May 25, 2002

10:54 AM

All worldwide conflicts to take a break until after June 30[NYT reg req] "If the U.S. forward Clint Mathis scores a beautiful goal, Iranians, Iraqis and Libyans will rave about it. Soccer has many uses, and one of them, fleeting as it may be, is universal love." But perhaps more interestingly : " For foreigners, meanwhile, the World Cup is the one time that they get to treat the U.S. like a lightweight. " Indeed.
posted by Voyageman (11 comments total)

It's not true you know, you're no good at cricket either.
posted by vbfg at 11:07 AM on May 25, 2002

Come to think of it neither are we English.
posted by vbfg at 11:08 AM on May 25, 2002

vbfg: true, but we can still open a can of whoop-ass over the entire world when it comes to snooker and darts. And thats what really matters.
posted by bifter at 11:11 AM on May 25, 2002

A couple years ago I watched the World Championship of Bagpipe marching bands; it was at the ruins of an old Scottish castle. After England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland were eliminated it came down to India and Pakistan...I think India won but the point was made.
posted by Mack Twain at 11:53 AM on May 25, 2002

Football will save the world!

[Crams finger down throat, vomits repeatedly]

Spare us, please. Am I really supposed to believe that terrorists care about this crap?!?

If they do, they're morons.

This has to be one of the most stupid NYT articles ever (and that really says something). This strikes me as some desperate attempt to get U.S. citizens to give a shit about the World Cup.

Guess what! We don't. Sorry.

(I pay no attention whatsoever to the endless professional sports whorefest, so I'm exempted.)
posted by mark13 at 3:25 PM on May 25, 2002

Guess what! We don't. Sorry.

Bothered.

(I just wish that India and Pakistan had qualified.)
posted by riviera at 5:25 PM on May 25, 2002

Universal love, with riots! That's the best kind.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:50 PM on May 25, 2002

mark...

In 98, America and Iran, two enemies to say the least, played a game of soccer (an important one, at that) without problems of any kind. The fans were decent to each other, the players exchanged gifts. It was brilliant. If you don't think something that involves as much passion as soccer has the ability to make people more willing to stretch for peace, you don't understand how important sport is to the world.
posted by Kevs at 1:04 AM on May 26, 2002

Mark--

You may not care, but a large part of the world does.

Enough so that, in this case, a visit from Pelé was occasion to declare a cease-fire. (4th paragraph)

Soccer won't save the world, but the world loves it.
posted by nath at 1:28 AM on May 26, 2002

Um, mark13, have a chill pill. It's not the newspaper, first of all, it's the Sunday magazine, which publishes a variety of features. Usually the major ones are more serious, balanced by lighter fare. Sometimes feature writing has an air of the obvious around it to people who are inside whatever world is being examined; it's not earthshaking investigative reporting, it's color and impressions for those who are outside that world.

Jeez. It's not like every story has to be A1, oversize headline, Pulitzer-nominee fare. As it is, for lighter fare, this was fairly interesting.
posted by dhartung at 4:56 AM on May 26, 2002

Anybody who wants an idea of how important football is to most of the world should read Football Against the Enemy by Simon Kuper. I'm not much interested in the 'endless professional sports whorefest' either, but this is a great collection of stories that has shed more light on different cultures for me than any history book.
posted by Summer at 5:14 AM on May 26, 2002