Worth reading author Dave Goldblatt book The Age of Football which looks at the national/regional FIFA shenaigans in the early 21st century. Personal boycott TV watching any matches held in USA stadiums. Of course this makes me a fair weather England supporter. But don't feel guilty in boycotting the last world cup as a probably a futile protest for the imported construction workers hideous work conditions.
Why would you feel guilty?
Not a huge patriot i.e. blindly support England in whatever competition they play with the questionable host nation politics, think Russia Olympics/World Cup or the workers construction conditions at the last Qatar World Cup?. As has mentioned in the book and in this thread, governments use their sporting sporting teams and athletic individuals success to boost their popularity so participating gives support to these horrible governments. Thus at once remove, watching on TV England progress will give support to these host nations.
Meanwhile Liverpool have sacked their manager. This comes after two years in which they were Champions last season and fifth this, while still qualifying for the Champions League. His must be the best record for any sacked manager, but some of their play has been pretty ordinary, and I feel he is carrying the can for a few players leaving and others not wanting to play.
Meanwhile Liverpool have sacked their manager. This comes after two years in which they were Champions last season and fifth this, while still qualifying for the Champions League. His must be the best record for any sacked manager, but some of their play has been pretty ordinary, and I feel he is carrying the can for a few players leaving and others not wanting to play.
As a local, my impression is that the fans wanted him gone. Unfortunately he followed a an extremely charismatic manager who got his player playing exciting, attacking football, while he is a much calmer and more pragmatic person. And the football he had them playing was dull.
Its worth saying that Klopp was appointed as manager with huge control over many aspects of the club including recruitment, while Slot was appointed as head coach, a job with little control over recruitment etc.
PSG have won the Champions' League, and I very much wish they had lost. It was like a war zone here last night. The best part of 800 people got arrested, and that was ones doing truly outrageous things. The average thug setting off fireworks in the middle of the street was left to get on with it.
Worth reading author Dave Goldblatt book The Age of Football which looks at the national/regional FIFA shenaigans in the early 21st century. Personal boycott TV watching any matches held in USA stadiums. Of course this makes me a fair weather England supporter. But don't feel guilty in boycotting the last world cup as a probably a futile protest for the imported construction workers hideous work conditions.
Why would you feel guilty?
Not a huge patriot i.e. blindly support England in whatever competition they play with the questionable host nation politics, think Russia Olympics/World Cup or the workers construction conditions at the last Qatar World Cup?. As has mentioned in the book and in this thread, governments use their sporting sporting teams and athletic individuals success to boost their popularity so participating gives support to these horrible governments. Thus at once remove, watching on TV England progress will give support to these host nations.
Yes I understand that it is morally right to boycott, but you said "don't feel guilty in boycotting the last world cup" as though there might be some reason to feel guilty about boycotting the last World Cup. I don't understand what that reason could be.
How is cheating rife? I watch quite a lot on TV, but don't see this
Players going down and claiming a foul when there were barely touched, if at all, is one thing I have seen far too much of. I don't blame the referees for not spotting it but TV picks it up and there are no post-match consequences.
When the ball goes out both teams claim the throw in even when it is quite clear who last touched it.
Players rolling around in absolute agony until the foul is given and then they stage a miraculous recovery.
Many other things that I'm not going to waste time on. If the game has improved in recent years then I will admit to being out of touch.
And yet the game is cleaner, you no longer get the reducer tackle, which made players hobble around. Well, you sound quite negative about football, fair enough. I still enjoy it, and look forward to seeing the great players in the World Cup.
As to the use of America and the US there is an agreed format to the effect that the terms represent their government and authorities. It is perfectly normal use for all countries.
Huh? I don’t think there’s a “agreed” understanding here at all that US/American teams are understood to represent the US government. The country, yes, but not the government. I think many American athletes would bristle at that idea, and rightly so. Quite a few certainly seemed to want to be very clear about it at the Winter Olympics this year.
The terms America and US are taken to mean the government in certain circumstances. That is what I meant not the teams
As to the use of America and the US there is an agreed format to the effect that the terms represent their government and authorities. It is perfectly normal use for all countries.
