PDA

View Full Version : The Liberal Takeover of the World Cup 2010



Gingersnap
06-16-2010, 11:36 AM
June 16, 2010

The Liberal Takeover of the World Cup 2010

By Adam Shaw

Only a week into World Cup 2010, the decision to hold the tournament in South Africa appears to be an unmitigated disaster. The blame lies at the feet of liberal elites who have politicized soccer.

Due to its size and worldwide appeal, the selection of the host nation for the FIFA World Cup has to take many factors into account. The host needs to exhibit a nation of stability and safety, a strong soccer record, and a highly developed transport infrastructure, as well as having approximately ten large stadia in order to host the various matches.

It is a tough task that causes even the most developed soccer nations, like England, to doubt their worthiness. Yet there have been exceptions that show that nations that do not meet these criteria can host a World Cup. Mexico hosted the tournament in 1970 and 1986, and the USA (then not a strong soccer nation) successfully hosted in 1994 -- producing one of the best tournaments in recent years (Diana Ross aside).

Yet the choices were based on reasons to do with soccer. Mexico was chosen due to its position as a key soccer nation, and America was chosen with the knowledge that it had the infrastructure, the enormous stadiums, and the ability to provide atmosphere. But with the ascension of the bizarre Joseph "Sepp" Blatter -- a man continually dogged by accusations of mismanagement and corruption -- to the Presidency of FIFA in 1998, politics and liberal elitism have taken over the World Cup.

Blatter made no secret that he wanted an African World Cup as soon as possible, irrespective of its ability to host. He worked for an African World Cup in 2006, but when Germany was chosen to host it, a furious Blatter forced through a rule-change for 2010 so that an African nation had to be awarded the 2010 tournament, with no nations outside Africa even allowed to bid.

For fans hoping to attend in 2010, the prospects were grim. The candidates were Tunisia, Morocco, South Africa, Egypt, and -- incredibly -- Colonel Gaddafi's Libya. With terrorist hotspot Morocco a close second, it was with some relief that relatively stable South Africa was chosen by the FIFA executives.

Immediately, serious concerns were expressed. Was the country economically stable enough to invest in such a venture? Also, despite apartheid being a thing of the past, the region still has immense political and racial problems that often turn violent, with over fifty homicides a day. Thus, was the nation safe enough for players and fans to travel? Serious questions were raised about whether the creaking South African infrastructure could cope with the tens of thousands of fans traveling between venues, and whether it could build the amount of new stadiums required. In addition, the question was asked why a nation was given the role of hosting the World Cup when its national team had ever qualified for the World Cup only twice and had ever managed to win only one game (the same number as Iran).

Key FIFA officials such as Franz Beckenbauer called for the cup to be moved to Germany, as it was becoming clear that South Africa could not cope with the demands being placed upon it. Yet well-intentioned officials such as Beckenbauer missed the point -- the decision to give South Africa the biggest soccer event in the world had nothing to with soccer. It was a political decision, with Blatter thinking in terms of "legacy" and "new frontiers." Other officials on the side of Blatter started talking about "transnational football communities" and the "remarkable community-building achievements" that such moves would bring.

It became clear that liberal politics were put in front of the interests of the sport, which was confirmed when, after three people were killed in an attack on the Togo national team in Angola in January, Blatter was asked about security concerns for the World Cup. He responded by labeling those with concerns as "colonialists" and anti-African. Now it was racist to have doubts about a weak soccer nation with severe economic and political problems hosting a World Cup.

It was hoped that these concerns would not come to fruition. Unfortunately, the first week of the 2010 World Cup has been a disaster, with some writers already describing the choice of South Africa as host as an example of "the greatest scandal of modern sports events."

