Variant 1 of the introduction:
In the following, a few assertions are made about modern football. These assertions are likely to meet with considerable resistance, so the argumentation that follows will be particularly important and worthy of attention. Some of these assertions will be based on psychological considerations. Only when one is prepared to engage with the complete context will the overall message become clear. In any case, the approaches are to be taken positively, since football is to be maintained in its greatness, if not to extend its lead at the top of the sports. The demands made earlier remain unchallenged: It is still about making football more exciting, more attractive, fairer. The fact that after making the sometimes depressing claims – whose accuracy one might like to check oneself first, point by point, from one’s own observations – simple solutions are later offered is the goal, surprisingly easy to achieve and should be the subject of the following.
One should bear in mind with every assertion that there is, of course, a relationship to the past in which things were not quite like that, in which a lack of excitement, attractiveness and justice has increasingly spread – verification on the basis of memories is always at hand. At the same time, the assertions are set up to point the way to a better future, accordingly the visions of a (possible) better one are intended to be drawn.
Variant 2 of the introduction
The theses that follow all have a negative tone. They are meant to point out grievances, but have the positive intention of pointing the way to a better future. Pure denunciation of shortcomings is not constructive. It can only be meaningful if ideas for improvement are put forward. The reader is asked here to calmly and relaxedly ask himself what he thinks about the theses stated. In doing so, they should always make a comparison between the past and the present, because many things are not an on or off, a 1 or 0, but rather a development in the direction indicated, which is taking place, being observed and recorded here.
In principle, there is certainly nothing wrong with the attitude of wanting to improve something. Here, the scepticism will much more likely be drawn from the anticipated impossibility of implementation. After studying the briefly formulated, concise statements, these are even brought a little closer in detail in order to reduce the noticeable resistance a little. Subsequently, however, a very simple and implementable path is proposed that does not require any special upheavals.
In short, the fundamental demands to make football more exciting, more attractive and fairer remain unchallenged. This section rather points out where deficiencies are seen that offer “room for improvement”. Arguments are made partly intuitively and psychologically, but it becomes difficult to resist the argumentation rationally. Some proof techniques are offered which, if applied, make it entirely impossible to contradict the thesis put forward.
The simple path to be taken later, is based on startlingly simple claims. These are: Application of the existing rules, which in principle is based only on simple rethinking.
The comparison to be made in the mind could be for everyone: How was it in the past? How is it today? What could it be like tomorrow?
Assertion 1: Modern football is boring and uninteresting. This is not meant in the sense of “who will win?” but in the sense of variety, the perceived action and the frequency of exciting game scenes and match progressions.
Assertion 2: Football is a pure fan sport.
Claim 3: The number of moments of suspense in a single match is (too) few.
Claim 4: People may be interested in the results, but no longer in how they are achieved.
Claim 5: Differences in performance and different cultures of play are no longer recognisable.
Claim 6: The interpretation of the rules fundamentally disadvantages the attackers.
Claim 7: A perceived injustice that is not articulated and cannot be articulated frightens many spectators. People wave it off and turn away.
Claim 8: Referees are intuitively afraid to make a decision that could favour a goal.
Claim 9: Players and coaches see themselves as solely responsible to the media – since they are at their mercy — who have declared winning to be the only relevant criterion.
Claim 10: Even if there has been no recent drop in ratings, there has been a drop in viewer interest in the sense of “I’m watching”.
football is no longer watched by new viewers
Claim 11: Beauty, aesthetics, great tricks, ball wizardry have long since given way to the supposed need for effectiveness and have been banished from the game altogether. football is purely a sport of results.
Claim 12: Yellow cards legalise unfairness.
Claim 13: The three-point rule is nonsensical.
Claim 14: Reporting in Germany is abysmal.
Claim 15: The fundamental ban on betting or the alleged state control in this country is anachronistic and contrary to spectator interest.
Re 1: (See also 2) Modern football is boring and uninteresting.
No exciting scenes, rarely great action, no surprising twists. If anything is interesting, it is the result, not the game. An essential point that creates suspense is uncertainty of the outcome. But it is the case that although there is uncertainty when the score is 0-0, it is precisely a 0-0 score that does not invite people to watch. On the other hand, a game is often decided after one goal.
Re 2 Football is purely a fan sport:
A perhaps strange-sounding claim. Practically everyone is a fan of a team? That’s what football is all about, isn’t it? On the other hand, it would perhaps be pleasing if one could watch a football match simply because it is a football match? It could be that you want to watch a game even if your own team is not playing? In general, the neutral fan should be defined as the one who has an interest in the game, even if he has a favourite team.
For this so desirable neutral spectator, it is claimed, there are too few interesting scenes and too seldom exciting match developments. The designated fans of the two teams “endure” it. The neutral spectator stays away, no longer watches. It is rather the case – and this applies to almost all spectators — that a football match has become a social event. The football itself becomes a secondary matter. The fans celebrate with each other, among themselves, sing, dance, laugh. Actually, they no longer watch the game either.
The neutral spectator is no longer offered anything at all. A game is almost always 0:0, which is supposed to be exciting. As soon as the score is 1:0, the game is decided by a very high percentage (80% at the 2010 World Cup). Turned games are almost non-existent. There is no need to pursue an attack. It almost never leads to a goal – and even if it does, the ball doesn’t go in.
Re 3: The number of moments of tension in a single game is (too) small.
