Will American Owners Eventually Rip The Soul Out Of English Football?

god bless america Will American Owners Eventually Rip The Soul Out Of English Football?

While I find David Conn’s alarmist piece in today’s Guardian excessively xenophobic and reactionary, the continued buying of English football clubs by American owners does pose larger questions long term.

Having bought teams that had this most previous season just avoided relegation, Randy Lerner (Aston Villa) and Ellis Short (Sunderland) have seen their sides continue to fight relegation despite large financial outlays on players. Lerner’s initial spending saw Villa climb from 17th to 11th to 6th in three successive seasons, but difficult times have since befallen the Birmingham based club.

Given the background of the likes of Stan Kroenke and Malcolm Glazer, both of whom can be reputed as owners looking to making money off their investments in English institutions, will we soon see a closed league in England based on the model of Major League Soccer?

While I doubt we will ever see a single division without promotion/relegation, I can clearly see American owners, who have been beneficiaries of crony capitalism at home, putting in place a system that mitigates risk.

This would include cost controls on spending, possibly involving salary guidelines (not caps), a luxury tax and a league closed after 44 teams, allowing for promotion and relegation among the top two divisions of English football but not beyond. Once more American owners gravitate to the sport, these controls will be pushed and likely implemented.

I disagree with Conn and the general fear of capitalism and investment represented on the pages of the Guardian regularly when it applies to English football. Investment in the sport is a positive particularly when so few British billionaires are community minded enough to invest in the sport. Most football clubs that have failed recently have been due to domestic ownership and greed among upper-class Brits, skimming money off the top on clubs and not soundly investing in the future.

One need not look any farther than the recent debacle at Coventry City, one of the great English clubs of the period between 1970 and 2000 to see where domestic ownership has failed.

But where I see Conn’s logic is that American owners are fundamentally more dangerous to English institutions than those from Malaysia, Russia or Abu Dhabi who have enough understanding of football as a global game and entity to respect its traditions.

Americans have created their own peculiar though more financially viable set of rules governing sport in this country. These American owners do not understand soccer in the way others around the globe do. They at least ostensibly do not care for its traditions and history.

The growing trend of American ownership is a threat to the traditions of the English game, make no mistake about it.  The question is how and when will the Americans strike to change the rules and structure of the game in England.  Sentiment would dictate that we would hope those who love soccer and love the English game will win out when this inevitable battle occurs.  However, business sense may actually mean the American model or some hybrid of the two will ensure the continued success and survival of the English club game.

This entry was posted in Fulham, Shahid Khan. Bookmark the permalink.

65 Responses to Will American Owners Eventually Rip The Soul Out Of English Football?

  1. David says:

    Good god this is awful. Proof read and substantiate your whack theories. This blog is turning into a high school newspaper.

    • Christopher Harris says:

      David, I proofread it before publishing.

      I think that’s quite an unnecessary insult regarding a high school newspaper.

      • Truth Hurts says:

        No, it was a fair criticism of the way this site has changed lately.

        Posts that are far too long and repetitive – unless you’re paying by the word… not to mention poorly phrased because writers aim to put as many words as possible into every sentence.

        And that’s before bringing up the linkbait headlines and posts that do little more than highlight a writer’s emotion and bias (“rip the soul”?).

        This site has changed and his criticism seems fair to me… It’s no longer of the same quality as when writers were spread across properties. Either change it up or accept that the push to have 12-20 posts a day means a drop in quality.

        • Christopher Harris says:

          Thanks for the feedback, but I completely disagree with you. The quality of articles has improved significantly. Not every article is everyone’s cup of tea because the content focus is wider than before, but based on the increases in traffic coupled with more time spent on the site, and improved feedback through social media, the changes have been a success.

        • Fulhamish says:

          This is a football blog, not The New Yorker. Some of the readers really need to relax a bit.

  2. Evan says:

    The premier lost its soul when players started earning hundreds of thousands of pound per week.

