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.
As a trans person in the UK, the UK government's treatment of trans people (however awful it is, which it is) is not in any way comparable to the experience of trans people in Qatar and I object to trans people's experiences being used to score political points in this way - especially during Pride Month.
The UK absolutely can claim the moral high ground when it comes to human rights abuses in Qatar. That doesn't mean that the UK isn't also guilty of its own human rights abuses, but it isn't objectionable to point out that some countries are particularly dangerous for certain groups. Amnesty International does this, it's completely normal when it comes to discussing global human rights.
I read the title of this discussion as an instruction; it seems a tad harsh even if you think football is a silly game.
I have been thinking that for days. Nothing in the thread has yet explained why we should be required to gut them.
By the end of the World Cup I expect that the darker corners of my mind will have sufficient justification.
But I shouldn't moan. In the days of just 3, 4 or 5 terrestrial channels and no alternatives it was considerably worse.
If you don't watch the news or use mainstream social media/heavily curate the social media you use, it's possible to not even be aware that the World Cup is happening. I only know about it because I watched an interview on YouTube with David Tennant where it was mentioned because of Scotland being in it. I generally only ever know when the women's soccer World Cup is happening, due to the amount of Lesbian Posting accompanying it...
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.
As a trans person in the UK, the UK government's treatment of trans people (however awful it is, which it is) is not in any way comparable to the experience of trans people in Qatar and I object to trans people's experiences being used to score political points in this way - especially during Pride Month.
The UK absolutely can claim the moral high ground when it comes to human rights abuses in Qatar. That doesn't mean that the UK isn't also guilty of its own human rights abuses, but it isn't objectionable to point out that some countries are particularly dangerous for certain groups. Amnesty International does this, it's completely normal when it comes to discussing global human rights.
My comparison was really with "USA under Trump", and while I'd still say that current UK policies are less bad than Trump policies, the differences are not nearly so bright.
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.
As a trans person in the UK, the UK government's treatment of trans people (however awful it is, which it is) is not in any way comparable to the experience of trans people in Qatar and I object to trans people's experiences being used to score political points in this way - especially during Pride Month.
The UK absolutely can claim the moral high ground when it comes to human rights abuses in Qatar. That doesn't mean that the UK isn't also guilty of its own human rights abuses, but it isn't objectionable to point out that some countries are particularly dangerous for certain groups. Amnesty International does this, it's completely normal when it comes to discussing global human rights.
My comparison was really with "USA under Trump", and while I'd still say that current UK policies are less bad than Trump policies, the differences are not nearly so bright.
This is still missing the point that using trans people's lives for political point-scoring is in extremely poor taste, again especially during Pride Month. This is not an abstract issue for me but something that affects my life.
I know @Pomona is speaking from personal experience, and so I think this has to be accepted. The UK is nothing like as bad as some other places. And FIFA does seem to like places with terrible human rights - probably because it means they are more malleable and will not have so many problems with the inherent corruption in FIFA itself.
I think there is another point though - how many countries have a spotless - or even good - human rights record? Not many, or at least not many who could host an international competition. Ye there are many much better and some much worse. But nowhere can claim true moral high ground.
Please move all discussion of trans issues to Epiphanies. And refrain from using trans people's problems as an incidental way to score points off whatever administration.
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'.
Apparently, as soon as he’d said it, Brian Johnston turned his microphone off and said “I’ve been dying to say that for ages”
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.
Maybe yes. The train company are charging a fortune saying that it is needed to cover the costs. I believe it is reclaimed land that was not fit for anything, hence the stinky river.
A Somali referee was turned back at the border due to the ban on Somalis brought by the Trump administration.
The run up to the tournament has been high on the news agenda over here. To one who doesn’t like football it feels a lot of the UK fans are staying here and watching it on TV.
Well, that’s it, I don’t think I’ll even bother watching the World Cup.
Trump’s innate xenophobia, an intrinsic part of any authoritarian personality, is now giving a lead to forces on the far-right in the USA and I’m sure elsewhere. FIFA, and especially its head Infantino (what a name!) are culpable to their usual extent. It overlooks racism and human rights abuses in pursuit of riches.
Some are comparing this to a certain sporting event in 1936, but at least Jesse Owens was allowed into the country.
Looks like Germany has moved on, but I’m less sure about the USA ☹️.
What bothers me most about the referee story is....the World Cup is also being held in Mexico and Canada. If FIFA doesn't want to stand up to Trump's xenophobic ban, just assign the ref to games in Mexico and Canada.
What bothers me most about the referee story is....the World Cup is also being held in Mexico and Canada. If FIFA doesn't want to stand up to Trump's xenophobic ban, just assign the ref to games in Mexico and Canada.
