4 ms·

I think the mandatory ad break introduced by FIFA at the World Cup was also too much for most football people, not just fans. Changed too much, broke the dynami

by haunter 3mo ago

I think the mandatory ad break introduced by FIFA at the World Cup was also too much for most football people, not just fans. Changed too much, broke the dynamics, basically the sport became a game of 4 quarters instead of 2 halves. These two things combined together are just over the top and unacceptable (UEFA already said they won't use these mandatory ad breaks anywhere) This is the closest where I can see a future where we have a rugby union / rugby league like schism. Oh and guess who is behind the investment group: https://apnews.com/article/world-cup-fifa-investors-kushner-infantino-uefa-8345e0864e3a217632733810c232b423 https://apnews.com/article/world-cup-fifa-investors-kushner-...

orangedog 3mo ago
Why would non-fans even care? It was a 3 minute break, non-fans would not have any idea that you were going for 2 halves to 4 "quarters". I think this is the kind of thing purists care about but most people don't, most don't even know it is new.
- poncho_romero 3mo ago
  Why would anyone be in favour of more ad breaks?
  - orangedog 3mo ago
    I'm not arguing for ad breaks, I'm saying non-fans would not even be aware this is something new. This is the thing that is too much? I just don't get it. The entire thing is a spectacle to sell ads.
    - monkey_monkey 3mo ago
      No one really gives a shit what Americans who don't follow football think, though.
      - orangedog 3mo ago
        The original post mentioned people that weren't fans, though. Who are we talking about that are "football people" but not fans. I'm not trying to be dense, I just don't know which audience this is.
        Fargren 3mo ago
        USA is the exception here. In most countries, even people who are not football fans are pretty aware of how it works. I don't often watch football outside the world cup. I don't support any teams. But I know how football is meant to be played, and I was definitely annoyed about the hydration breaks. Does USA have people that don't follow american football but will watch the Superbowl? Would those people notice if there were three times as many breaks as usual?
        ChickeNES 3mo ago
        > Does USA have people that don't follow american football but will watch the Superbowl? Would those people notice if there were three times as many breaks as usual? Well...many if not most of the people who don't follow NFL and watch the Super Bowl are watching it for the half time show and ads, so more breaks would make them happy, heh.
        anigbrowl 3mo ago
        Look, most people around the world are not full time fans and only tune to the national final in their country or the world cup. But in any country where soccer is popular, the basic rules are something everyone knows from kindergarten. It's the same way that Americans know what pitchers, catchers, and batters are in baseball even if they've never picked up a bat or a glove and only go to baseball games to eat hot dogs and get drunk on overpriced beer. Soccer has two halves like baseball has nine innings,a nd the vast majority of people do not want to mess with that. A secondary reason that they don't want to mess with it is the perception that these hydration breaks are not organic (because it's always been acceptable for players to grab a drink fo water and there are ample opportunities to do so during a regular game), but that the breaks were imposed on the game to facilitate ad breaks in American TV broadcasts. Much of the world is tired of doing things differently just because the Americans want it.
    - ahartmetz 3mo ago
      In almost every part of the world, all people know some basic things about football (and I do mean the one where you kick a ball with the foot), like it has two halves of 45 minutes.
    - DrSiemer 3mo ago
      Europe is full of people who are not fans, but will still hear all about the games when their country plays, because it's basically impossible to avoid. Chat groups, work banter, waiting rooms, everybody will be talking about it ALL THE TIME. There is a base level of knowledge for the sport everybody shares. Maybe it's the same with American Football in the US? As a European, I still have no idea what that is even remotely about. A game having two main uninterrupted halves is one of those foundational facts. Players train for being able to play for that long without getting too thirsty to continue.
    - charlieyu1 3mo ago
      On the other hand, it gives a chance for fans to turn off the TV when the game isn’t great
- hamper653 3mo ago
  Most football non-fans absolutely know that a football match is supposed to be two halves.
  - orangedog 3mo ago
    It's still two halves there is just another short stoppage time in which players stay on the field, the same as every foul, goal, and variety of other timing based decisions in football.
    - hamper653 3mo ago
      I wouldn’t know, I haven’t watched a single football match since 2018. As for short stoppage time, football use to have much less than, say, rugby. Was it different this year?
      - nephihaha 3mo ago
        Yes. Very much so. They added in so called hydration breaks in the middle of the halves for extra revenue. Rugby stoppages are beginning to get ridiculous but they aren't doing them for advertising yet.
    - jen20 3mo ago
      This would only be true if they did not allow the hydration breaks to be used as a group coaching opportunity.
    - dekervin 3mo ago