Huh? I don’t think there’s a “agreed” understanding here at all that US/American teams are understood to represent the US government. The country, yes, but not the government. I think many American athletes would bristle at that idea, and rightly so. Quite a few certainly seemed to want to be very clear about it at the Winter Olympics this year.
The terms America and US are taken to mean the government in certain circumstances. That is what I meant not the teams
Okay, but as pointed out, the US government isn’t responsible for the World Cup being held here. So we’re back to the claim that “America,” apparently meaning the US government, is going to have to do something because “their” World Cup is turning into a shitshow, despite the fact that the US government isn’t who sought the World Cup or got it here.
As to the use of America and the US there is an agreed format to the effect that the terms represent their government and authorities. It is perfectly normal use for all countries.
Huh? I don’t think there’s a “agreed” understanding here at all that US/American teams are understood to represent the US government. The country, yes, but not the government. I think many American athletes would bristle at that idea, and rightly so. Quite a few certainly seemed to want to be very clear about it at the Winter Olympics this year.
The terms America and US are taken to mean the government in certain circumstances. That is what I meant not the teams
Okay, but as pointed out, the US government isn’t responsible for the World Cup being held here. So we’re back to the claim that “America,” apparently meaning the US government, is going to have to do something because “their” World Cup is turning into a shitshow, despite the fact that the US government isn’t who sought the World Cup or got it here.
OK did the government not need to give some kind of permission to hold a big tournament like this. They must have supported the bid. Something on this size cannot be done without the government backing, unless the US is very different to other countries.
OK did the government not need to give some kind of permission to hold a big tournament like this. They must have supported the bid. Something on this size cannot be done without the government backing, unless the US is very different to other countries.
You can read all about the 2026 FIFA World Cup bid process in Wikipedia. If you find mention of the US federal government, let us know.
As to the use of America and the US there is an agreed format to the effect that the terms represent their government and authorities. It is perfectly normal use for all countries.
Huh? I don’t think there’s a “agreed” understanding here at all that US/American teams are understood to represent the US government. The country, yes, but not the government. I think many American athletes would bristle at that idea, and rightly so. Quite a few certainly seemed to want to be very clear about it at the Winter Olympics this year.
The terms America and US are taken to mean the government in certain circumstances. That is what I meant not the teams
Okay, but as pointed out, the US government isn’t responsible for the World Cup being held here. So we’re back to the claim that “America,” apparently meaning the US government, is going to have to do something because “their” World Cup is turning into a shitshow, despite the fact that the US government isn’t who sought the World Cup or got it here.
OK did the government not need to give some kind of permission to hold a big tournament like this.
The federal government? No
They must have supported the bid.
As I said upthread, Trump (in his first term) indicated support for the United States Soccer Federation’s bid, and the US House of Representatives adopted a resolution supporting the bid. Neither of those things constitute actual action by the federal government.
As also noted upthread, local government of places where games were to be held had to approve the proposal and enter contracts. But local governments are not part of the federal government.
Something on this size cannot be done without the government backing, unless the US is very different to other countries.
”Government backing” in the US can refer to the federal government, state governments and/or local governments. The only one of those that can be short-handed as “America” is the federal government, and other than the two mainly symbolic statements of support I mentioned above, the federal government has nothing to do with the World Cup being here.
As to the use of America and the US there is an agreed format to the effect that the terms represent their government and authorities. It is perfectly normal use for all countries.
Huh? I don’t think there’s a “agreed” understanding here at all that US/American teams are understood to represent the US government. The country, yes, but not the government. I think many American athletes would bristle at that idea, and rightly so. Quite a few certainly seemed to want to be very clear about it at the Winter Olympics this year.
The terms America and US are taken to mean the government in certain circumstances. That is what I meant not the teams
Okay, but as pointed out, the US government isn’t responsible for the World Cup being held here. So we’re back to the claim that “America,” apparently meaning the US government, is going to have to do something because “their” World Cup is turning into a shitshow, despite the fact that the US government isn’t who sought the World Cup or got it here.