I suspect a part of it might be that the 10 day pre tournament officials' camp is being held in Miami.
I fully support anyone and everyone not watching the World Cup, but if you watched it when it was in Qatar, please dismount from your high horse.
I cannot remember a thing about the World Cup in Qatar. Not even the result, winners whatever, only that it interrupted the regular season in many places.
We have Brazilian neighbours, and I just realized some Brazil games are at 11pm, so there will be a right old cacophony then. I think the best thing is to give in, and watch it ourselves.
I fully support anyone and everyone not watching the World Cup, but if you watched it when it was in Qatar, please dismount from your high horse.
I think that's a totally respectable position, but do you really think that many people boycotting the current men's World Cup watched the Qatari one?
Well, a boycotter is, by definition, someone who WOULD be watching the event(or purchasing the product, whatever) were it not for his decision to boycott. And in my experience, a pretty huge number of people who watch one particular year's installment of a sporting event have been habitual viewers in previous years.
So, the question then is, how many people boycotting the 2026 World Cup didn't watch the 2022 World Cup, either because they were boycotting it, or simply did not want to?
I fully support anyone and everyone not watching the World Cup, but if you watched it when it was in Qatar, please dismount from your high horse.
I think that's a totally respectable position, but do you really think that many people boycotting the current men's World Cup watched the Qatari one?
Many? I don't know. Some? Sure. People aren't consistent. People wake up and realize things are shitty for different reasons at different times. And some people probably figured Qatar is Qatar, what are you gonna do? But have higher expectations of the US.
I fully support anyone and everyone not watching the World Cup, but if you watched it when it was in Qatar, please dismount from your high horse.
I think that's a totally respectable position, but do you really think that many people boycotting the current men's World Cup watched the Qatari one?
Many? I don't know. Some? Sure. People aren't consistent. People wake up and realize things are shitty for different reasons at different times. And some people probably figured Qatar is Qatar, what are you gonna do? But have higher expectations of the US.
I suppose we in Western nations do expect better of the USA, just as people expect better of the United Kingdom, but you have Trump & Musk while we have Farage, Lowe and Yaxley-Lennon and there’s the evil Putin manipulating them, so we are losing respect and hope for just about any of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.
Eta: In addition to the leaders and names I mention tens of millions actually vote for these. We need to work amongst them, rather than abuse them. A tall order, but it’s the only way to achieve anything in the long term.
I'm not boycotting the Cup (unlikely to get around to watching it in first place and I doubt my skipping would be a useful statement for various reasons including a skepticism about most boycotts.) That said, I think that ethically if the boycotter is from the U.S., it flies to boycott this one over Qatars. I think it's valid to be more pissed about one's own country and object more directly than when someone else's country is similar. It's much easier for a U.S. citizen to affect the U.S. than Qatar and so they might target their efforts in that direction.
So, the question then is, how many people boycotting the 2026 World Cup didn't watch the 2022 World Cup, either because they were boycotting it, or simply did not want to?
I think there's a sense in which people expect Qatar to be a total dumpster fire with regard to human rights, but expect better of the democratic West. Probably also a sense in which the actions of the current US administration are a recent shift in the general trajectory of US administrations, so there's more of an impulse to respond to.
So, the question then is, how many people boycotting the 2026 World Cup didn't watch the 2022 World Cup, either because they were boycotting it, or simply did not want to?
I think there's a sense in which people expect Qatar to be a total dumpster fire with regard to human rights, but expect better of the democratic West. Probably also a sense in which the actions of the current US administration are a recent shift in the general trajectory of US administrations, so there's more of an impulse to respond to.
Maybe. I was just addressing the mathematical question of how many Watched Qatar 2022/Boycotting USA 2026 fans there are.
Sometimes you have to pick your battles. Boycotting one thing and not another. I don’t buy Nestle but do buy on Amazon. Is it as straight forward as people are making it? What are the reasons for boycotting the World Cup? Each person may have a different reason. They may object to the pricing structure. They may object to certain teams being allowed to play.
Disney is planning to build a park in Abu Dhabi. Some people are very upset at that. Some are not. A blanket statement doesn’t allow for the complexity of the situation.
Last night's game in Mexico was great fun. 2 goals and 3 red cards, and to everyone's satisfaction, Jimenez scored, the man who had a very serious injury several years ago. Also, a great spectacle, with the stadium jammed with people. I'm a wimp, so missed the Korea v Czech game, at 3am. Tomorrow, Brazil at 11pm, no rest for the wicked.
