses" DIC likes to invest in.
Doug
· 1 year ago
Yeah, other than lose the final - to arguably the best team in this hemisphere in Pachuca - MLS teams were absolutely terrible in SuperLiga. Please.
And yeah, all we did in 2006 was be the only team NOT to lose to the world champs. The fact that a talented team didn't play up to its expectations is nothing new. How about those Frenchies in 2002?
While the USSF and MLS is a long ways from being the FA and the EPL, it is nothing more than a great example of English arrogance to ignore the growth and success that the US and its club teams have enjoyed since 1990.
This is nothing new - England has looked down its nose at the rest of the world for generations, and not just about soccer. The only difference is, once again, the Americans won't just sulk away and be quiet.
And it may not happen today. Probably won't (Nate Jaqua?). But the US will be more than just competitive with the mighty English soon enough. (Unfortunately, then the American bandwagoners will probably jump on and be just as arrogant.... ugh.)
stephan
· 1 year ago
First off, we don't hate you, just stop calling football "soccer", its FOOTBALL, we use our feet to kick the ball, thats why the rest of the world calls football, but you Americans have to call it soccer, why? because of your game called football, where the only time you kick the ball is for field goals, punts and kickoffs? Also we are ENGLISH not "Brits".
most of the reasons you have stated are completely untrue.
Id also like to refer to this statement;
"While this afternoon’s friendly between the United States and England has little meaning on the international level, a lot of pride is at stake. If England loses, their fans will chalk it up to a meaningless friendly..."
This is not true, no offense but do some research on English fans before you write your report, if England lose, we wont "chalk it up" to a meaningless friendly, it will be down to Capello, alot is at stake over this game for the English, Capello needs to prove himself that he can do the job. But then again i doubt you guys even know who Fabio Capello is?
Seriously, do some research before writing.
And Doug, i love the way you presume The English are like this, seriously, how many English people have you come across, or is it all what you see on tv or read on the internet...tshh, This, for example...
"This is nothing new - England has looked down its nose at the rest of the world for generations, and not just about soccer..."
You sound like the typical naive, arrogant American that would make people from Europe, not just England look down on YOU. The fact is, the English like the idea of FOOTBALL being played at a higher and higher level in america, it makes it more exciting to watch, lets players from the Americas develop their game of football and hopefully integrate the skills produced in the MLS into the european game. I, no doubt as does most English people, believe that in a few more years, if the US keeps progressing the way they do, they will become one of the worlds best, If Americans can see past there own ignorance. And i for one cannot wait to see what greatness can come out of America.
T
· 1 year ago
"This is not true, no offense but do some research on English fans before you write your report, if England lose, we wont “chalk it up” to a meaningless friendly, it will be down to Capello, alot is at stake over this game for the English, Capello needs to prove himself that he can do the job."
Ahh but of course! I don't know how the Gaffer left this point out! A lot of the English are HORRIBLE the way they treat their national team coaches.
Salem witch trials, anyone? ;-)
"The fact is, the English like the idea of FOOTBALL being played at a higher and higher level in america, it makes it more exciting to watch, lets players from the Americas develop their game of football and hopefully integrate the skills produced in the MLS into the european game. I, no doubt as does most English people, believe that in a few more years, if the US keeps progressing the way they do, they will become one of the worlds best, If Americans can see past there own ignorance. And i for one cannot wait to see what greatness can come out of America."
Thank you; that's what I'm talking about. I'm American but I can see this attitude coming from England more and more. *thumbs up*
jm
· 1 year ago
Stephan,
I am struggling to understand your brief tirade against the use of "soccer." Surely the fact that a name "fits" its subject matter is not a tenable view! Nobody has seriously pursued that since Plato in the Cratylus!
