I don't understand the thrill of the game

[venta]

Today I've had Xfm on, streaming from my computer. It's sufficiently cool today that we don't need the aircon on, so I can hear music properly. Most of the DJs have talked about the football, everyone who's called in has been asked about/mentioned it. Some of the adverts are football orientated. There's even been adverts for a club which is "the only place to be after the match".

Over on elle_'s journal, it's clear that companies all over the place are using the match as an excuse for a jolly. Someone else mentioned that their company is shutting up shop early this afternoon.

Now, I'm not a football fan, not even at times like this. I come from a family of sport-despisers. When a passing French bloke tried to take the piss on Sunday night, it was completely lost on me because, though I knew there was a match on, I hadn't known it was against France, and at that point I didn't know England had lost.

I know there are plenty of people out there who're not bothered about footy. So, without wanting lots of frothing comments along the lines of how the match tonight is getting in the way/sodding up your plans/annoying you: what percentage of the population cares ?

The prevalence of the little car-flags, the quietness of the streets when there's a game, everything else suggests "near 100". But a surprisingly high percentage of my friends are rabidly anti-. Is this just me knowing an unrepresentative sample ? Is it that the football apathists are just much quieter about their apathy than the supporters are about their support ? That people are worried they'll be deemed sad, uncool, unpatriotic or pummelled if they admit they don't give a stuff ?

I'm genuinely curious.

Comments

[hjalfi.livejournal.com]

I usually only actively dislike football (that is, wishing it would just go away as soon as possible, rather than just not caring about it) when it comes to TV coverage. You see, the TV companies always underallocate the time for any kind of live sports coverage, and since live sports always overrun, this means that the TV schedule for the rest of the day is screwed up.

Admittedly, I care about this much less than I used to, because I watch much less TV than I used to these days. I have broadband now.

This applies to most organised sports. While I don't mind them provided I'm allowed to not care about them in peace, if I'm forced to notice them they really irritate me.

(Yeah, I got forced to play them at school too. Rugby, mostly, for me. That was not fun.)

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

since live sports always overrun, this means that the TV schedule for the rest of the day is screwed up.

Can't argue with that - it's certainly an entirely non-spiteful reason for wanting sport to stop.

In the case of major tournaments, the number of matches shown doesn't depend on whether England are still in it. So I still claim that people who draw pleasure from England losing are all bastards :-)

[venta.livejournal.com]

Completely irrelevantly, but this reminds me of a quote from Tony Maguire, an Irish spokeman for the Fire Brigades Union, talking about Labour:

"Are these bastards our bastards or just bastards?"

Regardless of the politics, you've got to admire someone who creates a soundbite which is 37.5% "bastard".

[al-fruitbat.livejournal.com]

It's not just overrunning, it's the blanket coverage. One time, the same bloody match was being shown simultaneously on bbc1 and ITV (because 'they'd both been covering it'). Whatever big tournament it was last, I remember being unable to find any radio stations that weren't talking about the foopball - it triggered me to buy an in-car MP3 player.

If the foopball weren't so moronically invasive, I suspect I'd loathe it less. I derive pleasure when england lose because of the release of the incessant foopball pressure - rather like lancing a particularly irksome boil ;-)