# Brasil 2014 **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [May 6, 2014, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brasil-2014/687840 "2014-05-06T21:19:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 129
**Author:** ![Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulf_the_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brasil-2014/687840/2561 "2014-07-03T23:05:52Z")
Well, no one can accuse you of lacking passion, that’s for sure. You may not like it, or want to believe it, but language DOES serve as a barrier. I’m sure you’ll simply dismiss what follows as anecdotal, and therefore unimportant, and you may well be right, but I see this kind of thing all the time, not just in sports. Whether in schools, or churches, or businesses, or any other endeavor of life, people feel like they don’t belong and are not wanted when there is a set of jargony-sounding words and phrases they need to learn and use if they want to fit in. Sports is no different. Sometimes this is not a problem, because people really WANT to be a part of the group. I’m sure there are Americans who are eager to be seen as true fans and call it football and refer to kits and the pitch. I don’t know any personally, but I’m sure they exist. But for a lot of people expressions like these really are off-putting. I played a lot of soccer growing up, not at high levels by any means, but I played; both my kids played; many kids I know play. Some are pretty damn good (not my own kids). I listen to them talk; they put on their “uniforms” and go out onto the “field.” They don’t use the England-ish terms any more than they talk about getting their trainers from the boot of the car after practice. These are the American terms; they are perfectly good terms. If people are made fun of, or thought to be somehow wanting, because of the language they use, they aren’t generally going to flock to something new. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brasil-2014/687840/2562 "2014-07-03T23:08:46Z")
In addition, I decided to look at wikipedia for the term “pitch”. > **[Pitch (sports field)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_(sports_field))** > > A pitch or a sports ground is an outdoor playing area for various sports. The term pitch is most commonly used in British English, while the comparable term in Australian, American and Canadian English is playing field or sports field. > For most sports the official term is field of play, although this is not regularly used by those outside refereeing/umpiring circles.\[citation needed\] The field of play generally includes out-of-bounds areas that a player is likely to enter while playing a match, ... > [@](#): > > A pitch or a sports ground is an outdoor playing area for various sports. The term is used in British and Australian English; the comparable term in American English is playing field. In most sports,[citation needed] the official technical term is field of play, although this is not regularly used by those outside of refereeing/umpiring circles. > **[Football pitch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_football_pitch)** > > A football pitch or soccer field is the playing surface for the game of association football. Its dimensions and markings are defined by Law 1 of the Laws of the Game, "The Field of Play". The pitch is typically made of natural turf or artificial turf, although amateur and recreational teams often play on dirt fields. Artificial surfaces are allowed only to be green in colour. > All line markings on the pitch form part of the area which they define. For example, a ball on or above the touchline... > [@](#): > > A football pitch (also known as a football field[1] or soccer field) is the playing surface for the game of football made of turf. Its dimensions and markings are defined by Law 1 of the Laws of the Game, “The Field of Play”.[2] I do find it interesting that the Official Laws of the Game refer to it as a Field of Play. In French the term is ‘terrain du jeu’. Terrain, according to Google Translate, becomes “Field” in English. And of course, French along with English is an official language of FIFA. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brasil-2014/687840/2563 "2014-07-03T23:09:43Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > So apparently Olbermann’s criticism of people using European slang means that he is saying soccer is not growing in the US at all? He said if soccer is going to get anywhere in the USA, people should give in to the sneering and stop using traditional terms. He’s wrong. > [@](#): > > This is what I mean by you are being overly defensive. He isn’t saying that soccer isn’t growing. That’s not what I’m addressing. It’s his pompousness and ignorance of the history of the sport in the USA. > [@](#): > > He’s probably seen more soccer matches live than both of us combined. So what? I doubt it’s true in my case, but I suppose it might be. > [@](#): > > He’s saying that it would help US soccer (as he said it would make soccer work ‘better’). “Ya gotta dumb it down fer these Amerkins skeered of furrin talk.” Fuck that. > [@](#): > > Oh, and not soccer fan bows to the supposed “correct term” which is simply English slang. “SOCCER” is English slang. “Pitch,” “kit,” “match,” etc. are not slang, but rather traditional terms for the sport. > [@](#): > > FWIW, there have plenty of calls to change the names of the terms in tennis. And they’re wrong. > [@](#): > > Also, with F.C. I can’t believe you are seriously sitting there saying it was intended to be “true to soccer’s traditions” when NOT A SINGLE ORIGINAL MLS SQUAD HAD “F.C.” IN THEIR NAME. MLS has only been around since 1993. And struggled in its early years. So what if the earliest teams in the league didn’t use F.C.? It’s still a really young league! There’s a tradition in the USA of using “F.C.” from before WWII. That is a fact. And well-known to people who know anything about professional soccer in the USA. > [@](#): > > So you are just being disingenuous here. No, I’m not. When the Sounders were promoted to the MLS, the inclusion of “F.C.” was in part to honor the tradition of the professional sport in the USA as well as in the world, and not just in English speaking countries. When the discussion for the new NY team arose, do you think only I noticed and commented that there was a “New York City FC” in history? Really? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > D.C. United was the only original squad that had a European call back. So what, this isn’t the Premier League. It’s young, and part of the objective was always to honor traditions of soccer in American and elsewhere, but also especially as a solution to the league’s early struggles. > [@](#): > > The F.C.'s and Union’s came later as the MLS tried to appeal to European looking fans. That’s a part of it, which I’ve never denied. _But not the only part._ There’s a traditional use of “F.C.” in professional American soccer which, believe me, the people who organized the new MLS teams knew about, and which informed the decision as well. This is not obscure knowledge, that some professional soccer teams in America used “F.C.” ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brasil-2014/687840/2564 "2014-07-03T23:11:49Z")
> [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](#): > > These are the American terms; they are perfectly good terms. If people are made fun of, or thought to be somehow wanting, because of the language they use, they aren’t generally going to flock to something new. Find me a single non-anecdotal example of someone being made fun of for using “field” or “uniform.” I can find many more for you for someone using “kit” and “pitch.” I never said either were unacceptable. Not once. I would never argue that they were. But I would never argue that no one should use the traditional terms, either. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brasil-2014/687840/2565 "2014-07-03T23:13:13Z")
So, the MLS really wanted to honor the traditions of soccer in the US, which included teams being named “F.C.”, but the original squads didn’t have “F.C.” because its a… young league? Did the new league not care about soccer naming traditions in the US until 10 years in? That is an incredibly ridiculous argument. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brasil-2014/687840/2566 "2014-07-03T23:15:03Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > So, the MLS really wanted to honor the traditions of soccer in the US, which included teams being named “F.C.”, but the original squads didn’t have “F.C.” because its a… young league? Did the new league not care about soccer naming traditions in the US until 10 years in? > > That is an incredibly ridiculous argument. Dude. Really. It’s not the only thing the league did to honor traditions. ETA. I’ll try to spell it out one last time. The inclusion of “F.C.” in expansion team names was in part a recognition of that naming tradition in the earliest American professional leagues, as well as from European traditions. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brasil-2014/687840/2567 "2014-07-03T23:15:50Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > Not really, no. Ties essentially don’t exist in the other sports. > > My point is that “the favorite **doesn’t win** ” is a weasel word (erm, weasel phrase?) that misrepresents the situation when talking about a sport where a significant percentage of contests don’t have any winner at all. > > Consider this equally valid phrasing: The ‘better team’ **doesn’t lose** more often often soccer than any other major sport. > > This paints it in the polar opposite light, but again, it’s misrepresenting the reality because soccer has three likely outcomes while the other sports in the comparison only have two. To get into more detail, for a proper analysis count each tie as a half-win and a half-loss. So if you add up all the results and the favorites end up with a record of (just making up numbers) 500-400-100, instead of looking at that as “500 didn’t win” or “600 didn’t lose” you’d convert the 100 ties into 50 wins and 50 losses, which becomes 550-450. Compare that record against the other major sports and you’ll have a meaningful comparison. ---
**Author:** ![Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulf_the_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brasil-2014/687840/2568 "2014-07-03T23:19:33Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > Find me a single non-anecdotal example of someone being made fun of for using “field” or “uniform.” > > I can find many more for you for someone using “kit” and “pitch.” > > \*\*I never said either were unacceptable. Not once. I would never argue that they were. > \*\* > But I would never argue that no one should use the traditional terms, either. [bolding mine] Well, that is certainly how your post comes across. If you would like it not to, I would suggest avoiding loaded terms like “dumbing down.” And “true to soccer’s traditions.” ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brasil-2014/687840/2569 "2014-07-03T23:21:56Z")
So, Knorf, what’s the explanation of Real Salt Lake? What American tradition does that name honor? ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brasil-2014/687840/2570 "2014-07-03T23:22:44Z")
