Nutmeg Radio » Media

The African Cup of Nations: Celebrating the Other Side of Africa

Miriti Murungi — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:51:24 +0000

Shane Smith doesn’t usually take the easy route. Kind of a hipster Richard Engel-Christiane Amanpour hybrid, the co-founder of VICE Magazine can easily get you nodding, laughing or dropping your jaw at his audacious attempts to uncover stories off the beaten path. Once you start watching his VICE Guides to places the State Department probably suggests you should avoid, it’s hard to stop watching.

So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that listening to Smith recount tales from his adventures is fascinating. But a recent, relatively innocuous-seeming comment made me flinch. Waxing lyrical about the various levels of hell he’s visited, Smith said that there are no cell phones or internet in the Congo, which is mind blowing if you think about it – a massive country, the size of the United States east of the Mississippi River, cut off from all modern forms of communication, internally and with the rest of the world. That’s eerie.

But there’s a small problem with his statement. It’s simply not true. I’ve used and seen people use both of these modern luxuries in the Congo. In fact, I received a text from a friend in the Congo a few hours ago. Are these luxuries widely accessible to all? Attempting to answer that question will probably give you a more accurate portrayal of cell phone and internet availability in the Congo.

When Smith dons his VICE Guide hat, he is in the business of selling hell. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Smith produces much-needed, in-depth stories that few outlets seem interested in or willing to pursue. He has profiled a former warlord/cannibal-turned-preacher (General Butt Naked) in Liberia to give insight into the transitional nation, uncovered North Korean labor camps in Russia, and provided a rare and surreal look behind the North Korean curtain. He takes you into hearts of darkness that most people will never encounter. But it is precisely the remoteness of Smith’s subjects and the lack of access to stories for comparison purposes that make the accuracy of his presentations so disproportionately important, especially when compared to stories that receive endless mainstream coverage from outlets around the world.

When it comes to peddling despair or highlighting the ignored, precision matters. That is particularly true when coverage of a story is sparse. I point this out not to question Smith’s broader integrity. His work offers unique insights and raises many legitimate questions. But it was Smith’s single characterization of the Congo that triggered a series of thoughts about the presentation of Africa, accuracy, nuance, and, of course, soccer.

There’s a narrative when it comes to Africa that consistently focuses on negativity. Things are broken, systems are corrupt, Nigerians send bogus emails. Then there’s the overarching, constant quest for development that consistently frames fifty-four nations as a pained, huddled collective, always needing, perpetually chasing the standards of developed nations, forever walking around frowning. There are elements of truth to these characterizations, but told alone, they paint a picture that makes perfectly intelligent people draw some utterly ridiculous conclusions.

Two years ago, the 27th African Cup of Nations was held in Angola. It seemed as if more people were paying attention than in previous years, probably because less than five months later, South Africa was to host the continent’s first World Cup. With South Africa as the backdrop, safety quickly became the topic du jour, and Angola became the international test run for a tournament in South Africa, a country that has some shared history, but otherwise has about as much in common with Angola as Mexico does with Jamaica.

And then the incident happened.

Gunmen opened fire on the Togolese team bus en route to the site of their opening match. Two members of the Togolese party and the Angolan bus driver were killed and several players suffered injuries of varying degrees. It was a tragic, shocking and thoroughly depressing situation. But so was the reaction in many quarters.

The South Africa pivot was immediate. See? I knew it was dangerous down there. The connections were made. Questions were asked. “AFRICA! is dangerous” was the underlying theme, which fits nicely with the panoply of go-to African characterizations: hungry, poor, backward, etc.

These types of lazy characterizations result in a loss of nuance, most criminally perpetuated by those who get paid to report and inform yet seem to have little insight or worry about the effect their lazy aggregation of thoughts and words might have on their audience. Hearing people say things like Angola shouldn’t have hosted the African Cup of Nations because of violence in Cabinda, or that South Africa had questions to answer because of violence in Angola makes it easy to recognize how simple it is to paint monolithic pictures of vast regions, and how these portrayals over time can subconsciously influence or reinforce readers’ ideas on topics that go well beyond sport-related banter.

There are real repercussions for this kind of laziness. Reinforced narratives can take decades, if not longer, to unpack and rectify. Short and long-term damage can be inflicted on economies, national image, and individual self-confidence. And the manifestations of these narratives travel. The narratives can be the source of frustration for foreigners and people with noticeable foreign affiliation in many countries who have to repeatedly contend with ignorant characterizations of their people and homelands. They can partially explain why you can hardly have a conversation about South Africa without getting the sense that people think the place is like Vietnam in the 1960s with a better domestic wine selection. They also can explain the reaction that too easily conflated Cabinda with Angola.

But to only highlight the ignorant is slightly unfair. For instance, there was a quick backlash against the uninformed portrayal of the attack in Cabinda. One appeared here, but they were everywhere, from Time Magazine to The Guardian to The Telegraph. The prevalence of rebuttals to the ignorance raises some interesting questions: Does a high rate of rebuttal reflect an initial lack of responsible reporting? Are there stories and nuanced characterizations to proactively tell on the front end to challenge some of these simplistic, reflexive notions that are still all too common? Outside the lines, do sports writers even have a responsibility to the environment that affords them a living?

Perhaps the African Cup of Nations can play a role in painting a more dynamic picture of a continent that is far removed, geographically and contextually, from so many around the world. With every tournament, more eyes are paying attention. The spectrum of stories to tell is endless, and the tournament writes many of the stories itself. Instead of repeatedly seeing Africans in conflict, we see them playing together. Northern Africans aren’t always involved in a tussle as we saw when Moroccan and Tunisian players attended mosque together prior to their opening match. We have seen imagery of players, often from a diverse spectrum of religions and ethnic groups, competing and celebrating as a collective. Sudan just made it out of the group stages. Sure, for good reason, Sudan has been the source of plenty of negative headlines over the years (Darfur and Sudanese President al-Bashir openly mocking his arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court come to mind), but when is the last time Sudan (not South Sudan) and anything pertaining to joy has been in the news? The beauty is there if you have an interest in seeing it, but it is almost as if we’ve been conditioned to look past it as if on a constant hunt for misery.

Sometimes hell is hell, but other times hell is just a sliver of reality. Sometimes you say a place is dangerous when only part of a place is dangerous. Sometimes you say there are no phones when there are few phones. But over time, the detail matters.