The warnings of poor infrastructure have been right on the money, with England and USA fans left stranded for hours after Saturday's game, with horror stories of gridlocked traffic and horrendous accidents. There has been violence and disruption near the venues, including a bus drivers' strike in Johannesburg and riots outside the stadium in Cape Town that were so serious that stun grenades and rubber bullets were used. The many transport problems have meant that unusually low attendances have become common in the opening games, with ticket-holders left stranded and unable to reach the stadiums in time. Over ten thousand fans missed Sunday's Algeria v. Slovenia game.

Matters are spilling onto the field as well. The Royal Bafokeng stadium is situated five thousand feet above sea level, making the air thinner and causing significant problems for players. Symptoms include exhaustion, slow reactions, limited ball control, lack of oxygen, and increased chance of injury. This stadium was the venue of the USA v. England game, and it was noticeable that the players quickly looked exhausted, with many in obvious pain and gasping for breath. The two games that have been played there so far have been characterized by a slower pace and a weaker level of soccer than expected. England rugby player Joe Worsley describes playing there as the worst experience of his life.

Yet nothing represents this farcical situation more than the innocuous-looking "vuvuzela" -- a meter-long plastic horn that, when many are blown in unison, releases a loud noise similar to an enormous swarm of bees and louder than a chainsaw (a sample can be found here). The instrument originated in Mexico in 1970 but became popular in the 1990s in South Africa. As some have noticed a vague similarity to the much older African kudu horn, the vuvuzela has been quickly claimed as part of South African culture. This means that for political liberals, this annoying, loud piece of plastic instantly becomes part of South African "cultural heritage" and is therefore sacred and beautiful, with Sepp Blatter gushing, "I have always said that Africa has a different rhythm, a different sound."

The vuvuzela has destroyed the traditional World Cup atmosphere. The cheers and cries of the crowd (as well as the traditional chants of the African supporters) are drowned out by the small minority who possess these aggressive instruments. That beautiful moment in soccer when an excited crowd builds up nervously to a shot, then falls pin-drop silent as the ball whistles through the air, and then explode in delight as the ball hits the net (as shown here) is gone -- replaced by a constant, zombie-like drone that increases slightly in volume when a goal is scored.

The vuvuzela has also destroyed the quality of soccer. Players are unable to sleep due to the vuvuzelas droning on in the late hours of night, and players such as David Villa, Cristiano Ronaldo, and Lionel Messi (arguably the best player in the world) have called for the instrument to be banned, saying that players cannot concentrate or communicate with one another due to the noise. It would help to explain why games so far have generally been tired, tedious affairs, with poor passing, low levels of skill, and few goals. Surely, when the best players in the world warn that a piece of plastic is ruining the game, FIFA should listen.

Interesting.

American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/the_liberal_takeover_of_the_wo.html)

NJCardFan
06-16-2010, 12:19 PM
Only a week into World Cup 2010, the decision to hold the tournament in South Africa appears to be an unmitigated disaster. The blame lies at the feet of liberal elites who have politicized soccer.
The World Cup has always been political. And soccer is as liberal as one is going to get. What other sport rewards you with a tie? But to be honest, I could care less. Soccer is slightly above watching paint dry and below watching grass grow in levels of excitement.

JB
06-16-2010, 05:23 PM
What other sport rewards you with a tie?Hockey.

fettpett
06-16-2010, 07:09 PM
Techincally so does Football. Ties award "points" and increase a Teams stance.


New England wasn't the first "undefeated" team in NFL history, Green Bay went 12-0-1 in 1929

warpig
06-16-2010, 08:14 PM
There is only a few reasons to watch soccer:

http://www.e-forwards.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Sexy-Soccer-Fans.jpeg http://soccerfan.hedir.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/korean-soccer-fan.jpg http://i458.photobucket.com/albums/qq305/sportymcbloggin/soccerfans.jpg

Bubba Dawg
06-16-2010, 08:15 PM
I was talking with an adult child of missionaries who recently came to America to go to school. She was saying well before the World Cup even started that South Africa was a terrible choice as a venue.