  3. jeff says:

    This piece though poorly edited does make some very valid points. One issue I have is with characterizing David Conn as xenophobic. Have you not read his attacks on Ken Bates and other British owners? I think he gets that the BPL is in a position to be taken over by Americans because of the failure of British owners.

    • Jeff,

      Conn CONSTANTLY refers to “American owners” in his piece in a condescending way. I like his work regarding Bates but he is a knee jerk writer, for a newspaper that claims to be cosmopolitan but takes any chance to bash the US or American businessmen. He is constantly harping on about the Glazers, and other American owners even attacking Sir Alex for working for the Glazers saying he cannot be a true socialist. As if Conn has the credibility to be the arbiter of someone’s economic beliefs.

      While he is a supporter at heart and a socialist he is living in a fantasy land much of the time about English football. The league itself had become unsustainable because of British owners. The Abramovich takeover of Chelsea ushered in an era that has seen the league become the biggest international sporting brand on the planet. Conn still harps on about the foundation of the league and how little clubs have been left behind. His writing often reflects an idealism based on 1980s logic and rhetoric not reality.

  4. Frill Artist says:

    The day some stupid Americans tries to change the league to a franchise is the day they lose millions of viewers and ticket holders.

  5. Rod says:

    I don’t know. Is the real problem the American owners or is this just the tip of the iceberg of a bigger problem. Being considered the ‘top league’ in the world by many we’re seeing more and more money being poured in by huge tv deals and such. I know it’s a different situation but I can see similarities in collegiate American football. As bigger and bigger tv deals keep rolling in some schools are setting aside some traditions and making it more of a ‘business’. I think over all the bigger problem with the Premier League might be all the money. Sure it looks great at first. But then you have to realize it becomes more and more of a business. And you end up with more people getting involved who aren’t most interested in the traditions but the money factor. I think American owners are just an offshoot of the bigger problem.

  6. TRT says:

    Saw the sensational headline and said “oh no.”

    But this piece is actually well reasoned and balanced. Then why the misleading headline? Trying to drive hits???

    • Christopher Harris says:

      The headline is a direct question to David Conn’s article today. Headlines are always tough to write, but it’s not meant to be link bait.

      • Truth Hurts says:

        Riiiight. See also: “Alarming US Takeover”?

        • Christopher Harris says:

          That’s the headline from The Guardian, not WST. It’s a daily news roundup of the major headlines.

          J’ll call your bluff on this one. We’ve been doing the Daily Soccer Report, which used to be called The Daily EPL, every single day since one year ago, so if you were a regular reader to the site, you’d know that we take the biggest headline and use that as the headline for the story. On top of that, we do the Nightly Soccer Report, which is the same format as above except that it’s published at night-time.

  7. John Gregory says:

    This whole argument is ridiculous. It essentially blames a few American owners for the global problem of football clubs spending well beyond their means.

    And frankly, salary caps make American sports more exciting year-to-year, so perhaps there’s something the rest of the world can take from us.

    • I agree with this…I am not per se advocating one path or the other. English football has plenty of self inflicted problems and think maybe American owners fix the structural problems the sport has. Yes it will rip the soul and the community feel out of the game, but maybe it is for the best long term.

  8. Mark says:

    Kartik, you say “This would include cost controls on spending, possibly involving salary guidelines (not caps), a luxury tax and a league closed after 44 teams, allowing for promotion and relegation among the top two divisions of English football but not beyond.”

    My question is: other than the fact that that’s not the way English football has always been, what’s wrong with these changes?

    As far as I can tell, they would make good management more of a factor in which teams succeed, rather than financial resources. Teams like Man City, Everton, and Spurs–not to mention lower half teams–might do well in the league. As long as the spending is limited by luxury taxes and there is no hard salary cap, teams with enough money could still compete for the best players in Europe. What’s wrong with that?

    Maybe I just don’t get it because I’ve only been following the EPL for a few years, and don’t understand the business side fully, while (I know from the podcast) you’ve been following it your whole life and were in the business for years.