Recognizing the joy, camaraderie, dancing, and celebration that occurs in many parts of Africa doesn’t suggest that serious, often life-threatening issues should be minimized. Rather, it suggests that the portrayal of a massive continent should be as robust, diverse and inclusive as its population, and that beyond the scores and line-ups, there are an infinite number of honest stories to tell along the beauty-to-tragedy continuum. Constantly neglecting the beauty to focus on the never-ending tales of horribleness skews the senses to the extent that human interest stories can lose their humanity, a phenomenon that can make the need for detail and accuracy dissipate.

The African Cup of Nations is one of those rare, joyous windows into Africa with the potential to show another side of a dynamic continent. Perhaps that is because many of its players are now global personalities. Perhaps it is because we have more access than ever to the people who have been covering African soccer for years. Regardless of the reason, that window into the soul of the continent is a significant part of the reason why I love the tournament. It’s refreshing to see African joy and celebration projected in a space that is usually reserved for despair.

With that, I’ll leave you with a goal from Zambia’s upset of Senegal, which may have given us the best celebration of the tournament so far. I won’t provide any interpretation in the hope that the moment speaks to you organically. If you listen close enough it may say something. But at a minimum, I hope it makes you smile.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-xsnUGPAKc

And yes, it’s a thing. If you want to see it live, check out Zambia’s next game.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7Gvb7m_jPw

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

Louis CK on George Carlin: Speak Your Soul

Clive Longbottom-Fellow, Esq. — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 14:50:26 +0000

“This idea that you throw everything away and you start over again. And I thought, when you’re done telling jokes about airplanes and dogs and you throw those away, what do you have left? You can only dig deeper and start talking about your feelings and who you are. And then you do those jokes and they’re gone. You gotta dig deeper. So then you start thinking about your fears and your nightmares and doing jokes about that, and then they’re gone. And then you start going into weird shit and eventually get to your balls. It’s a process that I’ve watched him do my whole life and I started to try to do it, and I started to think, he says whatever he wants, what am I trying to say?”

- Louis CK

www.youtube.com/watch?v=R37zkizucPU

Spending months writing about possible transfers that never happen might put you in a similar place. You never know, maybe you have something more relevant and personal to say.

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

Never-Ending Nonsense and Journalistic Complicity

Miriti Murungi — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:06:10 +0000

Is there a such thing as too much information? Do we need to know everything? Just as it is now hard to fathom how anyone did anything in the pre-cell phone era (e.g., meeting up), it’s also hard to imagine what it was like when all we had was the live sporting event, followed by a couple of newspaper articles and well-manicured, mustached sports anchors blabbering on and on in TV voice about the day’s events. Who, what, when, where, why. It was an era that, at least now, seems serene, boringly practical, and relatively un-Jersey Shore.

Now, sport is a full-fledged, robust industry, encompassing layers that include the essential games and athletes at the top, the major journalistic outlets in the middle, and the laypeople below who now also engage in the written word at what might be referred to as a grassroots level. Never mind the increasingly sophisticated advertisers and international chicken magnates.

By the day, the sports world is getting more complex, and arguably richer. Not only do we have a never-ending supply of articles and opinions, we also have make-believe leagues where you can manage teams, the ability to directly track players’ thoughts on Twitter, and websites that regularly rank things that are close to arbitrary. You can dig as deep as you want and be as informed as ever. You can also find anything to support your previously-manufactured, cockamamie ideas.

Perhaps the most egregious offspring of these developments is the ability of mainstream outlets to exacerbate drama. Whereas in decades past, the ability to manufacture drama out of the unimportant and whip the public into a frenzy laid almost squarely at the feet of mainstream outlets, today, the cultivation of a more robust and accessible community of voices makes it harder for that initial noise to go away. Variety always sounds liberating and more democratic, doesn’t it? But the richer community of voices doesn’t mean that the power of the mainstream is necessarily diminished. In fact, one can argue that the power of the mainstream is now greater than ever, namely because it has the ability to identify (or even manufacture) and then sustain drama that then trickles down through the system. Then the machine can quickly and efficiently rinse and repeat as many times as needed.

It used to be that drama entailed a singular dramatic moment. Player X was traded, followed by some initial banter. End of story. Today, drama is a never-ending run of marginally interesting moments that somehow are supposed to inform us that the events are … what’s the word … right, DRAMATIC. Player Y is now happy or sad based on his body language. Does he want to leave the club? Player Y is also contemplating a move because Player Z, in an entirely different country, thinks Player Y would “add something special” to his team.

But what is the value of constant wallowing in this never-ending cycle of uninteresting and recycled moments? Is there a level of journalistic satisfaction in constantly reporting on the same thing over and over? Is this really better than what we had before, or is today’s reality simply a function of an industry realizing new opportunities to maximize profits by driving traffic?

Today, the economic model that drives “news” is largely impacted by new media realities. Search engine optimization, anyone? Clearly, the landscape is changing. But if we can agree that the landscape is changing, shouldn’t that mean that as consumers, we should also be changing our relationship with the media instead of passively absorbing and relying on the narratives that we are given? Sure, Mario Balotelli’s transgressions are fascinating, but is he the only player among the thousands of professionals to get into training ground scuffles? At some point, you have to wonder whether the Balotelli drama is being driven solely by Balotelli’s behavior, or whether those in control of the written word have a hand in constantly driving us to meet Balotelli’s behavior halfway, conveniently on a paper’s website.

Are journalists, in their eagerness to be on top of a story, powerful enough to exacerbate a scenario to the extent that, for example, a player who may not be that unsettled, can start questioning his future because of a never-ending barrage of questions that ultimately become impossible to ignore? Are journalists capable of distinguishing between the villains and the misguided? We are more than comfortable blaming clubs and players for complicity in creating drama, but does modern day journalism also have to take its share of the blame for the increasingly neurotic state of affairs?

Today’s media realities have made me change the way I interact with mainstream information. And it isn’t just in soccer. Long ago, new media realities altered how I digested political news, and we are now watching a similar evolution in the soccer space. In the soccer world, my go-to sources have become an assortment of non-traditional voices, bloggers, websites, and many well-informed, balanced individuals, peppered with the occasional exceptional writers and thinkers still making their livings at the major shops. But even as I move on, I still look over my shoulder and can’t help but smile as I realize that my still frequent visits to some of the conventional homes of soccer occur, not really to engage in critical thinking, but to find an unhealthy amount of pleasure in the ridiculousness of it all.