Certainly "football" is intuitively descriptive in a way that "soccer" is not. Since, however, the criterion for word selection is its value in communication, and not how it fits its referent, this intuitive descriptiveness is not the final word. And indeed, for communicative value, "soccer" is a necessity in the States. As is well documented, football (of the 'soccer' variety) is not nearly as popular as American football in the United States. In the common parlance of Americans, "football" refers to American football.
If one wishes to communicate effectively, "soccer" is the natural choice. If I am discussing the game with fellow fans, I will use the term "football." If I am discussing it with other Americans or in a context where the distinction is salient, I switch my usage to "soccer." Both refer to the same game - but in the American context, one is ambiguous and the other is not. Why should we choose to use an ambiguous term when a non-ambiguous term is readily available?
stephan
· 1 year ago
Thanks T for your support, reading back now what i said, i sound very angry.... Sorry about that, i should have worded it differently!
And jm i certainly see your point, i was trying to dumb it down to a typical Englishman's point of view, Referring back to The Gaffers reasons in why the English may be slightly more hospitable towards Americans when it comes to football talk. As pathetic as it is, a small minority may feel that soccer is not the right name for the game, being that when football was first invented, it was named, football. Many people feel as a result, the name soccer is branded as an Americanized term for a game that was always originally called football by pretty much every other nation (except you aussies ;) ), so why change it?
Its a very petty argument, but one that seems to never end. At the end of the day, its just the same game, same ball and same rules.
I was just trying to shed some light on the whole reason Americans feel neglect from their English counterparts!
;)
todd
· 1 year ago
I'm with Stephan on this. I am an american and I cannot stand that some jackasses decided to call the game of the NFL "football". I don't like calling real football soccer, but over here you have to. . Football/Soccer over here is thoroughly overshadowed by "american football" and will never be as big here as the NFL is. What sucks is that people get offended over here when I mention football, and I am usually quickly corrected to call it soccer. If I were British I would be just as annoyed by this, if not more, since the beautiful game was born there.
Kevino
· 1 year ago
Down the Rebels! Up the British!
oops sorry folks meant to post that to my War of Independence/ American Revolution blog on Memorial Day.
Shawn Rowland
· 1 year ago
It is great to be able to have this dialogue in this day and age. I can get online and watch my MLS, or watch EPL on SKY, go down to a friendly between my home Columbus Crew and Aston Villa, Chelsea, or whoever is coming over this year. It is awesome! Yet, we are still people and people will have disagreements. I was born and raised in America. My family has been here since the 1760's. My family is also vastly English and alot of "English culture" has been passed down my line and I have grown quite fond of my English heritage because of this. I am a huge Steeler's fan, Penguin's fan, and I love Rugby as well...but NOTHING will ever capture my sported heart like FOOTBALL. I am an American and I say FOOTBALL. I never say soccer unless I have to explain that I am talking about "world football" or say specifically "Major League Soccer". What did that one guy say? Down with the Rebels and up with the British? What about a Saxon Rebel? Raise the White Dragon and play some Football!
Jack
· 1 year ago
todd,
"I’m with Stephan on this. I am an american and I cannot stand that some jackasses decided to call the game of the NFL “football”."
I don't know if you're aware of this, but countries develop vocabularies seperatly from each other. I'm pretty sure that "some jackass" didn't just decide, "Hey, I'm gonna invent this game and call it 'football' even though those damn Englishmen already call their own game football! They're 'effin pussies! Screw them!" Usually, and especially before the days of the internet, different dialects (or vernaculars, if you will) would develop because of the relative isolation between an colony and it's mother country. The French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, and Romanian languages exist because they were all colonized by Rome but were so far away from the central Latin-speaking base that the Latin morphed into something totally different. In fact, before the age of the internet, one of the first authors of the American dictionary predicted that in 100 years Engliah English and American English would be mutually unintelligible. Maybe a bit hasty of him, but he has a point. Words change meaning.
Hence why you could go from England to Canada to the US to Australia, ask a random person from each country if they want to play football, and participate in a different game. Hence: the Austrailian national team is known as the Socceroos, not the "Footballoos" (how lame would that be?). Or why a French-Canadian calls the CFL "le football" and association football "le soccer."