    But while I respect the traditions of the sport, personally I wouldn’t mind it if there were a bit more parity. I agree with Simon Kuper, who says in Soccernomics that football is NOT a business. Owning a team is more like managing a museum: the goal is to produce an good product on the field, not to make money. The thing is, American sports do that very well at producing an entertaining product with much greater parity than the EPL by implementing “anticompetitive” systems like this–regardless of whether the goal of the systems is to make the owners money or not.

    • Kartik Krishnaiyer says:

      I agree…I am not advocating one point of view or another in this piece. I am simply saying the league structure is likely to change with continued American ownership. The Brits themselves have continuously mismanaged clubs and the league and thus perhaps a change in structure would ensure the long-term survival of the English league as a top league. Honestly, I as a traditionalist hate to see the soul ripped out of English footy which is what would happen with those changes but from a business perspective they are logical maybe even necessary.

  9. Chris says:

    Well, we know that picture is a lie. I can’t believe some American would take such offense to what somebody writes in a paper about Americans owning a football team that you allow yourself to feel discriminated against. Good lord. Get a life. Yes, I am from the U.S. also. I dont really care about this. Its nohing to get your panties in a bunch over.

  10. RJ says:

    We rip the soul out of everything. It’s kind of our thing.

  11. Kagawa26 says:

    The Glazers have turned The biggest club in England Manchester United into a Circus. I am a German American and i dont getwhy the prem doesnt follow the bundesliga model. Fans should own the club. Back to the Glazers they have crippled us Financially. United would be able to match any team in the world financially. Hazard Moura etc. would be in a red shirt if it were not for the 350 million pounds wortth of debt they have put on us. People bring up how we have been to three Ucl finals under them but that has more to do with the brilliance of Cr7 a pre glazer buy and Sir Alex. Noone has found it weird why Utd always fail in their pursuit of top players now. Utd would be in the best financial situation if it were not for the Glazers. Utd and Bayern would be the top models of financial stability but because of the debt they have put on us it is a no go.

  12. Kagawa26 says:

    We had no debt pre glazers and had a profit now the club has to put 50 million a year to pay off the loans the glazers used to buy the club. Essentialy they didnt have the money to buy the club so they took out a loan and are making the club pay off the loan. In the last 6 years 300 million pounds have been spent on the debt. That is Messis buy out clause 5 Cristiabo Ronaldos 8 Lucas Mouras and 9 Hazards. Imagine how much better the current Utd team would be if 50 million wasnt tacked off the war chest every year. We may have beaten Barca in 09 or 2011 if we had that backing in the market. Bottom line we have regressed under them they green lighted Ronaldos sale even when Fergie would have wanted an unhappy Ronaldo and force him to play out his contract then they didnt even let Fergie uee the full 80 million.

  13. Kartik Krishnaiyer says:

    United is two points away and arguably a couple dodgy officials calls from winning SEVEN successive Premier League titles under the Glazer’s.

    The German model is laudable but not practical in England. It isn’t happening. Americans can help make the game healthier in Britain as do other foreign owners.

    They’ve prevented English football from going the way of Scotland and the way Spain and Italy are rapidly heading. Common sense reforms on spending and finance will come in time and the game though less compelling and traditional in many ways will be healthier financially. We will all miss the tradition but be thankful the league didn’t collapse ala Coventry, Pompey, Leeds and Plymouth all mismanaged by domestic owners or management.

    • Kagawa26 says:

      I am not anti American Kartik. Iam just saying in the case of the Glazers they have wronged Utd as a club. Dont bring up the trophies we have won under them because those trophies have nothing to do with there ownership. They bought us at a time where we had a young Ronaldo and Wayne rooney. Trophies were bound to come. If the Glazers were not United owners then we would almost definitely have won 7 prems in a row. We could match any wage that city chelsea real or barca put up comfortably but we cannot. Kartik tell me what you make of this last summer we had an IPO and i believe they took 100 million out of the ipo funds that were raised and split it 20 million a piece for 5 glazers. Thats ridiculous when that could have shaved the debt to 250 million. The only good thing they have done is market the club extremely well but The wheels on the bus are falling off for ManchesterUnited. Chelsea and City look to usurp United and it will happen because the purse strings are too tight right now and the academy is not producing right now. Explain to me where were the glazers during the 08 09 and 2011 ucl finals? They dont give a shit about the club and are sucking the money out of the club. I get what you are saying though about them bringing some nice ideas to the table. Good article Kartik dont let any of the jack asses that commented tell you that it was bad and you should stop writing. Foreveryone of them theres a sensible character like me. The one who called you a paki is a despicable human being and should be ashamed of himself. Keep on writing cos ppl like me actually care about your opinions on football and politics.

  14. Save English Football says:

    Krishnaiyer is so way off in attacking Conn. For Yank he’s usually okay, but this is far from his finest moment.

    Conn is a true voice of the supporters and is fighting to save a game that has been taken from us by SKY, Murdoch and the Premier League.

    I am visiting the states currently and find laughable the way you people get worked about trials on the telly, and baseball the most boring and most nonathletic pursuit ever imagined. The celebration among USA “Soccer” fans for beating the likes of Belize and Cuba speaks volumes about how the game has not penetrated in the USA.

    The most disturbing trend is Americans wanting to buy clubs they have never previously heard of and price out supporters they have never walked with, lived with or met. The Yanks will ruin football the way they have everything else they have touched like Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Conn is the most poignant and seasoned observer of the sport. He is the voice of the people and most people who love football. He understands what it is to be a true supporter not a supporter from 3,000 miles away who cannot even use the correct terminology to describe what they see.

    Does a single club exist that has not been ruined by the Yanks? Man United – destroyed. Arsenal – destroyed. Villa- almost relegated. Derby – relegated. Sunderland – almost relegated. Liverpool – destroyed, humiliated and embarrassed.

    Try non-league football if you are fed up like me. When the rich Yanks move on to another war or tax write-off we will get our game back.

    • Christopher Harris says:

      I respect David Conn as a writer on topics such as Hillsborough and his investigative reporting on Leeds United as well as other topics, but he’s way off base when it comes to foreign ownership in the Premier League. I agree with Kartik.

      As far as your report card on American owners, I disagree completely. Manchester United have been a greater success under the Glazers. Arsenal are fiscally better than they’ve ever been despite their poor form. Villa are in a transition, but I admire what Lerner has done around Villa Park including renovating the hotel and restaurant. Sunderland have spent a lot of money, but are in the state they’re in because of ex-manager Martin O’Neill. And Liverpool are rebuilding after the disastrous Hicks and Gillett period. Only the later is an example of a club almost being ruined by Yanks.

    • jtm371 says:

      save english football
      if it was not for us Yanks you would be wearing a brown shirt and speaking German so try to remember that before you run down America.It would be best to stick to Football and leave the politics and religion to other sites.CHEERS GO FOREST!

      • EPLNFL says:

        Sign me up. Save English Football needs to go back to school. I think he missed history class. Baseball may be boring but it’s cricket with a twist.

        The reaction of some shows again that there the are across the pond who will never give American owners a break even though other foreign owners have the welcome mat put out. While the Glazers have a record that speaks for itself we never see hope by fans in the UK for more American owners. Those clubs and fans looking for salvation always seem to reach out to mid-east oil money for the answer. No criticism of mid-east oil money but just a comparison of fan reaction.

        Yes American Owners bring lessons of American sports to the EPL, please explain why that means financial demise. In many ways English football is 30 years behind the times. There are those who fear change and American owners represent more change.

  15. Smokey Bacon says:

    Coventry City a “great” club? One FA Cup does not equal greatness I’m afraid.