I suppose there is an alternative way to view these relatively recent, new media realities. Perhaps we should view the explosion of access to information as a first step, and it is up to us to figure out a way to define how our information should be organized and measured for importance. Focusing solely on complaining about contemporary journalistic shortcomings is a useless exercise. But that doesn’t mean that it is futile to contemplate where we are on the ever-moving journalistic timeline and how new realities inform what we talk about and deem important.

As consumers and creators of information and opinion, moving forward may mean doing what several players in the space have already decided to do, challenge narratives, create alternative points of view, and learn how to harness the ever-growing list of resources, beyond the same old sagas, to show the richness and complexity of the global game.

Ultimately, one can choose to focus on the ridiculousness, and there is plenty of fun in that. But amidst the ridiculousness, there are also some fascinating projects that have popped up over the last few years, and more are on the way. The landscape won’t change overnight, but it is moving, and at a minimum, we should be conscious of our media diet. If anything, the idea of living in a world of tired talking points and refrains about the same three issues on repeat should trigger some degree of heartburn.

In the meantime, at least transfer season is almost over, but there will be others, and, of course, Mario Balotelli is still only 21 years old. In fact, today is his 21st birthday. Happy Birthday, Mario.

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

Players These Days, Sitting on Their Stolen Toilet Seats, Throwing Money and Shooting at People

Miriti Murungi — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 03:48:58 +0000

_______________________________

“Players these days ….”

– Almost everyone

_______________________________

Fernando Torres, the £50 million mercenary, can’t score goals. Ashley Cole shoots people, Glen Johnson steals toilet seats, and Wayne Rooney probably shuns direct deposit just so he can wrap his grubby, calloused hands around somewhere in the neighborhood of £250,000 every week. In Rooney’s case, his astronomical paycheck is his reward for verbally accosting referees, assaulting fellow professionals, and the occasional exquisite bicycle kick. At least that’s what the interwebs and media outlets tell me when they aren’t telling me how special he is.

The headlines, week after week, inspire descriptive phrases in countless articles, reading like a menu of miscreants’ shortcomings and latest transgressions. The underlying themes are almost inescapable. These players make too much money. They are irresponsible, shouldn’t be role models, and are letting down impressionable populations of starving children.

When the conversation turns from the field of play, you could easily get the impression that there isn’t much positive in the world of football, but especially among the growing pool of petulant, unprofessional and borderline criminal footballers.

Some of the character concerns that many seem to harbor may just stem from an inability to handle defeat, or even victory for that matter. When your team loses, the crimes of everyone affiliated with the team guilty of inflicting punishment become aggravated several degrees. “£50 million Torres, that mercenary. He doesn’t love anything.” The same happens in times of victory. “Ha! £250,000-a-week for that??” But deep down, many of our concerns about a player’s character are actually less sinister. Most people simply want to cleanse the game of its perceived ailments.

The combination of obscene amounts of money, youth, petulance and global exposure is often hard to stomach for the masses, even more so when the money, youth and petulance are constantly thrown in our faces at every opportunity. Repulsion is an understandable response.

But our level of repulsion isn’t just a side effect of being human; it is fueled by a media addicted to villains, a media that creates the impression of norms that are, in fact, aberrations. While certain player behavior deserves criticism, that criticism all too frequently drowns out some of the more positive contributions that players make in communities around the world.

Here are a few numbers with some context.

500*: There are 500 first-team players on English Premier League rosters. Of those 500 players, what percentage can you pinpoint as being insufferable human beings? The answer is probably not many. You’re probably naming them right now, and your list is probably very similar to everyone else’s list. Yet how frequently do we hear the refrain, “Players these days,” followed by some rant about money or appreciation or decades past? And it’s everywhere, not just in the stands. It’s a refrain pumped out by so many voices that you need an umbrella to protect yourself from “players these days.”

From a media perspective, this phenomenon comes down to one thing; villains sell newspapers and attract page views. Simple. And, in turn, we, the audience, already simmering in our middle class sensibilities, are left to feed on skewed perceptions of a league and players that only reinforce our misgivings about irresponsible people with money.

3000**: A low ball estimate on the number of places you could find articles about or referring to Ashley Cole and shooting in the past week. “Ashley Cole on Target.” “Chelsea Stick to Guns in Ashley Cole Row.” “Ashley Cole’s Airgun Stunt is a Symptom of Disorder at Chelsea.” These are just a few of the awe inspiring titles from last week. Granted, Ashley Cole facing a criminal case (which is very unlikely) makes it newsworthy. But who are we kidding. Collectively, that’s way too many words dedicated to another episode of Ashley Cole making bad decisions.

These two numbers go part of the way to explaining why so many people these days think that athletes are the root of all evil. Articles placed in thousands of places about the transgressions of an almost insignificant percentage of players will certainly have an effect on an audience.

But did you ever wonder what those other hundreds of players who don’t frequently engage in madness do in their spare time? Sadly, it doesn’t seem to matter. Players who lead boring lives don’t sell papers or inspire anger; players who steal toilet seats do, as do players who stumble out of bars at 4am, steal girlfriends, irresponsibly impregnate people, get arrested, fight outside of fast food restaurants, punch people in bars and shoot people. Add a hefty paycheck to the equation and we have a cover story and banter for days.

Now, I love a good tale of buffonery as much as the next man, but if there was any balance, it wouldn’t be all buffoonery all the time. Most footballers actually do decent things with their spare time.

A relatively well-known example is Craig Bellamy, a player well-known for his fiery tempermant and brushes with the law and people’s faces. Bellamy has historically been one of my favorite punchlines, and I know I’m not the only one. He just rolls of the tongue. I know, I get it. But in 2007, Bellamy found some time in between shoving people (see what I did there?) to dig into his deep pockets, and the pockets of fellow professionals, to start the Craig Bellamy Foundation, an organization focusing on empowering kids in Sierra Leone through sport. The Craig Bellamy Foundation League (yes, that’s what it’s called), now in its second season, has 88 teams and involves over 1600 children and 100 youth leaders. Using a development model that has proved successful elsewhere on the continent, each team is required to take part in community development projects, but is also awarded points for fair play and school attendance in addition to points earned on the field. The numbers are already showing that the model is having a positive effect on kids’ behavior.

Are these activities a decent trade-off for kicking someone on the field and yelling at a referee? Maybe. It’s also worth noting that it was Bellamy’s “too much” money and profile that made all this possible. Maybe we should start using the word “humanitarian” around Bellamy instead of “thug.” Or maybe we can even meet in the middle and create a new class of “humanitarian thugs.”