OK did the government not need to give some kind of permission to hold a big tournament like this.
The federal government? No
They must have supported the bid.
As I said upthread, Trump (in his first term) indicated support for the United States Soccer Federation’s bid, and the US House of Representatives adopted a resolution supporting the bid. Neither of those things constitute actual action by the federal government.
As also noted upthread, local government of places where games were to be held had to approve the proposal and enter contracts. But local governments are not part of the federal government.
Something on this size cannot be done without the government backing, unless the US is very different to other countries.
”Government backing” in the US can refer to the federal government, state governments and/or local governments. The only one of those that can be short-handed as “America” is the federal government, and other than the two mainly symbolic statements of support I mentioned above, the federal government has nothing to do with the World Cup being here.
Does FIFA's process require the national government of a bidding nation to support the bid, analagous to my earlier example of the IOC requiring the mayor of a bidding city to support hosting the Olympics?
As to the use of America and the US there is an agreed format to the effect that the terms represent their government and authorities. It is perfectly normal use for all countries.
Huh? I don’t think there’s a “agreed” understanding here at all that US/American teams are understood to represent the US government. The country, yes, but not the government. I think many American athletes would bristle at that idea, and rightly so. Quite a few certainly seemed to want to be very clear about it at the Winter Olympics this year.
The terms America and US are taken to mean the government in certain circumstances. That is what I meant not the teams
Okay, but as pointed out, the US government isn’t responsible for the World Cup being held here. So we’re back to the claim that “America,” apparently meaning the US government, is going to have to do something because “their” World Cup is turning into a shitshow, despite the fact that the US government isn’t who sought the World Cup or got it here.
OK did the government not need to give some kind of permission to hold a big tournament like this.
The federal government? No
They must have supported the bid.
As I said upthread, Trump (in his first term) indicated support for the United States Soccer Federation’s bid, and the US House of Representatives adopted a resolution supporting the bid. Neither of those things constitute actual action by the federal government.
As also noted upthread, local government of places where games were to be held had to approve the proposal and enter contracts. But local governments are not part of the federal government.
Something on this size cannot be done without the government backing, unless the US is very different to other countries.
”Government backing” in the US can refer to the federal government, state governments and/or local governments. The only one of those that can be short-handed as “America” is the federal government, and other than the two mainly symbolic statements of support I mentioned above, the federal government has nothing to do with the World Cup being here.
Does FIFA's process require the national government of a bidding nation to support the bid, analagous to my earlier example of the IOC requiring the mayor of a bidding city to support hosting the Olympics?
My understanding—and I trust someone will correct me if my understanding is off—is that FIFA requires the bidder(s) to secure commitments from relevant governmental entities or bodies to meet a variety of infrastructure and related minimum criteria. In the US, the majority of those commitments would relate to things within the control or purview of local and/or state governments, though the federal government made commitments related to things like visas, currency exchange and security.
While those commitments could be seen as supportive of a bid, they don’t convert the bid of private entities—in this case the United States Soccer Federation, the Canadian Soccer Association and the Mexican Football Federation—into a bid of the government, or of the nation that government represents.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I know football is not big in the US but this is a massive tournament. If it goes well it will reflect well on the US, if it goes badly the opposite is true. I find it odd that the government has taken so little notice of it. The potential is massive, both financial and reputational. Yes American football and baseball are bigger in the US but football is the biggest sport in the world. Personally I find it dull as ditch water but millions upon millions love it.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I know football is not big in the US but this is a massive tournament. If it goes well it will reflect well on the US, if it goes badly the opposite is true. I find it odd that the government has taken so little notice of it. The potential is massive, both financial and reputational. Yes American football and baseball are bigger in the US but football is the biggest sport in the world. Personally I find it dull as ditch water but millions upon millions love it.
First, the money. Even if it all went well, we wouldn't benefit financially. The FIFA deals are notoriously one-sided. From Propublica:
Host cities and their local organizing committees will pay for security at the matches, cover the cost of retrofitting their stadiums to better accommodate soccer and operate fan festivals in addition to the main matches. Originally, they were supposed to pay to transport FIFA officials to all matches, as well, though that requirement has been waived, according to Houston organizers.