The point being: it wasn't just "some jackass" who decided to do it. It's just how language works. Look it up.
So your telling me that the word football is relevant to the game that is american football? It clearly is not, that is my point. It has nothing to do with vernacular, it has everything to do with some jackasses calling it football when it has pretty much nothing to do with a ball and feet(outside of punts, kick-offs, and field goals). When american football was created they could have called it anything they wanted. You can spare me the history lesson.
jm
· 1 year ago
Todd,
You are also pushing a "goodness of fit" argument for why it should be called "football" across all linguistic contexts. For your position to be plausible, that needs an argument! Even if names do have descriptive content, that does not mean that the descriptive content has to be compositionally determined by its parts. And even worse, your claim seems to be that if it is not so determined, then the name should not be used for that subject!
Further, there is a distinction between what terms we ought to use when dubbing something, versus what terms we ought to use once they have been introduced into the lexicon of a given public language. Even if you are right that it was "wrong" (linguistically speaking?) to term American football "football" (which I disagree with, but let us grant you the assumption), that does not mean that people are wrong to respect that usage in the current context.
Finally, note that rugby and association football both shared the name "football" in the early days of both sports. Since American football traces back its etymology to rugby when it was often deemed "football," the use of the term is not terribly surprising. Indeed, this casts further doubt on the notion that names are assigned to their referents purely or even primarily on the basis of how their descriptive content matches up with their referents!
todd
· 1 year ago
just a by the way, im todd who has posted here for a very long time as dkptiger...and the todd writing above is not me. just to clear that up
todd
· 1 year ago
It's an opinion. I know the history behind the use of the word football, and I will concede that it is no suprise that the American version of the game took the name "football". I understand your argument, and it is a good argument. This does nothing to change my view that football to me means eleven men on a pitch using their feet to move a ball around, not throwing a ball around. You like the word soccer and I don't, let's leave it at that.
jm
· 1 year ago
"This does nothing to change my view that football to me means eleven men on a pitch using their feet to move a ball around, not throwing a ball around. You like the word soccer and I don’t, let’s leave it at that."
A perfectly fine compromise for me! In fact, I use both terms, but all I really want to claim is that in certain contexts, the term soccer is not only acceptable but expedient.
todd
· 1 year ago
One question JM, are you british or american.
jm
· 1 year ago
I am an American.
Scotty Stevens
· 1 year ago
Here's the funny thing about the word 'Soccer'...
The English invented it!
Yes, toward the end of the 19th century, when the game of 'rugby' was given the affectionate nickname, 'Rugger', the game of 'football' - shortened from 'Association Football' (FA) - was so called, 'Soccer', a play on the word, 'Assoc.' which is the abbreviation for 'Association Football'.
End of.
Check out my website...
Right on,
Scotty
frankie
· 1 year ago
the chicago fire could beat the english national team and you know its the truth.further more manu might might finish 3rd in america
Robert C. Cowden
· 12 months ago
I think that while the American futbol system is disorganized compared to England. We in fact have alot of good players who go undiscoverd are waste their careers playing college ball. On average I believe that American players have better touch and control on the ball than English players. I am a Colorodo Rapids fan but I am also a big fan of La Liga, the Argentine league, and the Mexican league. I think the EPL is overrated but is interesting to watch and hopefully see upsets against the big four. The frustrating thing in MLS is that the league is completly diffrent every year. I have been to a few matches where in the summer the MLS has broughten tems up from Mexico for friendlies. I look forward to seeing more of those. Have a happy boxing day
All Comments
British football is littered with the damage done to clubs by local businessmen, who have stripped clubs to the bare bones. Yet, people are terrified about foreign ownership above everything else and somehow paper over the horrific history of some British clubs destroyed by British chairman.