If one may argue a little psychologically: The goal scenes are what “one” wants to see. If you’re a fan, it’s enough if your own team doesn’t allow any or only a few and creates one every now and then. Good. “You” would therefore be the neutral spectator again. Since he hardly exists any more, he doesn’t raise his finger. Because he is not there at all. Only: if you want to win him back, have him with you, you have to provide him with the entertaining moments. If you have to wait 20 minutes for the first shot on goal, let’s say, because it’s not uncommon nowadays, then this waiting time is simply too long. By then he is asleep. It’s fair to say that in a football match today — averaged across all leagues, at 2.6 goals per game — the average wait for a goal is about 35 minutes. You wouldn’t even wait that long for a bus, you’d rather walk. The frequency of exciting action is too low. The (lack of) joy in other successful actions is mentioned elsewhere.
Re 4: People may be interested in the results, but no longer in how they were achieved.
The excitement of a competition is determined, among other things, by who will win it and where one’s own team will end up. Note: Every fan of a single team also has a certain interest in the games of the other participants. He sees the results of the competition, perhaps the performances (in hindsight) in relation to his own team. In addition, he sees the development of his own team’s chances based on the results of the opponents. But to follow the development would mean, apart from finding out the pure result, to follow the development towards it, to follow the game itself. Most people lack the patience for this, due to the compressed lack of events in the games.
In short: From the results, there are still exciting tournament progressions, table developments, nothing has changed. The matches themselves are no longer exciting.
5: Differences in performance and different playing cultures are no longer discernible.
Compared to the past, there are no longer any really recognisable differences. On the one hand, this refers to the performances, where the better teams still prevail more often. For the spectator, however, it is difficult or impossible to tell from the performance on the pitch. In the end, it is almost always about the one goal. Whoever scores it is the winner. The better teams score the first (often: only) goal more often. The style is like this: Allow little to nothing and take advantage of the one situation. Keyword then: effectiveness.
In terms of match culture, there used to be clearly visible differences as soon as African (even black or North African distinguishable), a South American, Asian or European teams appeared. That was fun because you could recognise something and were curious about the concept, the implementation.
Today, everyone plays practically the same. It is results-based football that is preached. The implementation, worldwide, is the same: Make sure you keep the back tight.
On the subject of differences in performance, it should be noted that as soon as the defenders are given the means to eliminate the top players with pure physical presence, often the famous “double cover” – where do you get the second defender? No problem any more: you don’t need anyone in the forwards, they do all the covering work; why score a goal? Keep it tight is the accepted watchword! Soon the final whistle sounds and there is a point to celebrate for the 0:0. — so the good players just don’t get a chance. They are better. The only sign of that: They have two men “on their feet” (in the true sense of the word). You can’t expect any more action from them, let alone spectacular action. The coaches later (correctly) want to make you believe that Messi, Robben or Ribery have created free spaces for others. Yes, but we want to see these footballers on the ball! They are the ones who can get us into the stadium!
By the way, there are also reasons for the dilution of playing cultures: many coaches become globetrotters when they run out of commitments in Europe. In faraway countries, however, they are revered and do not lag behind their colleagues in terms of performance. In this way, their philosophy is transported from football to the world. Conversely, many exotic players are integrated into the top leagues. They bring European culture back to their home country.
Of course, the fan is partly responsible for such a development. They have accepted and internalised the laws of football: it is all about success. He is not interested in whether the players of his team have a connection to the club or whether they fit in linguistically/culturally. As long as they score the goals, they become heroes. Even if the player does so solely to sign an even better-paid contract with an even better club next year.
Re 6: The interpretation of the rules fundamentally disadvantages the attackers.
Acceptance of this core statement is the greater hurdle. If this were guaranteed, the statement would apply:
It is against the spirit of the game and against the interest of neutral spectators who want to see goal scenes. Goals/goal scenes are and remain the salt in the soup.
In this respect, match officials and FIFA officials would have to agree on the simple evidence for the correctness of the statement. this goes like this:
Individual scenes involving foul or non-foul, handball or non-handball in judgement are cut together in isolation, without knowledge or insight of the position on the pitch and without view of the teammates. Then judgements are to be made as to what would be the correct refereeing decision in the situation, based only on the scene.
Afterwards, one would compare the decision made in this way with the one made in the game.
The result would reveal: Most scenes are decided in the game depending on the position on the field. A striker is whistled back, even though he was held much more than he was held. A defender, on the other hand, is allowed to do almost anything to stop the striker.
Counter-arguments are logically inadmissible as long as this simple experiment is not carried out.
Another indication: A very high percentage of the offside decisions go against the attackers. Think carefully: It is only about the incorrect decisions. Errors are only these: Offside was given even though it was not true on one side, let run where it should have been whistled off on the other. The percentage would be overwhelming. A single matchday of the Bundesliga would suffice for verification. Apart from that, according to the rule, the percentage should be in favour of the attackers, as the wording is included there: In case of doubt for the attacker.
Incidentally, this is precisely the formulation that is propagated as generally applicable. What would be the big risk? With regard to offside, one would more often see a player alone in front of the goal, correspondingly more often a goal. With regard to penalties, one would more often see a decision that is considered questionable, but which is accepted without comment, without proof of error. And another goal. And another 4:3, another dramatic game. Would that hurt?
Another clue: Where does the term “foul not worthy of a penalty” come from? It can only mean that a foul was recognised, but a penalty would be too harsh. Where does it say anything about that in the rules? It’s simply interpreted that way and everyone seems to accept it. “You can’t give a penalty for something like that. Then there would be 20 per game.” Questions about this: a) Because there would then be 20 penalties, may a foul no longer be penalised, i.e. may the rules no longer be applied? and b) is there an established view that defenders would apply the same defensive behaviour if they knew that there would be penalties “for something like that” after all? The answer: No. Doubts? Inappropriate, but could only be refuted practically. Alternative consequence: so many goals suddenly.
The next, foreseeable “terrible” consequence: the good strikers would suddenly have the ball more often in the penalty area, would even get it in the direction of the goal, sometimes even get under it. Again an exciting, great situation, again an exciting game. Apparently they don’t want that? Let’s continue to watch tough games that are supposed to live on suspense until 1:0, then on the eager anticipation of the final whistle.