    Instead of stirring up nonsense, is foreign ownership good for the long-term development of the English game and the English national team? I’d say the jury is still out on that one. I doubt American owners are any better than English owners. But foreign owners are less inclined to be ok with losing money running a football club than their domestic counterparts. The reason is they are detached from the original reason most of these clubs exist – the communities that lend their time, money and support. Unless you grew up there, you will never understand what these clubs are really all about. The result is short-termism, the cheque book and high paid foreign mercenaries that could not care less for the shirts they wear. And coaches who know they have two years at best to deliver and so therefore have no inclination to build a youth set-up or take a chance on some kid in the reserves.

    To make things worse, clubs that could never hope to keep up get in bed with the wrong owners, overreach and end up like Portsmouth.

    The money that has flooded the game in recent years is having an impact. Just not sure it’s a good one.

    • Clubs were community based clubs for years but in the 90s lots of upper-class Brits skimmed money off the top of clubs and generally kept them commercially impotent. That wasn’t the case with every club. The Brits running Arsenal built that club commercially and now an American is damaging it. But that’s the exception. The Brits who ran Liverpool led by Rick Parry did NOTHING to leverage LFC brand globally and take advantage of the commercial opportunities in front of them. Same for United’s British/Irish ownership that was borderline corrupt prior to Glazer’s takeover. From my own Man City I can say Peter Swales a lifelong City fan RUINED the club leading to the double relegation we suffered right after his death. Ken Bates and Chelsea, Peter Ridsdale and Leeds, Freddie Shepard and Newcastle…need I say more?

      Americans may in time prove as bad, but they likely will be better. You cannot do as badly as some of these community based owners did.

      • Smokey Bacon says:

        What about those two muppets Hicks & Gillett? Rafa would still be at Liverpool if it was not for them two fools. Conveniently missed them off your list.

        Not for the first time you are talking nonsense and you know it.

        • I don’t like Hicks and Gillett but mentioned inherited a club that had been mismanaged by a local in Rick Parry. They did a horrible job.

          Rafa being at Liverpool still? Why would you want that? How many league titles did he win and how many trophies did he win in his final four seasons at LFC?

          • Smokey Bacon says:

            Why last four years? Oh, because that excludes the champions league he won in his first season.

            Just face it, the point you are trying to make is utter rubbish. Stick to commenting on the US game as despite your plastic Man City credentials you seem to know very little about the English game.

    • Christopher Harris says:

      Winning trophies is not the only mark of a great club. Coventry City have a lot of accomplishments. They were the first club to have an all-seater ground in England (1981). They beat Tottenham to win the 1987 FA Cup.

      In 2001, they were relegated from the top tier of English football for the first time in 34 years. At that time, only Liverpool, Everton and Arsenal had longer tenures in the First Division/Premier League.

  16. stand up for England says:

    Kartik Krishnaiyer yankophile should be ashamed of calling a distinguished journalist David Conn xenophobic for telling the truth about his beloved and criminally capitalist America. Conn’s questions about another Paki must have fueled his rage!

    Take some drugs and settle down “mate.”

    • I am American not Pakistani. I happen to be a liberal by US standards (though perhaps not by Harold Wilson era Labour standards in the UK)and let me point out David Conn has used this “American Owners” bogeyman in countless articles over the past seven years. The term itself is used to prove a point anytime the ownership is to be questioned. If the ownership is not questioned they leave that part out. So for example if Lerner has made a questionable decision it is “Aston Villa’s American owner” if not it is “Aston Villa’s Chairman.”

      Subtle but dripping with innuendo.

  17. Evan says:

    there’s a lot of unwarranted criticism of this post and the site here.

    if you don’t like it, then write your own article and see what kind of reception it gets.

  18. stand up for England says:

    Sorry not a Paki…don’t mind them actually but I mind yanks who claim to get football yet use the bastardized term for association football regularly. Why is this site called SOCCER? It’s a dumb yank site.

    Krishnaiyer you aren’t worthy as a Yank to even comment on Conn’s work. Yanks can never be allowed into english football!

    What have you produced? Clint I cannot even make it at Spuds Dempsey? Jonathan I am a west ham reject Spector? What else have tanks produced? Hicks, Gillett, Henry, Kroenke, Glazer all part of the NFL conspiracy to make English Football weak so yank handball overtakes England. This Khan guy just the latest.