The cities get little tangible benefit in return. They do not see a slice of game-day revenues from ticket sales, concessions and merchandise, or parking. Even selling tickets or suites in exchange for corporate sponsorships — usually a key revenue generator for local organizers — was restricted by FIFA this year.
Second, our reputation. Let's consider how the US has been acting on the global stage.
-- We are conducting a war that is threatening the global food supply (due to fertilizer shortages) and threatening the freedom of the oceans that the British navy established and defended starting in the 19th century and the US navy has defended since WW2 (because Iran now owns the Strait of Hormuz) which means global trade could be diminished. The oil shock is maybe a long-term plus given that everyone but the US seems to be pivoting to sustainable forms of electric energy, but no one asked for us to do this.
-- We are operating 149 concentration camps ("detention facilities") where thousands of immigrants are being mistreated so badly some have undertaken hunger strikes.
-- We are no longer a full democracy, and many of us are fearful that the Republicans will sabotage and/or steal the November midterm elections. We used to be a prime example of democracy. Now we're a cautionary tale.
-- Elon Musk destroyed USAID, which provided more than 40% of the humanitarian aid in the entire world -- hundreds of thousands of people have since died as a result.
-- We've pulled out of the Paris climate agreement.
-- We've left the WHO.
-- We've alienated the Canadians -- their prime minister said the US has destroyed the rules-based order of the world, and Canadian tourism in the US has fallen 35%.
-- The State Department is reviewing the Mexican consulates in the US with an eye toward closing some of them, which would make life even harder for the nearly 11 million Mexicans living in the US. And we've deported more than 10,000 people who aren't Mexican to Mexico, mainly Cubans and Venezuelans, basically just dumping them in a country where they have no ties and making Mexico deal with them.
Our reputation is already in the toilet, and rightfully so. The World Cup going badly won't help, but it'll be comparatively small potatoes.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I know football is not big in the US but this is a massive tournament. If it goes well it will reflect well on the US, if it goes badly the opposite is true. I find it odd that the government has taken so little notice of it. The potential is massive, both financial and reputational. Yes American football and baseball are bigger in the US but football is the biggest sport in the world. Personally I find it dull as ditch water but millions upon millions love it.
First, the money. Even if it all went well, we wouldn't benefit financially. The FIFA deals are notoriously one-sided. From Propublica:
Host cities and their local organizing committees will pay for security at the matches, cover the cost of retrofitting their stadiums to better accommodate soccer and operate fan festivals in addition to the main matches. Originally, they were supposed to pay to transport FIFA officials to all matches, as well, though that requirement has been waived, according to Houston organizers.
The cities get little tangible benefit in return. They do not see a slice of game-day revenues from ticket sales, concessions and merchandise, or parking. Even selling tickets or suites in exchange for corporate sponsorships — usually a key revenue generator for local organizers — was restricted by FIFA this year.
Second, our reputation. Let's consider how the US has been acting on the global stage.
-- We are conducting a war that is threatening the global food supply (due to fertilizer shortages) and threatening the freedom of the oceans that the British navy established and defended starting in the 19th century and the US navy has defended since WW2 (because Iran now owns the Strait of Hormuz) which means global trade could be diminished. The oil shock is maybe a long-term plus given that everyone but the US seems to be pivoting to sustainable forms of electric energy, but no one asked for us to do this.
-- We are operating 149 concentration camps ("detention facilities") where thousands of immigrants are being mistreated so badly some have undertaken hunger strikes.
-- We are no longer a full democracy, and many of us are fearful that the Republicans will sabotage and/or steal the November midterm elections. We used to be a prime example of democracy. Now we're a cautionary tale.
-- Elon Musk destroyed USAID, which provided more than 40% of the humanitarian aid in the entire world -- hundreds of thousands of people have since died as a result.
-- We've pulled out of the Paris climate agreement.
-- We've left the WHO.
-- We've alienated the Canadians -- their prime minister said the US has destroyed the rules-based order of the world, and Canadian tourism in the US has fallen 35%.