Re 7: A perceived, unarticulated and unarticulable injustice frightens many spectators. People wave it off and turn away.
This injustice relates exactly to the point before: the strikers are disadvantaged but do not know what it is. The (neutral) spectator feels it, also without being able to pronounce it or assign it. Something is perceived as unjust. Something is wrong. Fans don’t mind being angry. It is part of the game. A neutral spectator does not want to get angry. So he stays away when he feels such things.
As proof, a possible psychological study should also be cited here, which becomes intuitively comprehensible:
When you see one of these many penalised, alleged striker fouls nowadays, you almost as often see an attacker shaking his head and implying with his gesture: “What, I’m supposed to have fouled?” He points at himself, he shrugs his shoulder, if “reasonable” he accepts, swears a little (watch out! Yellow card!) and runs back.
A good actor, one is to assume? He manages to conceal the offence committed, pretends not to have done anything and, on top of that, has the audacity to complain about being caught and for this complaining he is prepared to get a yellow card? Well, he’d be ripe for Hollywood.
On the other hand, you see a defender who tackles an attacker hard, but even during this attack he raises his arms placatingly to indicate that he would do nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong. Well, this protagonist also has an engagement in Hollywood ahead of him.
Obviously, the striker who shakes his head after being “caught” has in reality (mostly) done nothing, while the defender who raises his arms during the action to protest his innocence has committed a foul. After all, there are not that many excellent actors.
(Here, by the way, it is urgently worth mentioning that it would often not be a question of whether or not this one or that one fouled, but how much this one or that one fouled; the referees have a good justification for ruling against the attacker, since one can predominantly see that he, too, has done something, even if it is only a “fighting back”. Translated: often both parties transgress the rules in a duel).
Re 8: The referees are intuitively afraid of making a decision that could favour a goal.
A very provocative statement that is sure to meet with the greatest resistance, not only from representatives of the black guild, but from all football supporters and officials worldwide. But since it is a core statement, it is worth digging quite deep into the psychological bag of tricks to support this thesis.
There are, however, two valid reasons that could possibly force a rethink, even among the reader who is so sceptical right now.
Reason number 1: In the media, especially those decisions are denounced that have made possible a goal that, in retrospect, is demonstrably irregular.
On the other hand, actions that were wrongly stopped and could have led to a goal are ignored or treated leniently by the media. The loser who invokes such a thing is laughed at, the profiteer is silent. This supports the referees in their lenient interpretation of the rules against goal actions.
It often happens as early as the initiation of a goal situation, where the referee is almost willing to use any means to stop the attacker so that he is not embarrassed as soon as the goal is even closer. Because the most critical decisions are always those near the goal. Since one is intuitively afraid of a difficult decision, he stops the game even beforehand, on insignificant occasions.
Example of this: A corner sails into the penalty area. A whistle sounds. For which party is this whistle? One may calmly think for a moment before answering how this question is meant ———
Over 99% for the defence. Sure, the referee saw something. Sure, something happened. Sure, the attacker also had a hand on the opponent. But sure, the defender didn’t do anything less punishable if he didn’t do more often. So why does the whistle sound at all, why again and again for the defence and against the forwards?
.
Insofar as the referee is pilloried for recognised goals and pursued for a single action that led to a goal but was illegal, but on the other hand – even often enough in the same match — mercifully passes over two incorrect offside decisions and two actions that in retrospect were deemed worthy of a penalty, all of which could have led to a goal, the reaction of the match officials is thus predetermined and predictable. A referee says to himself (intuitively): “I’ll gladly blow the whistle ten times wrongly. The main thing is that I never, ever let a goal go and it is proven to me that I should have blown the whistle. So if in doubt, blow the whistle.” The further consequences are just as obvious and clear as with most other points: lack of goals. Reduction in tension. Loss of spectators.
Reason number 2, which makes a match referee vote against the goal situation, is an equally intuitive argument, but certainly becomes comprehensible: A single goal given usually brings a gigantic shift in the distribution of chances for that game. In other words, if an action is allowed to go ahead with a shadow of a doubt, i.e. if a goal is awarded with the score at 0:0, the referee has the feeling that he has decided the whole game (the same can apply to a possible equalising goal for 1-1). You look for the fault in the action – and practically always find it, if you put your mind to it. Somewhere, an attacker has surely had his hand on the jersey. You can blow the whistle with a clear conscience.
It is important to note here that a goal that is not given does not change the distribution of chances, but merely keeps the chances the same. Intuitively, in the case of a disallowance, one does not have the feeling that the game has been decided (funnily enough, in many cases it is a draw, namely when the “decision” keeps the score at 0:0).
The further aspect, which in principle contains parts of the solution, is that, as more goals are scored, this excessive value of a goal would generally no longer be felt. A goal has been scored. So what? Let’s see what happens next. Especially since the score at the moment of the critical decision could well have been 3:1, where a decline in the fearfulness of the whistle blowers is already being observed today. With more goals, the score would be 3:1 more often in the future, people would be relaxed and let the game go on – and there would be another goal. Damage? Zero. Benefit: huge.
Incidentally, the two reasons given can very easily be brought together again: A goal is the countable action. A thought goal, a possible goal, does not count. Let’s examine the perceived reaction first in the case of the goal that was not given: it should have been a goal. Yes, sure, it’s bitter that it didn’t count. But it was 0:0 beforehand and 0:0 afterwards, so what’s there to get upset about? The term “it should have been 1-0” doesn’t really exist. If it did, you might think of a missed chance or something. If, when and but is the argument of the losers. This is not pursued. “Yes, so many things could have been so beautiful. That goes for me too. For you it’s: Dream on. You’ll get nowhere that way.”