While Bellamy is a notable example of human complexity because of the amount of time he gives to this project, he’s certainly not alone in his good deeds. Emmanuel Adebayor, a frequently maligned player and UNAIDS Goodwill Ambassador, frequently gives back to his community, which is hard to grasp because he’s such a good punchline. Even the much maligned Torres, Rooney, and even El Hadji Diouf, through The Dioufy Foundation, occasionally do good things. These are just a few additional names on a long roster of players around the world who give considerable amounts of time and money to worthwhile causes. Unfortunately, good deeds are no competition for £50 million and £250,00-a-week.

_______________________________

30***. The approximate number of articles that have been written about Craig Bellamy’s foundation since 2008.

_______________________________

Rather than being an indictment of players or the amount of money they make (in some leagues), perhaps all this is an indictment of media coverage and those of us who consume the coverage. Perhaps we are complicit in cultivating this state of affairs that consistently rewards the lowest denominator.

One could make the argument that these stories of money and mayhem matter because they can impact play on the field, especially when a player’s actions may lead to suspension or even imprisonment, whereas a player’s good deeds are completely tangential to what happens on the field. But story selection also impacts how fans view leagues and their players. Stories impact the degree of fan frustration, whether fans decide to boo, and generally, whether fans decide to make someone else’s life relatively miserable. Stories actually do impact more than bottom lines and player availability.

Focusing on salaries and shortcomings as the basis for characterizing players without taking a holistic view of what players actually do with their time and money is an easy way out and provides a significant part of the framework for how we view athletes today. Ultimately, this may explain why it’s so hard to think of players beyond our respective localities who do good for their communities, but considerably easier to point out who stumbled out of a bar last night next to Ledley King.

Sheesh. Players these days.

* The number of first team players is actually much higher that 500.

** This number is a substitute for the word “lots.”

*** This number is a substitute for the phrase “not that many.”

(No animals were hurt in the making of this post.)

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

Deconstructing Twitter Accounts: New York Red Bulls vs. Manchester City

Miriti Murungi — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 05:00:30 +0000

Twitter. All the kids were doing it. And then, all the adults were doing it. All the corporations decided they would do it. Then people decided to use it to overthrow dictators. And at some point during this process, all of our beloved sports teams caught Twitter fever.

Today, if you’re a sports team without Twitter, you might as well be in black and white. That may explain why practically every professional team in a major sports league is “utilizing Twitter as an effective means of connecting with fans,” or something like that.

It’s probably not a stretch to think that in 2011, every team communications plan has a page dedicated to Twitter in the “Social Media” section. But whether these communications teams have any idea what they’re doing is another question. It’s one thing to shout from the rooftops that you’re on Twitter, but maximizing Twitter’s potential is an entirely different matter.

Using Twitter correctly and maximizing its potential is the real challenge (and is not the same thing as having lots of followers). Used properly, Twitter has the ability to reach a targeted audience with a few keystrokes. But in spite of Twitter’s apparent simplicity, a quick glance across the Twitterverse reveals a fragmented universe of soccer teams comprised of a group of team tweeters who are up for the challenge, and others who seem to be struggling to find themselves. But good/bad tweeting is all relative, right? In part, yes. Accurately quantifying a tweeter’s effectiveness in any meaningful way beyond counting followers and retweets is still a challenge. But there are ways to make sense of the Twitterverse. All you have to do is look closely.

Viewing a cross-section of team feeds unveils a spread of what seem to be ad hoc approaches. We can find straight news delivery and opinion, the entertaining and mundane, serious personalities and comedians, hard-core wonks and specialists in the superficial, and everything in between. But with so many approaches, there has to be some method to this Twitter madness, right? Well, it’s hard to say by looking at any single account. But when you start comparing and contrasting different accounts, strengths and weaknesses become apparent. Without question, some brands have definitely become better than others at evolving on Twitter from static @[fill in the blank] addresses to dynamic, influential online personalities.

But doesn’t that process require a lot of money? No. No it doesn’t. #Nope

Twitter is one of the rare animals in the communications space where influence can be built independent of financial clout. If you somehow missed the 1,000 articles about Twitter’s influence in Iran back in 2009, surely you’ve seen the 10,000 articles recently written about Twitter’s influence in organizing anti-Mubarak resistance in Egypt. Time and time again, we are seeing confirmation that money is not the only path to influence, especially online, where access to influence is cheaper and more readily available to the public (both individuals and organizations) than ever. Today, organizations can gain a competitive advantage on Twitter purely through vision, goals, planning and execution.

Although the focus of this article is on soccer teams, many of the points are applicable to any Twitter account. This article (and possibly series) will focus on team Twitter accounts, specifically, approaches taken, successes and failures. We’ll start off by highlighting two randomly selected accounts, the New York Red Bulls feed and Manchester City’s feed. Generally, both are good accounts. But like all good things, they can be better. We will take a look at some of the Twitter action from their feeds from games this past weekend, and then try to find some meaning by deconstructing their Twitter coverage in more than 140 characters.

Let’s start with Major League Soccer’s New York Red Bulls.

@NewYorkRedBulls Pregame Twitter Action

It is a blustery day here in Mexico with intermittent rain that has made the field soft. We’ll see 2 different sides in the 1st/2nd half.

#RBNY to take on a mixture of the Atlante Under-20 and reserve squad. Teams on the field now for warm-ups.

#RBNY First Half Lineup: Sutton, Mendes, Marquez, Ream, Borman, Richards, Tchani, Lindpere, Solli, Agudelo, Henry. Same as Wednesday’s XI.

One of the Atlante goalkeepers is wearing #100.

We’re getting ready to start this match. Henry is wearing the armband. #RBNY wearing the white jersey with red shorts. Atlante in light blue

@MCFC Pregame Twitter Action

It’s derby day here in Manchester and there’s a buzz surrounding both halves of the city…team news to follow soon

Here’s the City team for today: Hart, Richards, Kompany, Lescott, Zabaleta, Milner, Yaya, Barry, Kolarov, Silva, Tevez

Unfortunately Nigel de Jong has failed a late fitness test but no doubt Barry and Toure have enough to make up for his absence

Dzeko looks set to start on the bench so it’s Captain Carlos leading City’s attack…let’s hope he can bag another hat-trick!

Kolarov will start in the midfield once again…can we expect another stunning free-kick from the Serb?