    David Conn speaks the truth.

    • Christopher Harris says:

      Stand Up, ‘soccer’ is a British word. And it’s still used quite often in England… hence Gillette Soccer Saturday, Soccer AM, Pro Evolution Soccer, etc, etc.

    • Guy says:

      “…I mind yanks who claim to get football yet use the bastardized term for association football regularly. Why is this site called SOCCER? It’s a dumb yank site.”

      There is a simple solution to your problem…don’t come here.

      I am always amused by those who rant about the word “soccer”. Who invented it? I suggest you read a little history and then take a deep breath.

      It’s not our fault most of the English speaking world uses “soccer”. We have other games for which “football” was and still is reserved. A simple cultural difference that shouldn’t keep anyone up at night or cause frothing at the mouth…unless you’re still PO’d about losing all the colonies.

      Personally, I use both terms interchangeably without giving it any thought. It depends on the context of the conversation and whom it is with. No big deal.

      You want to rip Kartik? Be my guest. I have a feeling he can take it, but for God’s sake stick to the point.

      Soccer/football? Please…

      • Guy says:

        From David Conn:

        “…these shrewd and calculating billionaires have rarely convincingly explained what is driving this gradual US takeover of our soccer.” (my emphasis)

        From you:

        “David Conn speaks the truth.”

        Indeed. ;-)

      • Smokey Bacon says:

        Surely the bigger crime is stealing the word football and applying it to a “sport” that involves throwing the ball 90% of the time.

        • Guy says:

          The evolution of American Football is pretty interesting. It developed out of various combinations of rugby football and association football that were played in the U.S. for over 70 years before the first legal forward pass was thrown in 1906.

          What began as a kicking game, over time, changed into a running game and finally into a passing game. Descriptors were dropped along the way and for better or worse we were simply left with “football”.

          Hmm. Now what will we call that other football game where you actually use your feet all the time? I know!……. ;-)

    • Eplnfl says:

      Stand up for England I will say that your last comment was crude and rude. I am an American and love free speech but “don’t mind them actually” shows a big insensitivity on your part period. That description is being kind to you.

      This site has always been know for intelligent comments and good insight. Your remarks are not up to that standard.

  19. jeff says:

    Too bad Kartik. You know the game on the pitch but leave the discussions of finance and management to others like Conn who actually know what they ate talking about. I love your work on the game itself but your defense of indefensible owners like Glazer, Short and Lerner is pathetic. If they were English you’d be all over them and you know it.

  20. IanCransonsKnees says:

    The interesting thing will be when a club owned by an American/s is relegated.

    I don’t see the closed shop that Kartik is so eager to see happening. If it does that’s when you start to see half empty stadia and people give up on the game. I think it’s more likely that the bigger sides breakaway and form a weekly European, globetrotting super league. Because that’s what the broadcasters will pay for.

    • Christopher Harris says:

      Take Derby County, an English club that has been owned by Americans since 2008. When GSE bought Derby in 2008, they were already in the Premier League and were relegated later that season.

  21. Guy says:

    Having read Conn’s article, I have no problem with it and its premise nor with your response, Kartik.

    You both raise interesting questions and a debate that is at least worthwhile. What are the long term implications of the fact that the Premier League is becoming increasingly dominated by foreign owners, be they American or otherwise?

    Were I British I would indeed be concerned about a certain loss of identity the league and its teams seem to be undergoing. The good old days are certainly gone and it is always questionable whether they were all that good in the first place, but one does have to wonder how things will all play out. For better or worse?

    I don’t even hear the fat lady tuning up on this one.

  22. Evan says:

    Domestic fans of these clubs love big signings, shiny new stadiums, and all the other trappings a wealthy, American/foreign owner brings. Assets like these carry substantial financial costs. It stands to reason the kinds of businessmen who acquire these clubs would try to increase revenue streams in some way after making such an acquisition. Complaining about the “burdens” of foreign ownership while lapping up the benefits is hypocritical. The Premier League is a for-profit business. It owes nothing to anyone that doesn’t have an equity stake in a club or the League.