But a goal that is recognised, that is counted and that actually decides the game – the goal was 1:0 and the game ended that way – can be wonderfully sold as a “game-deciding mistake”. Because it really was.
However, the fact that the goal that was not given is just as great an injustice, since it prevented the only theoretical but correct decision in the game, is obvious at best with very thorough reflection and internalisation. This fact is one level of abstraction higher. And this level is reluctantly climbed in the game of football, which is so simple.
Re 9: Players and coaches see themselves as exclusively responsible to the media – since they are at their mercy — who have declared winning to be the only relevant criterion.
The media generally share responsibility. What they put in the centre of attention is discussed. If the saying: “The zero must stand” is elevated to a cult or the quote “A win must be had, no matter how” can be found in every daily newspaper, just as the “analysis” of a weak game with an undeserved, lucky winner is commented on afterwards with “in a fortnight, no one will ask about it any more”, then the players will orient themselves to this. They will use all the means at their disposal to fulfil these guidelines.
The sufferer of this measure is again and again the neutral fan. And thus, in consequence, football. One would so much like to see simply two teams playing football, which, regardless of tactical constraints, unsportsmanlike conduct and injustice, are intent on scoring goals. The more they are subordinated to thinking in terms of results, the more unsympathetic you become. You don’t want to see that. It’s as simple as that.
Re 10: Even if there has been no drop in ratings recently, there has been a drop in viewer interest in the sense of “I’m watching”. football is no longer watched by new viewers
The TV sets during the 2010 World Cup, for example, were perhaps switched on to the same extent as before. This gives the impression of a constant level of interest. But: people are no longer really watching. People do not watch. They wait (mostly in vain) for an exciting scene and do all sorts of other things on the side….
A decline in interest has recently been observed very clearly and confirmed in numerous conversations. Most of those arguing hide behind the claim that they have never really and truly watched football, although they are clearly recognisable as fans (of a team). Many are therefore fans of a team and not fans of the game of football. If one follows their argumentation, however, the alarm bells should sound even louder. They have never really looked, although they reflect the section of the population that forms the basis for the greatness of football in this country. When that base falls away because people just don’t look any more? First they don’t look, then they don’t tune in at all. “Tell me afterwards how it turned out.” That’s enough, that’s all anyone needs to know. But who is supposed to finance football then?
Re 11: Beauty, aesthetics, great tricks, ball magic have long since given way to the supposedly necessary effectiveness and have been banished from the game altogether. football is purely a sport of results.
The great actions, the hacking tricks, the ball magic are a thing of the past. Everything has to be subordinated to effectiveness. The “beautiful players” are mercilessly weeded out before they can even get into the limelight. The very few remaining players who are capable of an action worth seeing, one that makes you click your tongue, are mercilessly prevented from doing so by fouling opponents. If an opponent is played around, he is guaranteed to foul. A successful dribble is only given in the form: Did the opponent get yellow or did he not get yellow? The free kick is not worth anything. Usually the term “tactical foul” is appropriate, because the intention of the foul play is not to let the opponent get into a promising situation. The resulting situation is usually more favourable for the defence than the one without the foul play. Can this be desirable? What does the spectator want to see?
Re 12: Yellow cards legalise unfairness
It used to be the case that a player was seriously cautioned for an unfair, unsporting tackle. The spectators also recognised this and whistled at the offender.
With the introduction of yellow cards, people feel protected. “It was all regular. I knocked him down, picked up the yellow for it, thanks ref, move on.” Not a single rooster crowing after that. Later there’s some statistic about it. Also acknowledged with a shrug at most.
Re 13: The three-point rule is nonsensical
Both statistically provable and intuitively justifiable: pure nonsense. It is an injustice that was introduced in the hope of creating more excitement and eliminating the boredom that has been identified through the lack of goals and the tendency towards peacefulness. This does nothing in this form.
The rethinking has to start in a completely different place, as partly explained above. The favouring of goal scenes and thus goals would ensure a decrease in the draw (tendency) in a very natural way. And one could eliminate this injustice again.
In itself, it tries to motivate the players to behave nonsensically. They are supposed to go for a goal, run forward in pursuit of three points (the pigeon on the roof) versus the one point (the bird in the hand) to entertain the spectator. It didn’t succeed anyway (as can be proven statistically) and it remains unfair, even in terms of a correct, logical table. There is a random element, artificially introduced, which causes a certain (illogical) movement in the table.
Re 14: The reporting in Germany is miserable.
Capturing drama, emotionality, goal celebrations, sensationalism is a sacred duty for reporting and should be used to captivate, to fascinate the viewer. In this country and nowadays, a sober analytical reporting has taken over, which almost exclusively focuses on shortcomings. It is a one-size-fits-all blah-blah that completely misses the point. Even if the narrator were omniscient and could already see the flawed nature of the action during the action, it would still be his job to capture the tension for the sake of the viewer. Even if he were not himself, he would at least have to play in suspense.
Re 15: The betting market of today offers a very fair form of additional entertainment that could contribute to a greater enthusiasm, to a growth of football A great complex. The betting market of today would first have to be well explained, in general, how odds and bets come about and their fairness. This is often done later. On the other hand, the topics of conversation among football fans generally show that there is a passion for betting, that they can control the amount of turnover, that they consider themselves experts – which is certainly justified in more than a few cases – and that general education, not only among the population but also among the legislators, is necessary. Thinking further, the own goal scored by the advocacy of conservative views is even greater, since not only is control unsuccessful, which forces the German citizen to bet abroad and thus the state loses tax revenue, but football itself is harmed, since a large number of enthusiastic – since willing to bet – spectators must be dispensed with due to the ban.