-- The State Department is reviewing the Mexican consulates in the US with an eye toward closing some of them, which would make life even harder for the nearly 11 million Mexicans living in the US. And we've deported more than 10,000 people who aren't Mexican to Mexico, mainly Cubans and Venezuelans, basically just dumping them in a country where they have no ties and making Mexico deal with them.
Our reputation is already in the toilet, and rightfully so. The World Cup going badly won't help, but it'll be comparatively small potatoes.
As a Canadian, I am looking forward to a post-Trump America when our nations can begin to mend the wounds in our relationship. As for the World Cup, Canada had a good friendly last night against Uzbekistan, 2-0.
Let's not incite a pond war (aren't their sports silly so unlike our sensible sports version).
Dafyd Hell Host
I posted in jest. Not allowed in Hell? Blimey!
Not an admin, so posting as a long-term member of this community, and I have seen pond wars erupt.
It is not the fact that it was in jest - I think everyone got this - but that it has been said before, and it is actually quite offensive. As Dafyd said, it is arrogance.
@Schroedingers Cat
As Dafyd said, it is arrogance.
Not in response to my post they didn't.
But I am a peace-loving person who avoids nose-to-nose confrontation, so I won't ask for a response.
No, not even in Hell.
It may have been the last time it was in Vancouver. I doubt it would have happened in Montreal in 76 although I assume security would have been heightened after Munich 72. I honestly had not given it much thought to be honest.
Worth reading author Dave Goldblatt book The Age of Football which looks at the national/regional FIFA shenaigans in the early 21st century. Personal boycott TV watching any matches held in USA stadiums. Of course this makes me a fair weather England supporter. But don't feel guilty in boycotting the last world cup as a probably a futile protest for the imported construction workers hideous work conditions.
Why would you feel guilty?
Not a huge patriot i.e. blindly support England in whatever competition they play with the questionable host nation politics, think Russia Olympics/World Cup or the workers construction conditions at the last Qatar World Cup?. As has mentioned in the book and in this thread, governments use their sporting sporting teams and athletic individuals success to boost their popularity so participating gives support to these horrible governments. Thus at once remove, watching on TV England progress will give support to these host nations.
Yes I understand that it is morally right to boycott, but you said "don't feel guilty in boycotting the last world cup" as though there might be some reason to feel guilty about boycotting the last World Cup. I don't understand what that reason could be.
Well simply as an English born man, do feel I should support my country. Do enjoy good national teams playing in a football or rugby international match but my beef is the FIFA awarding tournaments in countries who have horrible human rights e.g. Qatar with their treatment of the immigrant workers, plus USA under Trump, so why I should support these repressive regimes in these displays by supporting my national team?
And now the klepto-games are hitting a new low by banning fans from taking their own water (or even their own empty bottles) into stadia, instead forcing them to buy water from the venue.
Parenthetically, being a Canadian, I just learned a new cricket term to today, "red ball cricket".
This refers to the state of a cricketer's soft dangly bits having problems with his jockstrap after having to bowl too many overs.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
You are a baaad person!
One of my favourite bits of Cricket commentary from the 1990s went like this. England were playing New Zealand, Michael Atherton was batting. I cannot remember who was bowling but poor Mikey got hit in the box. (The legend) Richie Benaud was on the mic with Sir Richard Hadlee. Watching the side-on replay it was clear that this is a ball that had bounced more than expected off a good length which is presumably why Atherton misjudged it.
Richie said "Yep, that ball really bounced"
Sir Richard replied "Which one Richie?"
(see also Aggers and Botham not being able to get his leg over....)
my beef is the FIFA awarding tournaments in countries who have horrible human rights e.g. Qatar with their treatment of the immigrant workers, plus USA under Trump, so why I should support these repressive regimes in these displays by supporting my national team?
Unfortunately, "countries who have horrible human rights" is most of them. The UK would find it hard to claim the moral high ground here, when you consider a combination of the current treatment of irregular border-crossers and trans people.