  23. For the record I am not advocating the US model just stating it is quite possibly a path that the league will follow and perhaps it would secure long term financial viability also allowing home grown talent the opportunity to develop more efficiently. The current system has been broken and for Conn to blame Americans when his own writing in the past has correctly diagnosed the problem(his book The Football Business is a brilliant indictment of the rich Brits who broke the Prem off the Football League)is simply a way of baiting the public. Moreover, Conn is so concerned about rising costs and money corrupting the game, American owners can be part of a solution to that.

  24. In the Blood says:

    Wow. I’ve just read a ton of digital sh*t talking and useless name calling.

    All of you dorks calm down.

    The bottom line is THE GAME. It’s what we all love. I could give a squirt about who owns what. I simply care about what is coming through my tv. 0-45. 45-90min. That’s it. I don’t care about mercenaries or owners or intentions or this team is an embarrassment, or that team is owned by a good guy, or this team is not playing by the rules.

    As Artie Lange used to say on the Howard Stern Show, “Whaaaaaaaa!”

    Shut up, ya bunch of girls.

    In the states it is BADAS$ to be able to watch the EPL. You know, why? Because I know the game. Better than you. I’ve played the game since I was 4 at club level… only Freshman on my varsity team. All-State. Leading goal scorer. YOU KNOW WHY? Because from age 4 until 23 I played the game as hard and vicious as any professional, simply on a local club level within my state. My parents never had much… but ya know what they did, they broke their backs to get me to/from all of my tournaments and weekly games, three times per week practices, they raised money for us to travel around the US playing in national tournaments, etc etc etc.

    So don’t give me this LAME nonsense that “Americans don’t know the game.” Ya know what, some of us do. I’d kick the sh*t out of 7/8 of you guys on the pitch any day of the week. I grew up with a ball at my feet, and it still hasn’t left. I might have never “made it big”, but my blood bleeds for this game. The Beautiful Game. Once you fall for the game, you’ve fallen. I’ve put in my 10,000 hours of practice ON AND OFF the pitch, and I could sit down in any pub in and part of the world and hold an intelligent football conversation with the best of them.

    That’s the beauty of the game. ALL HUMANS, REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU LIVE, IF YOU LOVE THE SPORT, THAT’S IT. YOU LOVE IT. YOU WERE ONE OF THE CHOSEN ONES TO LOVE THE GAME.

    We’re not all on this site because we love Tennis, or swimming. WE ALL LOVE FOOTBALL.

    All you dorks bit€hing about the word “soccer” or “football”, fu€k you. Twice.

    So sick of people saying Americans don’t know the game. We’re human too, just like you lads across the pond. We have eyes. We see. Guys run around. Pass a ball. Then try to kick or head it by the last guy that can use his hands into the back of the net. Yay! We all scream or boo. It’s simple.

    You know what game I don’t know: CRICKET. That game is effing retarded. Dudes all wearing foamy catchers gear and bouncing a ball off of some dirt lane. Then all of the sudden these dudes are cheering and bouncing all over. I can’t stand that game. Seems like England always plays some team from Pakastan, and people are in the stands eating licorice or some dumb shaved ice type of treat.

    I hope America buys every team, then moves them all over here.

    We’ll swap you guys for the MLS. We’ll even put LA Galxy in Manchester. Beckham can coach. Toronto FC can become the new Everton. They’ll play at Goodison.

    Now go on, go play a sappy Coldplay tune and hold a tea-party for Sunderland.

    I’m going to get back to my Fatburger, Mutemath live DVD, and my amazing Martinique v Mexico recording. Please lord, let summer end soon.

  25. Dorian Speed says:

    From: Monday, July 15, 2013
    To: Saturday, August 17, 2013

    Result: 33 days

    Or 1 month, 2 days

    2,851,200 seconds
    47,520 minutes
    792 hours

    … Tick-tock. Tick-tock…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>