3 ms·

The world is full of people rationalising their involvement in horrible things.

• smcl 4y ago
  I think that's a setting the stage for a set of purity tests nobody can pass. He's done far more damage to the tournament by making that broadcast as a famous person, than he could by boycotting as an individual. You could argue that he shouldn't have said he would watch it, but I think that would've been dishonest.
  • padjo 4y ago
    What damage has he done to the tournament? I’m not arguing that he should be dishonest, I just find it bizarre that he could seem so outraged but be unwilling to suffer the minor inconvenience of not watching some football matches. The surest way to send a message to FIFA is to hit viewership numbers. Performative outrage will achieve exactly nothing.
    • smcl 4y ago
      Are you seriously saying that it’s more important that the number of viewers on ESPN (or whoever, who have already paid FIFA) for USA v Wales reads 5,628,273 rather than 5,628,274 … than a man who has millions of followers loudly and proudly declaring they won’t be swayed by sportswashing and that nobody else should be either (while exposing in detail exactly why)? Come on.
      • padjo 4y ago
        No I’m saying if viewership was down 50% for this World Cup Fifa do you think Fifa would do this again? Are you seriously saying that you think FIFA care one bit about some TV personality making strident declarations while acknowledging loudly that they will continue to consume FIFAs product?
        • smcl 4y ago
          Yes FIFA absolutely care that basically all coverage of the World Cup across the world mentions that it is a fucking shambles, cost countless thousands of lives and has basically exposed their corruption. They won't stop being corrupt, but they'll be much less egregious next time - they simply cannot pull off another Qatar. Hell, even Sepp Blatter admitted it was a mistake ahead of the tournament.