Ask fans of Doncaster, who's chairman tried to burn the ground down, Oxford United who ended up almost ruined after Robert Maxwell had finished with them, Bradford City, who ended up £36 million in debt after 2 years in the Premeirship but the owner wasn't owed a penny, Scarborough, Blackpool, Norwich City, Carlisle United,Luton Town, York City, Leeds United, Swindon Town. the list goes on.
Liverpool fans all want DIC to own the club. I suggest they find out just what "businesses" DIC likes to invest in.
And yeah, all we did in 2006 was be the only team NOT to lose to the world champs. The fact that a talented team didn't play up to its expectations is nothing new. How about those Frenchies in 2002?
While the USSF and MLS is a long ways from being the FA and the EPL, it is nothing more than a great example of English arrogance to ignore the growth and success that the US and its club teams have enjoyed since 1990.
This is nothing new - England has looked down its nose at the rest of the world for generations, and not just about soccer. The only difference is, once again, the Americans won't just sulk away and be quiet.
And it may not happen today. Probably won't (Nate Jaqua?). But the US will be more than just competitive with the mighty English soon enough. (Unfortunately, then the American bandwagoners will probably jump on and be just as arrogant.... ugh.)
most of the reasons you have stated are completely untrue.
Id also like to refer to this statement;
"While this afternoon’s friendly between the United States and England has little meaning on the international level, a lot of pride is at stake. If England loses, their fans will chalk it up to a meaningless friendly..."
This is not true, no offense but do some research on English fans before you write your report, if England lose, we wont "chalk it up" to a meaningless friendly, it will be down to Capello, alot is at stake over this game for the English, Capello needs to prove himself that he can do the job. But then again i doubt you guys even know who Fabio Capello is?
Seriously, do some research before writing.
And Doug, i love the way you presume The English are like this, seriously, how many English people have you come across, or is it all what you see on tv or read on the internet...tshh, This, for example...
"This is nothing new - England has looked down its nose at the rest of the world for generations, and not just about soccer..."
You sound like the typical naive, arrogant American that would make people from Europe, not just England look down on YOU. The fact is, the English like the idea of FOOTBALL being played at a higher and higher level in america, it makes it more exciting to watch, lets players from the Americas develop their game of football and hopefully integrate the skills produced in the MLS into the european game. I, no doubt as does most English people, believe that in a few more years, if the US keeps progressing the way they do, they will become one of the worlds best, If Americans can see past there own ignorance. And i for one cannot wait to see what greatness can come out of America.
Ahh but of course! I don't know how the Gaffer left this point out! A lot of the English are HORRIBLE the way they treat their national team coaches.
Salem witch trials, anyone? ;-)
"The fact is, the English like the idea of FOOTBALL being played at a higher and higher level in america, it makes it more exciting to watch, lets players from the Americas develop their game of football and hopefully integrate the skills produced in the MLS into the european game. I, no doubt as does most English people, believe that in a few more years, if the US keeps progressing the way they do, they will become one of the worlds best, If Americans can see past there own ignorance. And i for one cannot wait to see what greatness can come out of America."
Thank you; that's what I'm talking about. I'm American but I can see this attitude coming from England more and more. *thumbs up*
I am struggling to understand your brief tirade against the use of "soccer." Surely the fact that a name "fits" its subject matter is not a tenable view! Nobody has seriously pursued that since Plato in the Cratylus!
Certainly "football" is intuitively descriptive in a way that "soccer" is not. Since, however, the criterion for word selection is its value in communication, and not how it fits its referent, this intuitive descriptiveness is not the final word. And indeed, for communicative value, "soccer" is a necessity in the States. As is well documented, football (of the 'soccer' variety) is not nearly as popular as American football in the United States. In the common parlance of Americans, "football" refers to American football.
If one wishes to communicate effectively, "soccer" is the natural choice. If I am discussing the game with fellow fans, I will use the term "football." If I am discussing it with other Americans or in a context where the distinction is salient, I switch my usage to "soccer." Both refer to the same game - but in the American context, one is ambiguous and the other is not. Why should we choose to use an ambiguous term when a non-ambiguous term is readily available?