No Berbatov for The Reds? City won’t have to face the league’s top goal-scorer…for the time being at least…

The Bulgarian will start on the United bench which leaves Rooney to lead the line on his own…

The Blues are out warming up with Platt and co. putting them through their paces…Tevez looks up for this one!

This will be Edwin Van der Sar’s last ever Manchester derby…here’s hoping we can knock a few past him!

A massive roar meets the two teams as they walk out…COMES ON BLUES!

The nerves are jangling…it’s kick off-time at Old Trafford! BLUE MOON..

Pregame Analysis

Before we get started, it’s worth pointing out that the two games take place during completely different parts of the teams’ respective seasons. The Red Bulls vs. Atlante takes place during the team’s pre-season, and Manchester City vs. Manchester United is an intense mid-season derby between two rivals. This distinction certainly may have had an impact on the quality and/or tone of coverage.

Now let’s begin with the positives. Both Twitter accounts are online prior to kickoff. That clearly shows a desire to inform their respective audiences that something is about to happen. In this case, a game. Great. Both accounts also have someone on the keyboard or cell phone with, at minimum, a decent understanding of the game. However, from there, it doesn’t take much to start distinguishing the accounts.

Tone: Even though it’s only pregame, we can already tell that one account reads like it’s being written by a machine or Ben Stein, which is pretty much the same thing, while the other account, the Manchester City account, is clearly being written by a human being with real human being emotions. That’s slightly overstating things, but you get the point. One feed has personality, the other doesn’t.

Depth of Knowledge/Atmosphere: Although the Red Bulls scribe may be oozing knowledge about the club and the game from every orifice, the Red Bulls tweets for this match fail to demonstrate that knowledge. We learn a few facts – Henry is captain, Atlante is the opponent, and it’s raining, which has softened the field – all relevant and important pieces of information. But otherwise, there isn’t much substance for the fans, which raises a important point that I will keep revisiting in this article: The purpose of in-game Twitter coverage should be to engage fans who either don’t have the opportunity to interact via other mediums or are using Twitter to enhance other game interactions.

To think about this in a slightly different way, the goal of a team Twitter account during play should be no different than the goal of in-game radio coverage. Fans should feel excitement, grasp the context, and gain insight into interesting narratives. Both radio and Twitter, done well, should also allow fans to experience some atmosphere without actually being present. This is where the Red Bulls pregame Twitter coverage falls short. We’re given basic details that fail to engage fans in any significant manner.

Contrast the Red Bulls approach with Manchester City’s feed. The City feed seamlessly infuses knowledge into its tweets. We get a bit of team news that provides context. The news also isn’t one sided as both teams are objectively acknowledged. Whether through general knowledge or research, information is passed on to fans about the health of City’s players, Manchester United’s line-up, and the fact that this will be Edwin Van der Sar’s last Manchester derby. These facts provide valuable insights for fans.

Then there’s the atmosphere, which can come down to something as simple as word choice. Manchester is buzzing. The buzzing combined with the team news builds to the massive roar meeting the two teams as they come out of the tunnel. At this point, you can easily visualize the scene. In fact, your imagination may produce a more compelling scene than you might pick up on TV. Then things move past a buzz; now the nerves are jangling. “COME ON BLUES!” The feeling of anticipation is successfully presented in servings of 140 characters or less.

Anticipation is a fundamental component of any live pregame experience. Therefore, it should also have a role in pregame Twitter coverage. This is true of any medium that isn’t live, whether on Twitter feeds, radio or television. Often, it’s the sense of anticipation that draws fans in early and encourages them to stick around. On Twitter, just like with conventional outlets, if teams can’t figure out how to draw attention to themselves, they run the risk of leaving potential influence of the table, or worse, becoming permanent background noise. Manchester City has figured out, whether on purpose or by accident, that pregame is the perfect place to set the tone and say, “FOLLOW US!” to fans who are ready to connect to a welcoming and engaging voice.

Let’s move on to game coverage.

@NewYorkRedBulls Game Coverage

2′ Richards finds Agudelo making a run and he passes it back to the Jamaican but his touch is a bit heavy and the ball is cleared.

5′ Richards skips through the Atlante defense and fires a shot that is parried by the keeper.

7′ Agudelo finds Lindpere who makes a run to the endline but the keeper gobbles up his cross.

10′ Marquez corner kick swings on target and keeper is forced to punch away.

15′ #RBNY has controlled the first part of this match but the score is still 0-0.

18′ #22 for Atlante was able to get free and in on goal but left footed shot flies high.

20′ Agudelo earns free kick from 27 yds. Marquez shot goes over the bar.

24′ Agudelo chests down a Ream long ball but can’t get his volley on target.

@MCFC Game Coverage

First chance! Silva finds space in the six yard box but the Spaniard knocks it round the post…

Both sides look more willing to attack than they did back in November…

Chance for United! Nani blasts over from 20 yards.

City applying all the pressure…Yaya Toure is posing a constant threat to the United defence

United have found their feet…City need to up their game again. COMES ON BLUES!

Nani flashes one across the goal for United but there’s no-one on hand to make a connection

Kolarov hits one with his right but it flies over the top…neither keeper has really been tested but it feels like there’s a goal coming

Save from Hart! Giggs’ cross is met by a Darren Fletcher header but the England number one is behind it

In-Game Analysis

Both teams do things well with their in-game coverage. The Red Bulls feed stands out for its organization, providing minute marks that inform fans where we are in the game regardless of when they join the coverage. They make it easy for fans to get their temporal bearings. Compare that to Manchester City’s feed that leaves followers guessing how much time is left in a given half. When you consider that the average person on Twitter follows multiple accounts, City fans are left to scroll through feeds to figure out something as basic as whether the game is in the first or second half (although fan experience will differ depending on the medium used by fans to receive tweets). The lesson here is that teams should strive to ease the burden on fans and make it as easy as possible to track the game through 90 minutes (or 95 minutes if you are Manchester United and losing).

The tone for both teams during in-game coverage carries over from the pregame. The Red Bulls’ voice remains dry and unemotional. We’re given the who and what, but little else. Manchester City, in comparison, brings the game to life, using active verbs, exclamation, and varying case. You feel the passion (COME ON BLUES!), objectivity (United have found their feet), context (Hart is England’s No. 1; the teams played back in November), and an understanding about the flow of the game (Toure posing a constant threat; City applying all the pressure; neither keeper has been tested). As a general rule, games are not destined to be boring just because the medium for absorbing the action is the written word.