The best team I've seen so far is the US, who look electric, with Pulisic and Balogun dominating. Could this be their year? However, this is before the big guns arrive, especially, France snd Spain. Tonight, all eyes will be on Brazil!
I’m not complaining about the football, just some of the posters on other social media, saying that the World Cup is diluted by allowing so many minor footballing nations to take part in the final tournament.
This is arrogance on the part of these supporters, and it provides teams that have participated less at the highest level to play at least a couple of really good sides. In any case, more than three quarters of the national teams are not at the tournament, while multiple winners Italy failed to qualify, alongside Denmark, Nigeria and Chile.
My beef on the size of the tournament is that, at 48 teams, the qualifiers from the groups consist of the winners and second place teams from each group plus the eight best third placed teams. However it is organised, it looks possible for two teams to collude so as to qualify while depriving another third placed team of doing so. On that basis it would be fairer to have 64 teams, or reduce it to 32, which would avoid any possibility of cheating.
The UEFA president Ceferin has been criticised for saying that the large number of teams produces boring games. It probably does, but there are always boring games at tournaments, in fact there are always boring games in football, sometimes with the hot favourites playing.
Social media is full of posts by fans from abroad who are having a great time. The Scotland fans went to Fenway Park and environs to watch baseball and drink and sing, much to everyone's delight. Lawrence, Kansas is turning out for the Algerians, as they're headquartered there.
I'm sure it's disappointing to everyone here who makes a hobby of shitting on the US, but we're not all entirely horrible.
I'm sure it's disappointing to everyone here who makes a hobby of shitting on the US, but we're not all entirely horrible.
There’s a pretty fundamental problem, namely that people are almost always pleasant while governments tend towards being pretty nasty, and try to get support amongst its citizens by portraying foreigners as the source of every evil.
Please don’t mistake dumping on your administration for dumping on your people.
Please don’t mistake dumping on your administration for dumping on your people.
There's more of the former than the latter, but there's still plenty of the latter.
No I disagree. You are taking too much to heart. This World Cup has been badly organised. None of us said anything about people, only about the government and organisation. Fans are known for making the best of a situation. No matter how bad they are determined to have a good time.
It was you who said Americans don’t care not us.
About Americans not caring, I note that when I walked through the main street of Forest Hills (a Queens neighborhood) last night, it seemed as though all the bars and restaurants with TVs were playing it.
About Americans not caring, I note that when I walked through the main street of Forest Hills (a Queens neighborhood) last night, it seemed as though all the bars and restaurants with TVs were playing it.
I’ll believe that 100%. The Americans I have met have been at least as courteous, respectful and friendly as any other people. I actually like foreign people as a whole.
I can’t say the same about my own people. Maybe it’s over familiarity but I actually like comparatively few British people, and even fewer English people. Maybe I’m getting old. Maybe I have unrealistic expectations!
Tone is always tough in writing. If our American Shippies tell us some posts are coming across in a specific manner then we should believe them.
Spot on.
We should take note of C5 (don’t give offence, don’t take offence unduly). I’m fed up with “banter” being used as a cover for bullying. It’s one of the nastiest features of British society.
Comments
By the end of the World Cup I expect that the darker corners of my mind will have sufficient justification.
But I shouldn't moan. In the days of just 3, 4 or 5 terrestrial channels and no alternatives it was considerably worse.
As a trans person in the UK, the UK government's treatment of trans people (however awful it is, which it is) is not in any way comparable to the experience of trans people in Qatar and I object to trans people's experiences being used to score political points in this way - especially during Pride Month.
The UK absolutely can claim the moral high ground when it comes to human rights abuses in Qatar. That doesn't mean that the UK isn't also guilty of its own human rights abuses, but it isn't objectionable to point out that some countries are particularly dangerous for certain groups. Amnesty International does this, it's completely normal when it comes to discussing global human rights.
If you don't watch the news or use mainstream social media/heavily curate the social media you use, it's possible to not even be aware that the World Cup is happening. I only know about it because I watched an interview on YouTube with David Tennant where it was mentioned because of Scotland being in it. I generally only ever know when the women's soccer World Cup is happening, due to the amount of Lesbian Posting accompanying it...
My comparison was really with "USA under Trump", and while I'd still say that current UK policies are less bad than Trump policies, the differences are not nearly so bright.
This is still missing the point that using trans people's lives for political point-scoring is in extremely poor taste, again especially during Pride Month. This is not an abstract issue for me but something that affects my life.
I think there is another point though - how many countries have a spotless - or even good - human rights record? Not many, or at least not many who could host an international competition. Ye there are many much better and some much worse. But nowhere can claim true moral high ground.