And jm i certainly see your point, i was trying to dumb it down to a typical Englishman's point of view, Referring back to The Gaffers reasons in why the English may be slightly more hospitable towards Americans when it comes to football talk. As pathetic as it is, a small minority may feel that soccer is not the right name for the game, being that when football was first invented, it was named, football. Many people feel as a result, the name soccer is branded as an Americanized term for a game that was always originally called football by pretty much every other nation (except you aussies ;) ), so why change it?
Its a very petty argument, but one that seems to never end. At the end of the day, its just the same game, same ball and same rules.
I was just trying to shed some light on the whole reason Americans feel neglect from their English counterparts!
;)
oops sorry folks meant to post that to my War of Independence/ American Revolution blog on Memorial Day.
"I’m with Stephan on this. I am an american and I cannot stand that some jackasses decided to call the game of the NFL “football”."
I don't know if you're aware of this, but countries develop vocabularies seperatly from each other. I'm pretty sure that "some jackass" didn't just decide, "Hey, I'm gonna invent this game and call it 'football' even though those damn Englishmen already call their own game football! They're 'effin pussies! Screw them!" Usually, and especially before the days of the internet, different dialects (or vernaculars, if you will) would develop because of the relative isolation between an colony and it's mother country. The French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, and Romanian languages exist because they were all colonized by Rome but were so far away from the central Latin-speaking base that the Latin morphed into something totally different. In fact, before the age of the internet, one of the first authors of the American dictionary predicted that in 100 years Engliah English and American English would be mutually unintelligible. Maybe a bit hasty of him, but he has a point. Words change meaning.
Hence why you could go from England to Canada to the US to Australia, ask a random person from each country if they want to play football, and participate in a different game. Hence: the Austrailian national team is known as the Socceroos, not the "Footballoos" (how lame would that be?). Or why a French-Canadian calls the CFL "le football" and association football "le soccer."
The point being: it wasn't just "some jackass" who decided to do it. It's just how language works. Look it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_%28word%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_linguis...
So your telling me that the word football is relevant to the game that is american football? It clearly is not, that is my point. It has nothing to do with vernacular, it has everything to do with some jackasses calling it football when it has pretty much nothing to do with a ball and feet(outside of punts, kick-offs, and field goals). When american football was created they could have called it anything they wanted. You can spare me the history lesson.
You are also pushing a "goodness of fit" argument for why it should be called "football" across all linguistic contexts. For your position to be plausible, that needs an argument! Even if names do have descriptive content, that does not mean that the descriptive content has to be compositionally determined by its parts. And even worse, your claim seems to be that if it is not so determined, then the name should not be used for that subject!
Further, there is a distinction between what terms we ought to use when dubbing something, versus what terms we ought to use once they have been introduced into the lexicon of a given public language. Even if you are right that it was "wrong" (linguistically speaking?) to term American football "football" (which I disagree with, but let us grant you the assumption), that does not mean that people are wrong to respect that usage in the current context.
Finally, note that rugby and association football both shared the name "football" in the early days of both sports. Since American football traces back its etymology to rugby when it was often deemed "football," the use of the term is not terribly surprising. Indeed, this casts further doubt on the notion that names are assigned to their referents purely or even primarily on the basis of how their descriptive content matches up with their referents!
A perfectly fine compromise for me! In fact, I use both terms, but all I really want to claim is that in certain contexts, the term soccer is not only acceptable but expedient.
The English invented it!
Yes, toward the end of the 19th century, when the game of 'rugby' was given the affectionate nickname, 'Rugger', the game of 'football' - shortened from 'Association Football' (FA) - was so called, 'Soccer', a play on the word, 'Assoc.' which is the abbreviation for 'Association Football'.
End of.
Check out my website...
Right on,
Scotty