NJCardFan
06-16-2010, 11:43 PM
Hockey.

There are no ties in hockey. There's always a winner. However, you do get a point for taking a game into overtime but be it overtime or shootout(regular season), there is a winner. But by contrast, the World Cup is a tournament. Well, in tournament play in hockey, there is no shootout and you play until there is a winner.



Techincally so does Football. Ties award "points" and increase a Teams stance.


New England wasn't the first "undefeated" team in NFL history, Green Bay went 12-0-1 in 1929

Couple things here. New England wasn't the first undefeated team because they were defeated in the Super Bowl. That said, the 1972 Miami Dolphins went undefeated but no one has ever taken away previous teams being undefeated. The emphasis being on a perfect season and the '72 Dolphins were the first to have a perfect season which included winning the championship. There have been 3 NFL teams other than the '29 Packers to win the championship, however had ties on their record including the first ever NFL champion Akron Pros who went 8-0-3.

I hates to brag but I knows my NFL history.

KhrushchevsShoe
06-18-2010, 01:15 PM
Well, its hard to really enjoy football when calls like that happen.

lacarnut
06-18-2010, 01:50 PM
I was talking with an adult child of missionaries who recently came to America to go to school. She was saying well before the World Cup even started that South Africa was a terrible choice as a venue.

The transportation infrastructure in South Africa is an abomination. The World Cup should never been held in that country. Now, the union utility workers are talking about striking in the next few days. Plus, other unions are going to join the band wagon. Striking workers would make things not only worse for the games but shut down their main industry which is mining.

fettpett
06-18-2010, 06:34 PM
There are no ties in hockey. There's always a winner. However, you do get a point for taking a game into overtime but be it overtime or shootout(regular season), there is a winner. But by contrast, the World Cup is a tournament. Well, in tournament play in hockey, there is no shootout and you play until there is a winner.




Couple things here. New England wasn't the first undefeated team because they were defeated in the Super Bowl. That said, the 1972 Miami Dolphins went undefeated but no one has ever taken away previous teams being undefeated. The emphasis being on a perfect season and the '72 Dolphins were the first to have a perfect season which included winning the championship. There have been 3 NFL teams other than the '29 Packers to win the championship, however had ties on their record including the first ever NFL champion Akron Pros who went 8-0-3.

I hates to brag but I knows my NFL history.


72 Fins completely slipped my mind, though I meant regular season. I figured there were other teams that were undefeated, but the Packers are my team and knew they had that season.

NJCardFan
06-19-2010, 12:27 PM
Well, its hard to really enjoy football when calls like that happen.

Lovely when politics and sports intermingle, yeah?

KhrushchevsShoe
06-22-2010, 11:01 AM
Lovely when politics and sports intermingle, yeah?

That wasn't politics, FIFA would love to have the USA keep advancing. That would mean gigantic sums of money for them.

It was just an inherent flaw of the game showing itself, refs have too much swing.

NJCardFan
06-22-2010, 11:39 AM
That wasn't politics, FIFA would love to have the USA keep advancing. That would mean gigantic sums of money for them.

It was just an inherent flaw of the game showing itself, refs have too much swing.

It was the ref's blatant bias against the U.S. Also, FIFA would hate for the US to actually win the World Cup.

Zathras
06-22-2010, 11:42 AM
Well, its hard to really enjoy soccer when calls like that happen.

Fixed.....In America it's soccer, not football. Football is a great game. Soccer sucks ass.

Zathras
06-22-2010, 11:43 AM
That wasn't politics, FIFA would love to have the USA keep advancing. That would mean gigantic sums of money for them.

So all the more reason for the US to be knocked out of the Snore Cup....so go Algeria and go England

lacarnut
06-22-2010, 01:13 PM
Fixed.....In America it's soccer, not football. Football is a great game. Soccer sucks ass.

Correct plus it sucks even more when a group of left wing nuts determine where the Cup will be played.