FIFA has changed the stadium code of conduct and will not permit people to bring in empty water bottles of their own to fill at drinking fountains. So they'll either have to stand in line at fountains multiple times or buy water. Good thing it never gets hot in North America in the summer.
Parenthetically, being a Canadian, I just learned a new cricket term to today, "red ball cricket".
This refers to the state of a cricketer's soft dangly bits having problems with his jockstrap after having to bowl too many overs.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
You are a baaad person!
One of my favourite bits of Cricket commentary from the 1990s went like this. England were playing New Zealand, Michael Atherton was batting. I cannot remember who was bowling but poor Mikey got hit in the box. (The legend) Richie Benaud was on the mic with Sir Richard Hadlee. Watching the side-on replay it was clear that this is a ball that had bounced more than expected off a good length which is presumably why Atherton misjudged it.
Richie said "Yep, that ball really bounced"
Sir Richard replied "Which one Richie?"
(see also Aggers and Botham not being able to get his leg over....)
AFZ
And who will ever forget, 'The batsman's Holding . . . the bowler's Willey'.
I was there also for the famous 'legova' incident. Happy days!
The final will be in a stadium that is not walkable from public transport and the area is a bit of a health hazard.
More on getting to MetLife stadium -- I'm wondering if what you read actually said you couldn't walk there, because that is in fact the case. You have to take public transit. A writer and photographer did the walk anyway, and wrote about it in the NY Times (free link here). Dangerous traffic and a stinky river -- ugh.
Comments
Not a huge patriot i.e. blindly support England in whatever competition they play with the questionable host nation politics, think Russia Olympics/World Cup or the workers construction conditions at the last Qatar World Cup?. As has mentioned in the book and in this thread, governments use their sporting sporting teams and athletic individuals success to boost their popularity so participating gives support to these horrible governments. Thus at once remove, watching on TV England progress will give support to these host nations.
As a local, my impression is that the fans wanted him gone. Unfortunately he followed a an extremely charismatic manager who got his player playing exciting, attacking football, while he is a much calmer and more pragmatic person. And the football he had them playing was dull.
Its worth saying that Klopp was appointed as manager with huge control over many aspects of the club including recruitment, while Slot was appointed as head coach, a job with little control over recruitment etc.
Yes I understand that it is morally right to boycott, but you said "don't feel guilty in boycotting the last world cup" as though there might be some reason to feel guilty about boycotting the last World Cup. I don't understand what that reason could be.
Players going down and claiming a foul when there were barely touched, if at all, is one thing I have seen far too much of. I don't blame the referees for not spotting it but TV picks it up and there are no post-match consequences.
When the ball goes out both teams claim the throw in even when it is quite clear who last touched it.
Players rolling around in absolute agony until the foul is given and then they stage a miraculous recovery.
Many other things that I'm not going to waste time on. If the game has improved in recent years then I will admit to being out of touch.
The terms America and US are taken to mean the government in certain circumstances. That is what I meant not the teams
OK did the government not need to give some kind of permission to hold a big tournament like this. They must have supported the bid. Something on this size cannot be done without the government backing, unless the US is very different to other countries.
You can read all about the 2026 FIFA World Cup bid process in Wikipedia. If you find mention of the US federal government, let us know.
As I said upthread, Trump (in his first term) indicated support for the United States Soccer Federation’s bid, and the US House of Representatives adopted a resolution supporting the bid. Neither of those things constitute actual action by the federal government.
As also noted upthread, local government of places where games were to be held had to approve the proposal and enter contracts. But local governments are not part of the federal government.
”Government backing” in the US can refer to the federal government, state governments and/or local governments. The only one of those that can be short-handed as “America” is the federal government, and other than the two mainly symbolic statements of support I mentioned above, the federal government has nothing to do with the World Cup being here.
Does FIFA's process require the national government of a bidding nation to support the bid, analagous to my earlier example of the IOC requiring the mayor of a bidding city to support hosting the Olympics?
While those commitments could be seen as supportive of a bid, they don’t convert the bid of private entities—in this case the United States Soccer Federation, the Canadian Soccer Association and the Mexican Football Federation—into a bid of the government, or of the nation that government represents.