> [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](#): > > [bolding mine] > > Well, that is certainly how your post comes across. > > If you would like it not to, I would suggest avoiding loaded terms like “dumbing down.” And “true to soccer’s traditions.” Fair enough. But for the record, I think there’s nothing wrong with using either “pitch” or “field.” Nothing wrong with using either “kit” or “uniform.” And so on. I like the traditional terms, myself, but I have never sneered at anyone not using them. Olbermann, however, sneered at me (well, in a general not personal sense) for my preferred usage. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brasil-2014/687840/2571 "2014-07-03T23:24:26Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > So, Knorf, what’s the explanation of Real Salt Lake? What American tradition does that name honor? [I’ve already acknowledged](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17517867&postcount=2548) that “Real Salt Lake” is stupid. But obviously it honors the Spanish leagues for no particularly good reason. I also argued it’s not worse than “Utah Jazz” or “LA Lakers.” People get used to it, and forget that it wasn’t brilliant to begin with. There are a lot of stupid team names in America. “Mighty Ducks”? Barf. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brasil-2014/687840/2572 "2014-07-03T23:30:15Z")
So you concede that we have evidence of MLS blatantly pandering their names to court European fans, or at least fans of European teams. It is not unreasonable to think that the “FC” names are more of this pandering, your mouth-frothing indignation notwithstanding. > [@Knorf](#): > > Fair enough. But for the record, I think there’s nothing wrong with using either “pitch” or “field.” Nothing wrong with using either “kit” or “uniform.” And so on. > > I like the traditional terms, myself, but I have never sneered at anyone using them. > > Olbermann, however, sneered at me (well, in a general not personal sense) for my preferred usage. Is Olberman the only person to ever sneer at that usage? If more than just Olberman do that kind of sneering, isn’t that a reason not to use the jargon? Not referring to fans, but to the league itself. Why alienate anyone? Let me put it another way: x% of fans would be turned off to the sport before they even started just by the usage of British soccer jargon. y% of fans would be turned off to the sport before they even started just by virtue of having the British terms Americanized for the American league. Olberman’s point is that X \> Y. I agree with him. In fact, I think Y = 0 and X \> 0. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brasil-2014/687840/2573 "2014-07-03T23:31:11Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > Dude. Really. It’s not the only thing the league did to honor traditions. > > ETA. I’ll try to spell it out one last time. The inclusion of “F.C.” in expansion team names was in part a recognition of that naming tradition in the earliest American professional leagues, as well as from European traditions. Why focus on recent expansion teams? Are you trying to conveniently ignore the Dallas Burn and the Kansas City Wiz changing their names to European sounding names? The Burn became F.C. Dallas in 2004. It wasn’t until 2007 and beyond when expansion teams added F.C. or Union to their names. So I don’t buy for a second your assertion that those were just call backs to US Soccer tradition ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brasil-2014/687840/2574 "2014-07-03T23:35:31Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > So, using “F.C.” for American soccer is _not_ something new that the MLS came up with; it’s tied deeply to the history of soccer in America… > > In other word, Olbermann’s ranting about “F.C.” is just one more example of his pontificating about something he doesn’t know anything about. His point was about perception. Even if these names are truly inspired by early 20th century American soccer history, using the European sound-alike names makes it \*seem \*like they’re self-consciously aping the more storied and prestigious leagues in order to piggyback on their image. And, it’s kinda beside the point, but I don’t think you’ve established that that’s \*\*not \*\*what happened. Anyway, I’m sorry I linked to the video – I thought I was just posting a light-hearted riff on soccer in America, I don’t really have any opinion on Olbermann’s suggestions. I suspect that Olbermann himself barely has an opinion on his suggestions, just taking an opportunity to poke fun at a few foibles. Honestly, I think you might be taking his spiel in a spirit other than what was intended. > [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Olbermann is a dipshit on this argument. How do you think it would go over if a Dallas Cowboy fan had to listen to a Brit go on about the “14 to nil match” against the Redskins he watched? I think it would go just fine. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brasil-2014/687840/2575 "2014-07-03T23:47:09Z")
See how much of a unifying force soccer is? A soccer discussion just got a New York Football Giants fan to give a charitable description to a hypothetical Dallas Cowboys fan. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brasil-2014/687840/2576 "2014-07-03T23:51:12Z")
LOL!! (Well done :D) ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Panic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/don_t_panic/32/398_2.png) [@Don\_t\_Panic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Panic)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brasil-2014/687840/2577 "2014-07-03T23:51:45Z")