      Why don't you just say: I know nothing about football ( and I dont care much), please enlighten me? - Football is not a game of easy scoring, often you have to build momentum, by relentlessly putting pressure on the other team. It's more important than in other sports, because in football a weaker team can easily earn a draw against a stronger team if the later fails to do just that. Your attacks ( and defense efforts) must compound. It's almost like building a narrative inside the head of the players and inside the head of the spectators before a goal gives everyone a release one way or the other. Moreso than in other sports where you have a lot of scoring happening. Football is closer to watching an epic drama. Now it's true that dynamics can change on a dime. But you often have to earn that change ( like by having a skilled player who attracts fouls ). Having regular breaks makes it almost like watching another sport. - In most of Europe and South America even people who don't watch regular league games have an intuitive expectation of how a game should be played. And they care. Especially when it comes to national teams because it's often a big part of the national lore. ( It's like the offside rule. Even people who despise the game end up being experts )
- scbrg 3mo ago
  I'm most certainly not a football fan, but I definitely know that a match consists of two 45 minute (and then some) halves. It's pretty much equivalent to a non motor enthusiast knowing that there are usually four wheels on a car. I'd say this is very, very common knowledge in huge parts of the world. It's not something only enthusiasts and purists know.
  - orangedog 3mo ago
    Sure, but they aren't leaving the field. There are plenty of stoppages in game already which take as much time. In that sense it's nothing new. Do non-fans view it as changing to 4 "quarters"? I'm not sure most people would care. This is what I mean it's the kind of thing that football purists care about but it's a very small thing.
    - gffrd 3mo ago
      “I’m not sure what the big deal about tripling the number of tire changes in the race is.”
      - deleted 3mo ago
        [deleted]
    - scbrg 3mo ago
      I don't know... I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're from a country where football isn't very popular. I don't think you realize just how many fans there are. How utterly ingrained it is in the culture of many countries. "non-fans" make up a minuscule minority of the population of at least Europe, and as far as I understand it South America and parts of Africa too. Not sure about Asia (varies wildly between countries, I suppose), but according to [0] it's estimated that about 3.5 billion people are considered football fans. This is certainly something many people I know have cared a lot about - and again, I'm not a football enthusiast myself, but still the vast majority of the people I know are, because, not being one really is an outlier. [0] https://www.topendsports.com/world/lists/popular-sport/fans.htm https://www.topendsports.com/world/lists/popular-sport/fans.... > There are plenty of stoppages in game already which take as much time. Well. Not really. And those "stoppages" are part of the game. Actually watching the players quarrel with the referee and whatnot is something football fans want to do. It's not comparable.
- rsynnott 3mo ago
  > non-fans would not have any idea that you were going for 2 halves to 4 "quarters" … By non-fans do you mean people who have literally never heard of football, or something? I’m very far from a fan, no interest at all. But, I mean, I know there are two halves. Everybody knows that.
  - orangedog 3mo ago
    There still are 2 halves. Framing it as quarters is the entire thing. There are numerous things throughout a game which will cause the game to be paused just as long, which is why there is stoppage time.
    - hamper653 3mo ago
      There aren’t usually numerous 5-minutes pauses in a football match, no.
      - deleted 3mo ago
        [deleted]
    - dijksterhuis 3mo ago
      except during that time players aren’t huddling around the manager and the rest of the coaching staff. all of whom have their ipads out to discuss stats breakdowns and instruct players on changing tactics and strategies. that’s what effectively made the hydration breaks turn it into a game of four quarters. lost count of the number of times teams completely changed their strategy after the breaks and went on to score goals etc. you make the players drink the water from the centre of the field with no coaching staff present then it would have less of an impact. but there’s still an impact as all players can huddle together and discuss things together in a way they normally wouldn’t be able to without a severe stoppage ie a delay going on 5-10+ minutes, which is usually rare.
  - secretsatan 3mo ago
    I think by non fans they just mean americans, it’s almost impossiible to not be aware of the basic rules outside of there.
triceratops 3mo ago
Of all the things wrong with the World Cup, the most inconsequential ones - hydration breaks and the final half-time show - have attracted the most griping.
- alberto-m 3mo ago
  Changing the pauses of the game alters the momentum and, as consequence, the results. How is that “inconsequential”? There have been cases of corrupted referees before, but violating the Laws of the Game in plain sight is an unprecedented attack on the sport.
  - orangedog 3mo ago
    How does it violate the laws of the game? Every single break time decision in football is arbitrary already.
    - nwbt 3mo ago
      Every rule in sports is arbitrary, that's not an argument. If you want to do it properly, ask about the spirit of the game, not the laws - and there's clearly a conflict there.
      - tovej 3mo ago
        The half time show did, however violate the letter of the rulebook. There is a maximum duration for half time breaks, which was exceeded easily.
        triceratops 3mo ago
        The rulebook says the duration of half-time must be specified in competition rules and can be altered if the referee allows it. "Players are entitled to an interval at half-time, not exceeding 15 minutes; a short drinks break (which should not exceed one minute) is permitted at the interval of half-time in extra time. Competition rules must state the duration of the half-time interval and it may be altered only with the referee’s permission." You could argue that that this rule allows referees to extend the half-time break.
jimbokun 3mo ago
I agree completely with your assessment of the water breaks, but the games were extremely entertaining and I watched as much as I could.