Yes well when the men play rounders and have to wear body armour for rugby what do you expect?
Dafyd Hell Host
Second, our reputation. Let's consider how the US has been acting on the global stage.
-- We are conducting a war that is threatening the global food supply (due to fertilizer shortages) and threatening the freedom of the oceans that the British navy established and defended starting in the 19th century and the US navy has defended since WW2 (because Iran now owns the Strait of Hormuz) which means global trade could be diminished. The oil shock is maybe a long-term plus given that everyone but the US seems to be pivoting to sustainable forms of electric energy, but no one asked for us to do this.
-- We are operating 149 concentration camps ("detention facilities") where thousands of immigrants are being mistreated so badly some have undertaken hunger strikes.
-- We are no longer a full democracy, and many of us are fearful that the Republicans will sabotage and/or steal the November midterm elections. We used to be a prime example of democracy. Now we're a cautionary tale.
-- Elon Musk destroyed USAID, which provided more than 40% of the humanitarian aid in the entire world -- hundreds of thousands of people have since died as a result.
-- We've pulled out of the Paris climate agreement.
-- We've left the WHO.
-- We've alienated the Canadians -- their prime minister said the US has destroyed the rules-based order of the world, and Canadian tourism in the US has fallen 35%.
-- The State Department is reviewing the Mexican consulates in the US with an eye toward closing some of them, which would make life even harder for the nearly 11 million Mexicans living in the US. And we've deported more than 10,000 people who aren't Mexican to Mexico, mainly Cubans and Venezuelans, basically just dumping them in a country where they have no ties and making Mexico deal with them.
Our reputation is already in the toilet, and rightfully so. The World Cup going badly won't help, but it'll be comparatively small potatoes.
I posted in jest. Not allowed in Hell? Blimey!
This.
Not an admin, so posting as a long-term member of this community, and I have seen pond wars erupt.
It is not the fact that it was in jest - I think everyone got this - but that it has been said before, and it is actually quite offensive. As Dafyd said, it is arrogance.
The intent was understood.
As Dafyd said, it is arrogance.
Not in response to my post they didn't.
But I am a peace-loving person who avoids nose-to-nose confrontation, so I won't ask for a response.
No, not even in Hell.
Dafyd Hell Host
We used to have an Intro to Cricket thread, now in Oblivion, but it provided helpful information about stuff like this!
Wouldn't this kind of patrolling have taken place during the Olympics in Canada? Or is that assumption prompted by my US viewpoint?
This refers to the state of a cricketer's soft dangly bits having problems with his jockstrap after having to bowl too many overs.
Well simply as an English born man, do feel I should support my country. Do enjoy good national teams playing in a football or rugby international match but my beef is the FIFA awarding tournaments in countries who have horrible human rights e.g. Qatar with their treatment of the immigrant workers, plus USA under Trump, so why I should support these repressive regimes in these displays by supporting my national team?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
You are a baaad person!
Source
One of my favourite bits of Cricket commentary from the 1990s went like this. England were playing New Zealand, Michael Atherton was batting. I cannot remember who was bowling but poor Mikey got hit in the box. (The legend) Richie Benaud was on the mic with Sir Richard Hadlee. Watching the side-on replay it was clear that this is a ball that had bounced more than expected off a good length which is presumably why Atherton misjudged it.
Richie said "Yep, that ball really bounced"
Sir Richard replied "Which one Richie?"
(see also Aggers and Botham not being able to get his leg over....)
AFZ
Unfortunately, "countries who have horrible human rights" is most of them. The UK would find it hard to claim the moral high ground here, when you consider a combination of the current treatment of irregular border-crossers and trans people.
And who will ever forget, 'The batsman's Holding . . . the bowler's Willey'.
I was there also for the famous 'legova' incident. Happy days!
More on getting to MetLife stadium -- I'm wondering if what you read actually said you couldn't walk there, because that is in fact the case. You have to take public transit. A writer and photographer did the walk anyway, and wrote about it in the NY Times (free link here). Dangerous traffic and a stinky river -- ugh.
Am I the only one who cracked up when I read that?