Variant 1 of the introduction:
In the following, a few assertions are made about modern football. These assertions are likely to meet with considerable resistance, so the argumentation that follows will be particularly important and worthy of attention. Some of these assertions will be based on psychological considerations. Only when one is prepared to engage with the complete context will the overall message become clear. In any case, the approaches are to be taken positively, since football is to be maintained in its greatness, if not to extend its lead at the top of the sports. The demands made earlier remain unchallenged: It is still about making football more exciting, more attractive, fairer. The fact that after making the sometimes depressing claims – whose accuracy one might like to check oneself first, point by point, from one’s own observations – simple solutions are later offered is the goal, surprisingly easy to achieve and should be the subject of the following.
One should bear in mind with every assertion that there is, of course, a relationship to the past in which things were not quite like that, in which a lack of excitement, attractiveness and justice has increasingly spread – verification on the basis of memories is always at hand. At the same time, the assertions are set up to point the way to a better future, accordingly the visions of a (possible) better one are intended to be drawn.
Variant 2 of the introduction
The theses that follow all have a negative tone. They are meant to point out grievances, but have the positive intention of pointing the way to a better future. Pure denunciation of shortcomings is not constructive. It can only be meaningful if ideas for improvement are put forward. The reader is asked here to calmly and relaxedly ask himself what he thinks about the theses stated. In doing so, they should always make a comparison between the past and the present, because many things are not an on or off, a 1 or 0, but rather a development in the direction indicated, which is taking place, being observed and recorded here.
In principle, there is certainly nothing wrong with the attitude of wanting to improve something. Here, the scepticism will much more likely be drawn from the anticipated impossibility of implementation. After studying the briefly formulated, concise statements, these are even brought a little closer in detail in order to reduce the noticeable resistance a little. Subsequently, however, a very simple and implementable path is proposed that does not require any special upheavals.
In short, the fundamental demands to make football more exciting, more attractive and fairer remain unchallenged. This section rather points out where deficiencies are seen that offer “room for improvement”. Arguments are made partly intuitively and psychologically, but it becomes difficult to resist the argumentation rationally. Some proof techniques are offered which, if applied, make it entirely impossible to contradict the thesis put forward.
The simple path to be taken later, is based on startlingly simple claims. These are: Application of the existing rules, which in principle is based only on simple rethinking.
The comparison to be made in the mind could be for everyone: How was it in the past? How is it today? What could it be like tomorrow?
Assertion 1: Modern football is boring and uninteresting. This is not meant in the sense of “who will win?” but in the sense of variety, the perceived action and the frequency of exciting game scenes and match progressions.
Assertion 2: Football is a pure fan sport.
Claim 3: The number of moments of suspense in a single match is (too) few.
Claim 4: People may be interested in the results, but no longer in how they are achieved.
Claim 5: Differences in performance and different cultures of play are no longer recognisable.
Claim 6: The interpretation of the rules fundamentally disadvantages the attackers.
Claim 7: A perceived injustice that is not articulated and cannot be articulated frightens many spectators. People wave it off and turn away.
Claim 8: Referees are intuitively afraid to make a decision that could favour a goal.
Claim 9: Players and coaches see themselves as solely responsible to the media – since they are at their mercy — who have declared winning to be the only relevant criterion.
Claim 10: Even if there has been no recent drop in ratings, there has been a drop in viewer interest in the sense of “I’m watching”.
football is no longer watched by new viewers
Claim 11: Beauty, aesthetics, great tricks, ball wizardry have long since given way to the supposed need for effectiveness and have been banished from the game altogether. football is purely a sport of results.
Claim 12: Yellow cards legalise unfairness.
Claim 13: The three-point rule is nonsensical.
Claim 14: Reporting in Germany is abysmal.
Claim 15: The fundamental ban on betting or the alleged state control in this country is anachronistic and contrary to spectator interest.
Re 1: (See also 2) Modern football is boring and uninteresting.
No exciting scenes, rarely great action, no surprising twists. If anything is interesting, it is the result, not the game. An essential point that creates suspense is uncertainty of the outcome. But it is the case that although there is uncertainty when the score is 0-0, it is precisely a 0-0 score that does not invite people to watch. On the other hand, a game is often decided after one goal.
Re 2 Football is purely a fan sport:
A perhaps strange-sounding claim. Practically everyone is a fan of a team? That’s what football is all about, isn’t it? On the other hand, it would perhaps be pleasing if one could watch a football match simply because it is a football match? It could be that you want to watch a game even if your own team is not playing? In general, the neutral fan should be defined as the one who has an interest in the game, even if he has a favourite team.
For this so desirable neutral spectator, it is claimed, there are too few interesting scenes and too seldom exciting match developments. The designated fans of the two teams “endure” it. The neutral spectator stays away, no longer watches. It is rather the case – and this applies to almost all spectators — that a football match has become a social event. The football itself becomes a secondary matter. The fans celebrate with each other, among themselves, sing, dance, laugh. Actually, they no longer watch the game either.
The neutral spectator is no longer offered anything at all. A game is almost always 0:0, which is supposed to be exciting. As soon as the score is 1:0, the game is decided by a very high percentage (80% at the 2010 World Cup). Turned games are almost non-existent. There is no need to pursue an attack. It almost never leads to a goal – and even if it does, the ball doesn’t go in.
Re 3: The number of moments of tension in a single game is (too) small.