by haunter 3mo ago

orangedog 3mo ago

Why would non-fans even care? It was a 3 minute break, non-fans would not have any idea that you were going for 2 halves to 4 "quarters". I think this is the kind of thing purists care about but most people don't, most don't even know it is new.

poncho_romero 3mo ago
Why would anyone be in favour of more ad breaks?
- orangedog 3mo ago
  I'm not arguing for ad breaks, I'm saying non-fans would not even be aware this is something new. This is the thing that is too much? I just don't get it. The entire thing is a spectacle to sell ads.
  - monkey_monkey 3mo ago
    No one really gives a shit what Americans who don't follow football think, though.
    - orangedog 3mo ago
      The original post mentioned people that weren't fans, though. Who are we talking about that are "football people" but not fans. I'm not trying to be dense, I just don't know which audience this is.
      - Fargren 3mo ago
        USA is the exception here. In most countries, even people who are not football fans are pretty aware of how it works. I don't often watch football outside the world cup. I don't support any teams. But I know how football is meant to be played, and I was definitely annoyed about the hydration breaks. Does USA have people that don't follow american football but will watch the Superbowl? Would those people notice if there were three times as many breaks as usual?
        ChickeNES 3mo ago
        > Does USA have people that don't follow american football but will watch the Superbowl? Would those people notice if there were three times as many breaks as usual? Well...many if not most of the people who don't follow NFL and watch the Super Bowl are watching it for the half time show and ads, so more breaks would make them happy, heh.
      - anigbrowl 3mo ago
        Look, most people around the world are not full time fans and only tune to the national final in their country or the world cup. But in any country where soccer is popular, the basic rules are something everyone knows from kindergarten. It's the same way that Americans know what pitchers, catchers, and batters are in baseball even if they've never picked up a bat or a glove and only go to baseball games to eat hot dogs and get drunk on overpriced beer. Soccer has two halves like baseball has nine innings,a nd the vast majority of people do not want to mess with that. A secondary reason that they don't want to mess with it is the perception that these hydration breaks are not organic (because it's always been acceptable for players to grab a drink fo water and there are ample opportunities to do so during a regular game), but that the breaks were imposed on the game to facilitate ad breaks in American TV broadcasts. Much of the world is tired of doing things differently just because the Americans want it.
  - ahartmetz 3mo ago
    In almost every part of the world, all people know some basic things about football (and I do mean the one where you kick a ball with the foot), like it has two halves of 45 minutes.
  - DrSiemer 3mo ago
    Europe is full of people who are not fans, but will still hear all about the games when their country plays, because it's basically impossible to avoid. Chat groups, work banter, waiting rooms, everybody will be talking about it ALL THE TIME. There is a base level of knowledge for the sport everybody shares. Maybe it's the same with American Football in the US? As a European, I still have no idea what that is even remotely about. A game having two main uninterrupted halves is one of those foundational facts. Players train for being able to play for that long without getting too thirsty to continue.
  - charlieyu1 3mo ago
    On the other hand, it gives a chance for fans to turn off the TV when the game isn’t great
hamper653 3mo ago
Most football non-fans absolutely know that a football match is supposed to be two halves.
- orangedog 3mo ago
  It's still two halves there is just another short stoppage time in which players stay on the field, the same as every foul, goal, and variety of other timing based decisions in football.
  - hamper653 3mo ago
    I wouldn’t know, I haven’t watched a single football match since 2018. As for short stoppage time, football use to have much less than, say, rugby. Was it different this year?
    - nephihaha 3mo ago
      Yes. Very much so. They added in so called hydration breaks in the middle of the halves for extra revenue. Rugby stoppages are beginning to get ridiculous but they aren't doing them for advertising yet.
  - jen20 3mo ago
    This would only be true if they did not allow the hydration breaks to be used as a group coaching opportunity.
  - dekervin 3mo ago
    Why don't you just say: I know nothing about football ( and I dont care much), please enlighten me? - Football is not a game of easy scoring, often you have to build momentum, by relentlessly putting pressure on the other team. It's more important than in other sports, because in football a weaker team can easily earn a draw against a stronger team if the later fails to do just that. Your attacks ( and defense efforts) must compound. It's almost like building a narrative inside the head of the players and inside the head of the spectators before a goal gives everyone a release one way or the other. Moreso than in other sports where you have a lot of scoring happening. Football is closer to watching an epic drama. Now it's true that dynamics can change on a dime. But you often have to earn that change ( like by having a skilled player who attracts fouls ). Having regular breaks makes it almost like watching another sport. - In most of Europe and South America even people who don't watch regular league games have an intuitive expectation of how a game should be played. And they care. Especially when it comes to national teams because it's often a big part of the national lore. ( It's like the offside rule. Even people who despise the game end up being experts )
scbrg 3mo ago
I'm most certainly not a football fan, but I definitely know that a match consists of two 45 minute (and then some) halves. It's pretty much equivalent to a non motor enthusiast knowing that there are usually four wheels on a car. I'd say this is very, very common knowledge in huge parts of the world. It's not something only enthusiasts and purists know.
- orangedog 3mo ago
  Sure, but they aren't leaving the field. There are plenty of stoppages in game already which take as much time. In that sense it's nothing new. Do non-fans view it as changing to 4 "quarters"? I'm not sure most people would care. This is what I mean it's the kind of thing that football purists care about but it's a very small thing.
  - gffrd 3mo ago
    “I’m not sure what the big deal about tripling the number of tire changes in the race is.”
    - deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
  - scbrg 3mo ago
    I don't know... I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're from a country where football isn't very popular. I don't think you realize just how many fans there are. How utterly ingrained it is in the culture of many countries. "non-fans" make up a minuscule minority of the population of at least Europe, and as far as I understand it South America and parts of Africa too. Not sure about Asia (varies wildly between countries, I suppose), but according to [0] it's estimated that about 3.5 billion people are considered football fans. This is certainly something many people I know have cared a lot about - and again, I'm not a football enthusiast myself, but still the vast majority of the people I know are, because, not being one really is an outlier. [0] https://www.topendsports.com/world/lists/popular-sport/fans.htm https://www.topendsports.com/world/lists/popular-sport/fans.... > There are plenty of stoppages in game already which take as much time. Well. Not really. And those "stoppages" are part of the game. Actually watching the players quarrel with the referee and whatnot is something football fans want to do. It's not comparable.
rsynnott 3mo ago
> non-fans would not have any idea that you were going for 2 halves to 4 "quarters" … By non-fans do you mean people who have literally never heard of football, or something? I’m very far from a fan, no interest at all. But, I mean, I know there are two halves. Everybody knows that.
- orangedog 3mo ago
  There still are 2 halves. Framing it as quarters is the entire thing. There are numerous things throughout a game which will cause the game to be paused just as long, which is why there is stoppage time.
  - hamper653 3mo ago
    There aren’t usually numerous 5-minutes pauses in a football match, no.
    - deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
  - dijksterhuis 3mo ago
    except during that time players aren’t huddling around the manager and the rest of the coaching staff. all of whom have their ipads out to discuss stats breakdowns and instruct players on changing tactics and strategies. that’s what effectively made the hydration breaks turn it into a game of four quarters. lost count of the number of times teams completely changed their strategy after the breaks and went on to score goals etc. you make the players drink the water from the centre of the field with no coaching staff present then it would have less of an impact. but there’s still an impact as all players can huddle together and discuss things together in a way they normally wouldn’t be able to without a severe stoppage ie a delay going on 5-10+ minutes, which is usually rare.
- secretsatan 3mo ago
  I think by non fans they just mean americans, it’s almost impossiible to not be aware of the basic rules outside of there.