It is also worth stressing that there is no written rule that Twitter accounts are supposed to be devoid of personality. Every media voice that stands out, whether on television, radio or Twitter, does so because of a discernible personality. Personality is an asset, and a part of that personality is tone and word choice, which are vital if the goal is to make fans feel like they are actually experiencing an event rather than reading a press release broken up into text message-length nuggets.

Comparing the in-game coverage from the two accounts, Manchester City’s coverage is more successful in connecting with fans and creating an atmosphere.

Now let’s move on to the goals.

@NewYorkRedBulls Goal Coverage

30′ Goal #RBNY! And its Henry who takes a touch from an Agudelo cross and slides it off the left post. 1-0 #RBNY!

@MCFC Goal Coverage

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

The scrappiest goal David Silva will ever score but no-one will care! 1-1!

Goal Analysis

Goal coverage raises difficult questions that basically come down to a matter of preference. Do you prefer detail or passion? Would you rather understand the placement of the ball or feel the significance of the moment? From a team’s perspective, the answer boils down to which approach provides the best opportunity to connect and engage with fans.

We’ve established that eliciting feeling and emotion from fans is the way for teams to connect and engage. But connecting and engaging after a goal is particularly important because goals are the most emotional part of the game for most fans, whether fans tune in via television, computer or phone. So, quite simply, which goal call is more likely to make your heart skip a beat? My guess is that most people would say that City’s goal call elicits more emotion than the Red Bulls call, which, frankly, isn’t surprising given the respective personalities displayed during other parts of the game. The takeaway from comparing the two accounts is that you shouldn’t expect fans to be excited at a goal if the tweeter is at the game and can only muster an exclamation point to convey excitement. Once again, tone matters.

Comprehensive Coverage

Ultimately, both teams shine in different areas. While City collects all the points for passion, the Red Bulls feed is clearly the more organized, formatted, and especially during the game, comprehensive and methodical. From the opening to the final whistle, the Red Bulls account provides 32 updates organized by time stamp. Manchester City provides 29 updates, all lacking time stamps. The Red Bulls also utilize a hashtag (#RBNY) which allows Red Bulls fans to easily locate an established meeting place on Twitter. In contrast, City hashtags, like their time stamps, are nowhere to be found.

If we’re to get existential about things, you might say that these approaches (passionate vs. organized/methodical) mirror the ethos of the club environments in England and the States, respectively. But without delving too deeply into a philosophical realm, on the surface, the two approaches provide plenty of opportunity to learn and improve. Ideally, combining these elements into one Twitter feed provides fans with the ultimate experience, one that is organized, informative, navigable, and engaging.

While I prefer City’s Twitter approach (using only these two games as the basis for comparison), the larger lesson is that teams need to think through what type of experience they want to provide for fans, and more importantly, what type of experience is more likely to connect with fans emotionally, with an eye towards eventually engaging. That’s where planning is key. Ad hoc tweeting may be fine for Heath Pearce, Ryan Babel or Nutmeg Radio, but not for a team, unless, of course, it’s part of a well-thought-out strategy.

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

On Soccer Talk Live, Jon Stewart and Horrible Television

Miriti Murungi — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:28:47 +0000

Fox Soccer Channel’s Soccer Talk Live, hosted by former U.S. international Kyle Martino, is a painful, soul-crushing experience.

I wish there was something more positive to say, but at some point, the kid gloves need to come off. Fox Soccer Channel won’t critique itself, while many of those in the professional media will hardly consider challenging a peer even though feuds are great for publicity.

It’s probably not much of a stretch to say that the U.S. soccer machine is an incestuous mess of symbiotic parties hardly capable of discussing hard truths about itself, probably out of fear of biting the already impoverished hands that barely feed them. While this fear is understandable, it is no way for the game to grow, that is, if you feel the media has a role in soccer’s growth by challenging the status quo when the status quo needs challenging.

When you think of all that a soccer talk show could be in the United States, it is hard not to be aggravated by segments largely dedicated to empty conversations with questionable “celebrities,” a term I use loosely. It’s almost as if the predetermined target audience is “people who don’t care about soccer” to the exclusion of the existing soccer audience already primed to engage in thoughtful, well-reasoned debate. As it stands, I already miss Eric Wynalda and Nick Webster, which says a lot.

If Fox Soccer Channel happened to be interested in examining models for successful television, they shouldn’t have to look any further than Jon Stewart, sadly one of the few people on television willing to ask straight-forward questions and critically explore elephants in rooms. Unsurprisingly, the ratings have followed Stewart as he comically explores obvious gaping hole after obvious gaping hole. Fox Soccer Channel could learn a thing or eight from this guy if improvement is on the list of goals.

You may recall the old, yet still spectacular clip of Stewart on Crossfire where he evicerates Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala for being disingenous, uncritical, and fundamentally symbolic of our inability to engage in productive discourse. The clip is below. But this time as you watch, assume that Stewart is talking about soccer coverage in the United States (by professionals) and then we’ll continue from there …

It’s not a perfect parallel, but if Stewart was talking soccer, he would have hit the nail on the head. Where is the substance in our conversations? Is anyone interested in responsible, honest conversation, or are we only interested in substance-free theater? I think we know Fox Soccer Channel’s stance.

Watching Temryss Lane interview beauty pageant contestants and Martino commiserating with Susan Sarandon on Soccer Talk Live is difficult to stomach when there are fascinating soccer stories and debates all over this country that are routinely ignored in favor of nonsensical programming that makes my inner soccer fan cringe. If Fox Soccer executives think that there is nothing of value to discuss between game highlights and vacuous celebrity cameos, we’ve got a significant problem on our hands and an obstacle to growth of the sport in this country.

Tracking down people capable of discussing immigration’s impact on U.S. soccer, gender equity, urban-suburban issues, technical challenges, various youth development models or issues with the MLS model is not difficult. If executives truly believe that a show like Soccer Talk Live in its current state is more viable than a show that delves into some of the aforementioned issues, then we no longer have to wonder why soccer in this country sometimes struggles to find an audience among people who already love soccer. Too often they talk to us as if we’re in middle school when we have masters degrees.