Dafyd Hell Host
Apparently, as soon as he’d said it, Brian Johnston turned his microphone off and said “I’ve been dying to say that for ages”
Maybe yes. The train company are charging a fortune saying that it is needed to cover the costs. I believe it is reclaimed land that was not fit for anything, hence the stinky river.
A Somali referee was turned back at the border due to the ban on Somalis brought by the Trump administration.
The run up to the tournament has been high on the news agenda over here. To one who doesn’t like football it feels a lot of the UK fans are staying here and watching it on TV.
Trump’s innate xenophobia, an intrinsic part of any authoritarian personality, is now giving a lead to forces on the far-right in the USA and I’m sure elsewhere. FIFA, and especially its head Infantino (what a name!) are culpable to their usual extent. It overlooks racism and human rights abuses in pursuit of riches.
Some are comparing this to a certain sporting event in 1936, but at least Jesse Owens was allowed into the country.
Looks like Germany has moved on, but I’m less sure about the USA ☹️.
I suspect a part of it might be that the 10 day pre tournament officials' camp is being held in Miami.
I cannot remember a thing about the World Cup in Qatar. Not even the result, winners whatever, only that it interrupted the regular season in many places.
I think that's a totally respectable position, but do you really think that many people boycotting the current men's World Cup watched the Qatari one?
Well, a boycotter is, by definition, someone who WOULD be watching the event(or purchasing the product, whatever) were it not for his decision to boycott. And in my experience, a pretty huge number of people who watch one particular year's installment of a sporting event have been habitual viewers in previous years.
So, the question then is, how many people boycotting the 2026 World Cup didn't watch the 2022 World Cup, either because they were boycotting it, or simply did not want to?
Was it a conscious decision to boycott the Qatari games, or you just didn't feel like it?
Many? I don't know. Some? Sure. People aren't consistent. People wake up and realize things are shitty for different reasons at different times. And some people probably figured Qatar is Qatar, what are you gonna do? But have higher expectations of the US.
I suppose we in Western nations do expect better of the USA, just as people expect better of the United Kingdom, but you have Trump & Musk while we have Farage, Lowe and Yaxley-Lennon and there’s the evil Putin manipulating them, so we are losing respect and hope for just about any of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.
I think there's a sense in which people expect Qatar to be a total dumpster fire with regard to human rights, but expect better of the democratic West. Probably also a sense in which the actions of the current US administration are a recent shift in the general trajectory of US administrations, so there's more of an impulse to respond to.
Maybe. I was just addressing the mathematical question of how many Watched Qatar 2022/Boycotting USA 2026 fans there are.
Disney is planning to build a park in Abu Dhabi. Some people are very upset at that. Some are not. A blanket statement doesn’t allow for the complexity of the situation.
Dafyd Hell Host
If it's not a conscious decision, it's not a boycott. I am obviously talking about purposeful boycotts here given the context.
This is arrogance on the part of these supporters, and it provides teams that have participated less at the highest level to play at least a couple of really good sides. In any case, more than three quarters of the national teams are not at the tournament, while multiple winners Italy failed to qualify, alongside Denmark, Nigeria and Chile.
My beef on the size of the tournament is that, at 48 teams, the qualifiers from the groups consist of the winners and second place teams from each group plus the eight best third placed teams. However it is organised, it looks possible for two teams to collude so as to qualify while depriving another third placed team of doing so. On that basis it would be fairer to have 64 teams, or reduce it to 32, which would avoid any possibility of cheating.
I'm sure it's disappointing to everyone here who makes a hobby of shitting on the US, but we're not all entirely horrible.
There’s a pretty fundamental problem, namely that people are almost always pleasant while governments tend towards being pretty nasty, and try to get support amongst its citizens by portraying foreigners as the source of every evil.
Please don’t mistake dumping on your administration for dumping on your people.
Okay, so you boycotted the Qatar games. Thanks.
There's more of the former than the latter, but there's still plenty of the latter.
No I disagree. You are taking too much to heart. This World Cup has been badly organised. None of us said anything about people, only about the government and organisation. Fans are known for making the best of a situation. No matter how bad they are determined to have a good time.
It was you who said Americans don’t care not us.
I’ll believe that 100%. The Americans I have met have been at least as courteous, respectful and friendly as any other people. I actually like foreign people as a whole.
I can’t say the same about my own people. Maybe it’s over familiarity but I actually like comparatively few British people, and even fewer English people. Maybe I’m getting old. Maybe I have unrealistic expectations!
“You are taking too much to heart” sounds a lot like “can’t you take a joke?”
Spot on.
We should take note of C5 (don’t give offence, don’t take offence unduly). I’m fed up with “banter” being used as a cover for bullying. It’s one of the nastiest features of British society.