triceratops 3mo ago

Of all the things wrong with the World Cup, the most inconsequential ones - hydration breaks and the final half-time show - have attracted the most griping.

alberto-m 3mo ago
Changing the pauses of the game alters the momentum and, as consequence, the results. How is that “inconsequential”? There have been cases of corrupted referees before, but violating the Laws of the Game in plain sight is an unprecedented attack on the sport.
- orangedog 3mo ago
  How does it violate the laws of the game? Every single break time decision in football is arbitrary already.
  - nwbt 3mo ago
    Every rule in sports is arbitrary, that's not an argument. If you want to do it properly, ask about the spirit of the game, not the laws - and there's clearly a conflict there.
    - tovej 3mo ago
      The half time show did, however violate the letter of the rulebook. There is a maximum duration for half time breaks, which was exceeded easily.
      - triceratops 3mo ago
        The rulebook says the duration of half-time must be specified in competition rules and can be altered if the referee allows it. "Players are entitled to an interval at half-time, not exceeding 15 minutes; a short drinks break (which should not exceed one minute) is permitted at the interval of half-time in extra time. Competition rules must state the duration of the half-time interval and it may be altered only with the referee’s permission." You could argue that that this rule allows referees to extend the half-time break.

jimbokun 3mo ago

I agree completely with your assessment of the water breaks, but the games were extremely entertaining and I watched as much as I could.