Maybe this is the result of a completely disconnected suburbia controlling our soccer coverage. How else would you characterize a group of perpetually risk averse people either unable to see or unwilling to consider the real issues facing soccer in the 21st century? How else can you describe a group capable of repeatedly creating programming that is completely unrelatable to someone who has been soccer obsessed for decades? Which brings me back to Jon Stewart and Crossfire. Stewart’s main point is that he’s incapable of forgiving processed, unenlightened political conversation from seemingly intelligent people. When it comes to soccer, what aren’t we willing to forgive from our coverage? Horrible plywood set aside, when do we recognize that good content is a vision issue and not necessarily a money issue? If you think that time and money will solve the vision problem, stay tuned for disappointment. I am willing to accept the automatic “we’re a young sport/network/landscape” excuse for some things, but not all things, and certainly not for an inability to have vision.

Ultimately, I don’t blame Kyle Martino for this televised tragedy. I blame those way above his pay grade who are responsible for programing direction and concepts. Only a leadership completely disconnected from soccer reality can produce something like Soccer Talk Live without recognizing the oncoming train. People are already rightfully concerned. While missteps are understandable, hopefully lessons can be learned this time so that next time there’s less of a train wreck and more of a bicycle accident.

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

Futbol Frenzy Segment on Morning Joe?

Miriti Murungi — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 22:36:08 +0000

Holy bejesus. I’ve seen it all.

I was watching Morning Joe this morning. Judge me on that if you will. I was kind of paying attention as Al Sharpton and Joe Scarborough talked Glenn Beck, Martin Luther King, and whether Sharpton will allow Beck to reclaim Martin Luther King’s dream. Sharpton basically concluded that Glenn Beck should have a different dream.

As the Sharpton segment finished, I heard someone reference a segment recapping the weekend’s football action after the break. Surely the reference was about the ol’ gridiron variety, so I paid no attention.

Fast forward a few commercials about stuff that no one needs. Roger Bennett, ESPN soccer contributor and co-author of the ESPN World Cup Companion, was the featured guest for a new segment, Futbol Frenzy. Thoroughly confused, I turned the volume up. Although co-host Mika Brzezinski, Game Change co-author John Heilemann, and boy wonder Willie Geist were clearly unable to contribute, presumably due to a lack of soccer knowledge and/or interest, Scarborogh dove in head first, joining Bennett in a review of select action from this weekend’s English Premier League fixtures. For a man who claims to have had negative interest in the sport only a few years ago, Scarborough has come a long way. Over the past year, he’s made it perfectly clear that he’s 100% on the soccer train.

I have heard Scarborough talk about soccer before, but his comments usually surface during something World Cup-related, or at moments indisputably worthy of coverage, like when Thierry Henry moved to New York after signing with the New York Red Bulls. But today is just a random Monday. For Morning Joe to dedicate an entire segment to English Premier League highlights is borderline mindblowing. My guess — and don’t quote me — is that this could have very well been the first time a popular, non-sports related, morning talk show in the United States exclusively dedicated a segment to regular season soccer highlights.

So what topics did Scarborough and Bennett address? Manchester City, or as Scarborough calls them, “the best team that Abu Dhabi can buy,” falling 1-0 to Sunderland. Tottenham losing to Wigan. Blackpool’s performance against Fulham, which happened to be Scarborough’s favorite story of the weekend.

Really, this happened. Informed commentary on several soccer games with video footage. It was in the morning and not on ESPN or Fox Soccer Channel. It was random, thrilling, and in all seriousness, made my heart skip a beat.

Scarborogh moved on to Chelsea. Highlights aside, Scarborough thinks John Terry is “a terrible human being.”

Scarborough on Manchester United: “Berbatov … actually performed. This guy has been the underperformer of the year.” Fair enough.

Then he moved on to his relief that Liverpool finally won while smartly acknowledging Bennett’s Everton affiliation. Well played, Joe.

Is this what America looks like when more people care about soccer? Do you wake up in the morning, make your coffee (or tea if you were properly colonized by the British), turn on your 3D television and listen to Al Roker talk about Paul Scholes?

All this Euro soccer talk will make Glenn Beck’s head explode. But it is great to see Scarborough, who has admitedly come from the soccer detractors’ camp, transform into yet another unlikely advocate for soccer’s growth in the United States. When you look at the Morning Joe panel, the idea to include a soccer segment, particularly one focusing on England, could only have come from Scarborough. And for that he deserves a hug. Thanks for making my morning, Joe.

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

Berlusconi v. Murdoch: The Grudge Match for Italian Soccer Viewers

The Chairman — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:52:11 +0000

Italian Football fans have something to rejoice about in the aftermath of the National Team’s poor display in the World Cup. Media tycoons Silvio Berlusconi and Rupert Murdoch are engaged in a corporate catfight to win over the hearts and wallets of Italy’s football fans. Mediaset, owned by Silvio Berlusconi, and Sky Italia, owned by Rupert Murdoch, have been waging a price war for television soccer viewers. The gloves are apparently off and the media moguls are going at it like two shameless divas.

The competition between the two former friends began to take an adversarial tone when Berlusconi, also Italy’s Prime Minister, passed a law that doubled the tax paid by satellite television subscribers to 20% VAT. This law conveniently hit Sky Italia hard since it is a satellite television provider, unlike Mediaset, which is cable television broadcaster. Murdoch supposedly retaliated by publishing newspaper articles about the Prime Minister’s sexual and financial scandals in several News Corp (parent company of Sky Italia) publications. Additionally, Sky Italia has sued several subsidiaries of Mediaset for refusing to allow Sky to purchase advertising on some of their main television channels.

Now Silvio has decided to take things to another level by cutting prices for Mediaset’s soccer and film pay television package from 29 euros to 14 euros, undercutting Sky Italia’s pay per view deal.

Not that I am against watching this train wreck of an affair between two 70 plus year old men, but you would think that they would have better things to do with their time. At least Italian soccer fans can rejoice. For once, Silvio’s personal agenda is having beneficial external consequences for Italy’s citizens. I say these grumpy old men fight to the death. At the rate things are going, the two will soon be paying subscribers instead of charging them.

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

Looking Beyond Seats on a U.S. Soccer Plane – Part III (The Diversity Problem)

Miriti Murungi — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 20:42:41 +0000

Black Entertainment Television (BET) used to be a decent channel back before there was a tried and tested formula for how to ruin television. It had a show called Teen Summit focused on issues affecting African-American youth. Donnie Simpson’s Video Soul covered, well, R&B and soul, of course. Rap City hosted by Prince Dejour, rap. You get the point. BET had some decent programming. Then BET became a bastion of nonsense.