If one may argue a little psychologically: The goal scenes are what “one” wants to see. If you’re a fan, it’s enough if your own team doesn’t allow any or only a few and creates one every now and then. Good. “You” would therefore be the neutral spectator again. Since he hardly exists any more, he doesn’t raise his finger. Because he is not there at all. Only: if you want to win him back, have him with you, you have to provide him with the entertaining moments. If you have to wait 20 minutes for the first shot on goal, let’s say, because it’s not uncommon nowadays, then this waiting time is simply too long. By then he is asleep. It’s fair to say that in a football match today — averaged across all leagues, at 2.6 goals per game — the average wait for a goal is about 35 minutes. You wouldn’t even wait that long for a bus, you’d rather walk. The frequency of exciting action is too low. The (lack of) joy in other successful actions is mentioned elsewhere.
Re 4: People may be interested in the results, but no longer in how they were achieved.
The excitement of a competition is determined, among other things, by who will win it and where one’s own team will end up. Note: Every fan of a single team also has a certain interest in the games of the other participants. He sees the results of the competition, perhaps the performances (in hindsight) in relation to his own team. In addition, he sees the development of his own team’s chances based on the results of the opponents. But to follow the development would mean, apart from finding out the pure result, to follow the development towards it, to follow the game itself. Most people lack the patience for this, due to the compressed lack of events in the games.
In short: From the results, there are still exciting tournament progressions, table developments, nothing has changed. The matches themselves are no longer exciting.
5: Differences in performance and different playing cultures are no longer discernible.
Compared to the past, there are no longer any really recognisable differences. On the one hand, this refers to the performances, where the better teams still prevail more often. For the spectator, however, it is difficult or impossible to tell from the performance on the pitch. In the end, it is almost always about the one goal. Whoever scores it is the winner. The better teams score the first (often: only) goal more often. The style is like this: Allow little to nothing and take advantage of the one situation. Keyword then: effectiveness.
In terms of match culture, there used to be clearly visible differences as soon as African (even black or North African distinguishable), a South American, Asian or European teams appeared. That was fun because you could recognise something and were curious about the concept, the implementation.
Today, everyone plays practically the same. It is results-based football that is preached. The implementation, worldwide, is the same: Make sure you keep the back tight.
On the subject of differences in performance, it should be noted that as soon as the defenders are given the means to eliminate the top players with pure physical presence, often the famous “double cover” – where do you get the second defender? No problem any more: you don’t need anyone in the forwards, they do all the covering work; why score a goal? Keep it tight is the accepted watchword! Soon the final whistle sounds and there is a point to celebrate for the 0:0. — so the good players just don’t get a chance. They are better. The only sign of that: They have two men “on their feet” (in the true sense of the word). You can’t expect any more action from them, let alone spectacular action. The coaches later (correctly) want to make you believe that Messi, Robben or Ribery have created free spaces for others. Yes, but we want to see these footballers on the ball! They are the ones who can get us into the stadium!
By the way, there are also reasons for the dilution of playing cultures: many coaches become globetrotters when they run out of commitments in Europe. In faraway countries, however, they are revered and do not lag behind their colleagues in terms of performance. In this way, their philosophy is transported from football to the world. Conversely, many exotic players are integrated into the top leagues. They bring European culture back to their home country.
Of course, the fan is partly responsible for such a development. They have accepted and internalised the laws of football: it is all about success. He is not interested in whether the players of his team have a connection to the club or whether they fit in linguistically/culturally. As long as they score the goals, they become heroes. Even if the player does so solely to sign an even better-paid contract with an even better club next year.
Re 6: The interpretation of the rules fundamentally disadvantages the attackers.
Acceptance of this core statement is the greater hurdle. If this were guaranteed, the statement would apply:
It is against the spirit of the game and against the interest of neutral spectators who want to see goal scenes. Goals/goal scenes are and remain the salt in the soup.
In this respect, match officials and FIFA officials would have to agree on the simple evidence for the correctness of the statement. this goes like this:
Individual scenes involving foul or non-foul, handball or non-handball in judgement are cut together in isolation, without knowledge or insight of the position on the pitch and without view of the teammates. Then judgements are to be made as to what would be the correct refereeing decision in the situation, based only on the scene.
Afterwards, one would compare the decision made in this way with the one made in the game.
The result would reveal: Most scenes are decided in the game depending on the position on the field. A striker is whistled back, even though he was held much more than he was held. A defender, on the other hand, is allowed to do almost anything to stop the striker.
Counter-arguments are logically inadmissible as long as this simple experiment is not carried out.
Another indication: A very high percentage of the offside decisions go against the attackers. Think carefully: It is only about the incorrect decisions. Errors are only these: Offside was given even though it was not true on one side, let run where it should have been whistled off on the other. The percentage would be overwhelming. A single matchday of the Bundesliga would suffice for verification. Apart from that, according to the rule, the percentage should be in favour of the attackers, as the wording is included there: In case of doubt for the attacker.
Incidentally, this is precisely the formulation that is propagated as generally applicable. What would be the big risk? With regard to offside, one would more often see a player alone in front of the goal, correspondingly more often a goal. With regard to penalties, one would more often see a decision that is considered questionable, but which is accepted without comment, without proof of error. And another goal. And another 4:3, another dramatic game. Would that hurt?
Another clue: Where does the term “foul not worthy of a penalty” come from? It can only mean that a foul was recognised, but a penalty would be too harsh. Where does it say anything about that in the rules? It’s simply interpreted that way and everyone seems to accept it. “You can’t give a penalty for something like that. Then there would be 20 per game.” Questions about this: a) Because there would then be 20 penalties, may a foul no longer be penalised, i.e. may the rules no longer be applied? and b) is there an established view that defenders would apply the same defensive behaviour if they knew that there would be penalties “for something like that” after all? The answer: No. Doubts? Inappropriate, but could only be refuted practically. Alternative consequence: so many goals suddenly.
The next, foreseeable “terrible” consequence: the good strikers would suddenly have the ball more often in the penalty area, would even get it in the direction of the goal, sometimes even get under it. Again an exciting, great situation, again an exciting game. Apparently they don’t want that? Let’s continue to watch tough games that are supposed to live on suspense until 1:0, then on the eager anticipation of the final whistle.