I just want to say that as a non-American, I find it part amusing and part perplexing to see the the words “soccer” and “snob” in the same sentence. The whole “hipster soccer fan” thing is equally bizarre. This is a sport which has a fan base that is traditionally associated with working class, homophobic, tribalistic , more or less violent, borderline inarticulate beer-swilling men usually found in pubs. If you want a European sport associated with snootiness and “noble traditions”, maybe y’all should take up fox hunting. (And I apologize for insulting any European soccer fans who don’t fit the above description, as well as the ones who do, plus any American hipster soccer snobs.) ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brasil-2014/687840/2578 "2014-07-03T23:54:11Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > It is not unreasonable to think that the “FC” names are more of this pandering, your mouth-frothing indignation notwithstanding. “Mouth-frothing”? Yeah, ok. No need to respond to you anymore. > [@ISiddiqui](#): > > Why focus on recent expansion teams? Are you trying to conveniently ignore the Dallas Burn and the Kansas City Wiz changing their names to European sounding names? First of all, I was defending the use of “F.C.” specifically. Not any of the other names. But as long as you bring it up, I actually don’t see why using more-European names is inherently a problem. Part of the tradition being honored in the sport is absolutely a European tradition. It’s not pandering. Europeans aren’t becoming fans of the MLS (they still disdain it, actually), and it was never expected that they would. Using European-style names is only a problem in so far as some Americans are xenophobic and insecure about our supposedly waning national greatness. I don’t care if those kind of people ever become soccer fans. People will become fans if they love the game, not because or despite their like or dislike of words used for the game and its teams. > [@](#): > > The Burn became F.C. Dallas in 2004. It wasn’t until 2007 and beyond when expansion teams added F.C. or Union to their names. I’m well aware of this. I’m also aware that there is a tradition in America for using “F.C.,” which is what I was defending. It’s not only an English tradition; it’s American as well. When public discussion for naming the Seattle Sounders FC was undertaken, the American tradition was acknowledged and part of the conversation. Not the only part, one of the parts. Which fits in with the MLS goal of honoring the traditions of the sport, domestically and globally. > [@](#): > > So I don’t buy for a second your assertion that those were just call backs to US Soccer tradition I never said “just.” Here’s what I actually said: “The inclusion of ‘F.C.’ in expansion team names was _in part_ a recognition of that naming tradition in the earliest American professional leagues, as well as from European traditions.” I also wrote, “When the Sounders were promoted to the MLS, the inclusion of ‘F.C.’ was _in part_ to honor the tradition of the professional sport in the USA as well as in the world, and not just in English speaking countries.” (Added italics.) So, not “just.” In part. > [@VarlosZ](#): > > His point was about perception. Even if these names are truly inspired by early 20th century American soccer history… In part inspired by. I never said it was the only explanation, only that it was part of it. Saying “F.C.” is only an English tradition is flat-out wrong. There’s an American tradition as well that is worth acknowledging. > [@](#): > > …using the European sound-alike names makes it \*seem \*like they’re self-consciously aping the more storied and prestigious leagues in order to piggyback on their image. The rest is your interpretation of what he said. He didn’t say “appears to be.” He said “is.” And that’s simply not correct, at least as far as “F.C.” goes. I’ve already acknowledged that “Real” is stupid. But what’s the bottom line? The MLS since the inclusion of the more European-sounding names has been doing A LOT better than before that. So in the end, it was a good move and good for the future of soccer in the USA. I don’t care whether some prissy Americans are thin-skinned about the use of supposedly foreign names and terms. There’s no real evidence such usage is hurting soccer in America, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brasil-2014/687840/2579 "2014-07-03T23:56:08Z")
> [@Martian Bigfoot](#): > > I just want to say that as a non-American, I find it part amusing and part perplexing to see the the words “soccer” and “snob” in the same sentence. The whole “hipster soccer fan” thing is equally bizarre. This is a sport which has a fan base that is traditionally associated with working class, homophobic, tribalistic , more or less violent, borderline inarticulate beer-swilling men usually found in pubs. If you want a European sport associated with snootiness and “noble traditions”, maybe y’all should take up fox hunting. > > (And I apologize for insulting any European soccer fans who don’t fit the above description, as well as the ones who do, plus any American hipster soccer snobs.) Oh, don’t worry, we tend to find it a bit amusing as well when we step back and look at it. In the US, it has tended to be the more liberal, middle and upper class folks who have become soccer fans (liberal, middle class soccer fan here - though I’m also the children of immigrants, but they were Pakistani and have little interest in soccer aside from putting me in youth leagues for 11 years) in addition to Latin American immigrants. I’m not entirely sure why it ended up that way, but I would venture that part of it had to do with a more openness to foreign ideals, including foreign sports, that seems to be more liberal in the US, and you had to have some money to be able to even see games for the longest time. We reserve our tribalistic fans for American football… maybe there is something in that football name ;). ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2014, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brasil-2014/687840/2580 "2014-07-03T23:59:47Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > We reserve our tribalistic fans for American football… maybe there is something in that football name ;). And ice hockey. Smaller tribes, to be sure, but … watch out! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brasil-2014/687840.md?page=128) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brasil-2014/687840.md?page=130)