The first black major cable network soon began consistently projecting a one-sided, commercialized view of African-American culture, relegating “black entertainment” to booty shaking and bling. Now don’t get me wrong, gyrating and shiny objects have been enjoyed across cultures for years, but the elevation of shaky and shiny as worship-worthy cultural gods was the wrong decision at the wrong time for a relatively new voice for African-Americans.

BET, which was once a potential platform to offer a nuanced, more realistic view of a diversified African-American experience in the United States, quickly became a caricature of African-American life. Bill Cosby must have been thinking, “All those years of the Huxtables for this?”

The result of BET’s turn to unimaginative stereotype had consequences far beyond Cosby’s sorrow. African-Americans who wanted substance again had to become dependent on mainstream outlets with a long history of marginalizing their issues outside of the obligatory coverage during Black History Month, the shortest month of the year.

BET deserves a significant amount of criticism for making people sit through some insufferable programming while marginalizing countless issues affecting the African-American community. But there’s plenty of blame to go around. Other networks can credibly be blamed for simply not caring about these issues. You only need to look at the civil rights or women’s suffrage movements in the United States, or apartheid resistance in South Africa, to recognize that most struggles for change never truly gain momentum until outsiders decide that the cause in question is a subject worth covering.

Now here’s the soccer parallel. The soccer media in the United States is failing its audience much in the same way that BET failed in its portrayal of African-Americans. There are a multitude of voices and experiences in the U.S. soccer community that remain on the margins, namely issues influenced by race, gender, culture and socio-economics. But the diversity on our fields is largely invisible everywhere else in our soccer coverage, which significantly contributes to the continued omission of these issues from our discussions. Even as the faces of U.S. soccer continue to evolve, our coverage remains stuck as an exercise in suburbia.

The lack of diversity jumps off the pages and screens, especially when you consider the incredible racial and socio-economic diversity in the U.S. Men’s National Team that competed in South Africa, which included Herculez Gomez, Clint Dempsey, Oguchi Onyewu, Jozy Altidore, Jose Torres and Edson Buddle, among others. Taking a look at the U-20 roster that recently won the Milk Cup reveals that increased diversity isn’t a trend, but rather the reality of U.S. soccer.

Older generations may not be as diverse as our current crop of U.S. players, but diverse, knowledgeable voices are out there, capable of shifting how we frame what’s worth discussing in soccer. For as much horrible/mediocre that frequents our TV screens, you would think there would be greater African-American representation outside of Allen Hopkins and cameos on Fox Football Fone-In during Black History Month, gender participation outside of Julie Foudy and WPS matches, or a Latino/a presence capable of gracing my screen without having to switch over to ESPN Deportes or Fox Sports en Espanol.

But it’s not just the corporate soccer machine at fault. The collective already participating in soccer discussions also has a responsibility to make broader soccer issues, such as race, gender, culture and socio-economics, a more regular part of the conversation if we truly want to remove barriers to the game and lift the level of play. Unfortunately, we choose to inundate the soccerscape with breaking news, scores and game analysis, romanticizing tactical analysis from anyone with a British accent and fawning over European expertise as if there are no glaring issues at home worth addressing that tactics and European accents won’t address.

In the grand scheme of things, there’s nothing wrong tactics and foreigners. But when they become your gods at the expense of the game in your own country, or when important voices are repeatedly excluded in their favor, someone has to recheck priorities, because the real loser has been, and will continue to be, U.S. soccer. We can’t expect people adopted as commentating mercenaries to understand our systemic cultural problems, offer relevant, holistic analysis, or to tackle issues like urban access that are cloaked in years of American context.

Not all soccer is created equally, and a proper understanding of the U.S. soccer landscape requires a cultural understanding of our country. Knowing the sport isn’t always enough. Ask Ruud Gullit.

So does the soccersphere need a BET? No. But it does need a more diverse stable of writers and commentators, both in appearance and background, who mirror what our leagues look like.

BET isn’t necessarily cable’s solution, just as a similar model isn’t soccer’s solution. Similarly, the emergence of an Allen Hopkins or Julie Foudy does not necessarily signify a new philosophy or approach to subject matter prioritization. Could these voices play a role in starting the conversation? Sure. But they won’t always have the clearance to talk about these issues even if they desperately wanted to. The direction needs to come from the top. It starts with recognition from hiring powers that diversity is just as important in our soccer conversations as playing pedigree. Investing in hiring and developing a diverse stable of commentators and writers will enhance our soccer conversations. But again, it has to start at the top. Sole dependence on BETs or Allen Hopkins or Julie Foudy is a sure fire path to continued issue marginalization.

But let me be clear. BET is a wonderful example of how we need to be careful of diversity for the sake of diversity because it can lead to horrific outcomes. But when approached appropriately and responsibly, the scope of our conversations expand when the pool of participants is more inclusive, which benefits all of us, viewers, readers, players, and fans.

If we are serious about accelerating our development on the soccer field and as well-rounded, well-versed members of the soccer community off the field, it’s time to start reassessing our priorities. As I said in Part I, these are not issues to be shifted over to the U.S. Soccer Foundation; they are our issues too. It’s time to start paying more attention to what we deem worthy of conversation in U.S. soccer. We’ll know that we’re heading in the right direction once our voices begin reflecting the diversity of our players.

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!

An NFL Fan Walks Into a Bar …

Clive Longbottom-Fellow, Esq. — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:14:35 +0000

So soccer is boring, huh. Not enough goals being scored? Not enough action?

Well a recent Wall Street Journal article turns a common complaint advanced by many American football fans on its head. Maybe soccer doesn’t have enough scoring to appease the gridiron faithful, but if your buddies continue harping on and on about the lack of action in soccer, the Wall Street Journal’s study on NFL coverage provides some pretty damning figures.

Here are a few highlights from the study for your debates:

NFL games are 60 minutes long.
The average amount of time the ball is in play is 11 minutes, making the inaction to action ratio roughly 5 to 1.
Commercials take up an hour out of every NFL broadcast.
The average NFL broadcast spends 56% more time showing replays than live game action.

These numbers support what many of us already know. If you’re a fan of action, soccer is your sport. If you enjoy watching coaches playing with their headsets, huddles, players walking on and off the field, watching guys in the booth talk about anything that comes to mind in an attempt to make you forget that nothing is going on, and beer commercials, American football is your game.

Don’t get me wrong. I was once an American football fanatic and understand the game very well. But ever since I strayed, returning to American football’s constant stoppages in play has become increasingly difficult. But now I have some data for my next battle to explain why the real action is on the soccer field.

Follow Nutmeg Radio on Twitter and Facebook!