Re 7: A perceived, unarticulated and unarticulable injustice frightens many spectators. People wave it off and turn away.
This injustice relates exactly to the point before: the strikers are disadvantaged but do not know what it is. The (neutral) spectator feels it, also without being able to pronounce it or assign it. Something is perceived as unjust. Something is wrong. Fans don’t mind being angry. It is part of the game. A neutral spectator does not want to get angry. So he stays away when he feels such things.
As proof, a possible psychological study should also be cited here, which becomes intuitively comprehensible:
When you see one of these many penalised, alleged striker fouls nowadays, you almost as often see an attacker shaking his head and implying with his gesture: “What, I’m supposed to have fouled?” He points at himself, he shrugs his shoulder, if “reasonable” he accepts, swears a little (watch out! Yellow card!) and runs back.
A good actor, one is to assume? He manages to conceal the offence committed, pretends not to have done anything and, on top of that, has the audacity to complain about being caught and for this complaining he is prepared to get a yellow card? Well, he’d be ripe for Hollywood.
On the other hand, you see a defender who tackles an attacker hard, but even during this attack he raises his arms placatingly to indicate that he would do nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong. Well, this protagonist also has an engagement in Hollywood ahead of him.
Obviously, the striker who shakes his head after being “caught” has in reality (mostly) done nothing, while the defender who raises his arms during the action to protest his innocence has committed a foul. After all, there are not that many excellent actors.
(Here, by the way, it is urgently worth mentioning that it would often not be a question of whether or not this one or that one fouled, but how much this one or that one fouled; the referees have a good justification for ruling against the attacker, since one can predominantly see that he, too, has done something, even if it is only a “fighting back”. Translated: often both parties transgress the rules in a duel).
Re 8: The referees are intuitively afraid of making a decision that could favour a goal.
A very provocative statement that is sure to meet with the greatest resistance, not only from representatives of the black guild, but from all football supporters and officials worldwide. But since it is a core statement, it is worth digging quite deep into the psychological bag of tricks to support this thesis.
There are, however, two valid reasons that could possibly force a rethink, even among the reader who is so sceptical right now.
Reason number 1: In the media, especially those decisions are denounced that have made possible a goal that, in retrospect, is demonstrably irregular.
On the other hand, actions that were wrongly stopped and could have led to a goal are ignored or treated leniently by the media. The loser who invokes such a thing is laughed at, the profiteer is silent. This supports the referees in their lenient interpretation of the rules against goal actions.
It often happens as early as the initiation of a goal situation, where the referee is almost willing to use any means to stop the attacker so that he is not embarrassed as soon as the goal is even closer. Because the most critical decisions are always those near the goal. Since one is intuitively afraid of a difficult decision, he stops the game even beforehand, on insignificant occasions.
Example of this: A corner sails into the penalty area. A whistle sounds. For which party is this whistle? One may calmly think for a moment before answering how this question is meant ———
Over 99% for the defence. Sure, the referee saw something. Sure, something happened. Sure, the attacker also had a hand on the opponent. But sure, the defender didn’t do anything less punishable if he didn’t do more often. So why does the whistle sound at all, why again and again for the defence and against the forwards?
.
Insofar as the referee is pilloried for recognised goals and pursued for a single action that led to a goal but was illegal, but on the other hand – even often enough in the same match — mercifully passes over two incorrect offside decisions and two actions that in retrospect were deemed worthy of a penalty, all of which could have led to a goal, the reaction of the match officials is thus predetermined and predictable. A referee says to himself (intuitively): “I’ll gladly blow the whistle ten times wrongly. The main thing is that I never, ever let a goal go and it is proven to me that I should have blown the whistle. So if in doubt, blow the whistle.” The further consequences are just as obvious and clear as with most other points: lack of goals. Reduction in tension. Loss of spectators.
Reason number 2, which makes a match referee vote against the goal situation, is an equally intuitive argument, but certainly becomes comprehensible: A single goal given usually brings a gigantic shift in the distribution of chances for that game. In other words, if an action is allowed to go ahead with a shadow of a doubt, i.e. if a goal is awarded with the score at 0:0, the referee has the feeling that he has decided the whole game (the same can apply to a possible equalising goal for 1-1). You look for the fault in the action – and practically always find it, if you put your mind to it. Somewhere, an attacker has surely had his hand on the jersey. You can blow the whistle with a clear conscience.
It is important to note here that a goal that is not given does not change the distribution of chances, but merely keeps the chances the same. Intuitively, in the case of a disallowance, one does not have the feeling that the game has been decided (funnily enough, in many cases it is a draw, namely when the “decision” keeps the score at 0:0).
The further aspect, which in principle contains parts of the solution, is that, as more goals are scored, this excessive value of a goal would generally no longer be felt. A goal has been scored. So what? Let’s see what happens next. Especially since the score at the moment of the critical decision could well have been 3:1, where a decline in the fearfulness of the whistle blowers is already being observed today. With more goals, the score would be 3:1 more often in the future, people would be relaxed and let the game go on – and there would be another goal. Damage? Zero. Benefit: huge.
Incidentally, the two reasons given can very easily be brought together again: A goal is the countable action. A thought goal, a possible goal, does not count. Let’s examine the perceived reaction first in the case of the goal that was not given: it should have been a goal. Yes, sure, it’s bitter that it didn’t count. But it was 0:0 beforehand and 0:0 afterwards, so what’s there to get upset about? The term “it should have been 1-0” doesn’t really exist. If it did, you might think of a missed chance or something. If, when and but is the argument of the losers. This is not pursued. “Yes, so many things could have been so beautiful. That goes for me too. For you it’s: Dream on. You’ll get nowhere that way.”
But a goal that is recognised, that is counted and that actually decides the game – the goal was 1:0 and the game ended that way – can be wonderfully sold as a “game-deciding mistake”. Because it really was.
However, the fact that the goal that was not given is just as great an injustice, since it prevented the only theoretical but correct decision in the game, is obvious at best with very thorough reflection and internalisation. This fact is one level of abstraction higher. And this level is reluctantly climbed in the game of football, which is so simple.
Re 9: Players and coaches see themselves as exclusively responsible to the media – since they are at their mercy — who have declared winning to be the only relevant criterion.
The media generally share responsibility. What they put in the centre of attention is discussed. If the saying: “The zero must stand” is elevated to a cult or the quote “A win must be had, no matter how” can be found in every daily newspaper, just as the “analysis” of a weak game with an undeserved, lucky winner is commented on afterwards with “in a fortnight, no one will ask about it any more”, then the players will orient themselves to this. They will use all the means at their disposal to fulfil these guidelines.
The sufferer of this measure is again and again the neutral fan. And thus, in consequence, football. One would so much like to see simply two teams playing football, which, regardless of tactical constraints, unsportsmanlike conduct and injustice, are intent on scoring goals. The more they are subordinated to thinking in terms of results, the more unsympathetic you become. You don’t want to see that. It’s as simple as that.
Re 10: Even if there has been no drop in ratings recently, there has been a drop in viewer interest in the sense of “I’m watching”. football is no longer watched by new viewers
The TV sets during the 2010 World Cup, for example, were perhaps switched on to the same extent as before. This gives the impression of a constant level of interest. But: people are no longer really watching. People do not watch. They wait (mostly in vain) for an exciting scene and do all sorts of other things on the side….
A decline in interest has recently been observed very clearly and confirmed in numerous conversations. Most of those arguing hide behind the claim that they have never really and truly watched football, although they are clearly recognisable as fans (of a team). Many are therefore fans of a team and not fans of the game of football. If one follows their argumentation, however, the alarm bells should sound even louder. They have never really looked, although they reflect the section of the population that forms the basis for the greatness of football in this country. When that base falls away because people just don’t look any more? First they don’t look, then they don’t tune in at all. “Tell me afterwards how it turned out.” That’s enough, that’s all anyone needs to know. But who is supposed to finance football then?
Re 11: Beauty, aesthetics, great tricks, ball magic have long since given way to the supposedly necessary effectiveness and have been banished from the game altogether. football is purely a sport of results.
The great actions, the hacking tricks, the ball magic are a thing of the past. Everything has to be subordinated to effectiveness. The “beautiful players” are mercilessly weeded out before they can even get into the limelight. The very few remaining players who are capable of an action worth seeing, one that makes you click your tongue, are mercilessly prevented from doing so by fouling opponents. If an opponent is played around, he is guaranteed to foul. A successful dribble is only given in the form: Did the opponent get yellow or did he not get yellow? The free kick is not worth anything. Usually the term “tactical foul” is appropriate, because the intention of the foul play is not to let the opponent get into a promising situation. The resulting situation is usually more favourable for the defence than the one without the foul play. Can this be desirable? What does the spectator want to see?
Re 12: Yellow cards legalise unfairness
It used to be the case that a player was seriously cautioned for an unfair, unsporting tackle. The spectators also recognised this and whistled at the offender.
With the introduction of yellow cards, people feel protected. “It was all regular. I knocked him down, picked up the yellow for it, thanks ref, move on.” Not a single rooster crowing after that. Later there’s some statistic about it. Also acknowledged with a shrug at most.
Re 13: The three-point rule is nonsensical
Both statistically provable and intuitively justifiable: pure nonsense. It is an injustice that was introduced in the hope of creating more excitement and eliminating the boredom that has been identified through the lack of goals and the tendency towards peacefulness. This does nothing in this form.
The rethinking has to start in a completely different place, as partly explained above. The favouring of goal scenes and thus goals would ensure a decrease in the draw (tendency) in a very natural way. And one could eliminate this injustice again.
In itself, it tries to motivate the players to behave nonsensically. They are supposed to go for a goal, run forward in pursuit of three points (the pigeon on the roof) versus the one point (the bird in the hand) to entertain the spectator. It didn’t succeed anyway (as can be proven statistically) and it remains unfair, even in terms of a correct, logical table. There is a random element, artificially introduced, which causes a certain (illogical) movement in the table.
Re 14: The reporting in Germany is miserable.
Capturing drama, emotionality, goal celebrations, sensationalism is a sacred duty for reporting and should be used to captivate, to fascinate the viewer. In this country and nowadays, a sober analytical reporting has taken over, which almost exclusively focuses on shortcomings. It is a one-size-fits-all blah-blah that completely misses the point. Even if the narrator were omniscient and could already see the flawed nature of the action during the action, it would still be his job to capture the tension for the sake of the viewer. Even if he were not himself, he would at least have to play in suspense.
Re 15: The betting market of today offers a very fair form of additional entertainment that could contribute to a greater enthusiasm, to a growth of football A great complex. The betting market of today would first have to be well explained, in general, how odds and bets come about and their fairness. This is often done later. On the other hand, the topics of conversation among football fans generally show that there is a passion for betting, that they can control the amount of turnover, that they consider themselves experts – which is certainly justified in more than a few cases – and that general education, not only among the population but also among the legislators, is necessary. Thinking further, the own goal scored by the advocacy of conservative views is even greater, since not only is control unsuccessful, which forces the German citizen to bet abroad and thus the state loses tax revenue, but football itself is harmed, since a large number of enthusiastic – since willing to bet – spectators must be dispensed with due to the ban.
