“soccer”. What a big word that you hardly dare to put into your mouth. What associations does it trigger? You could ask yourself it spontaneously or you could start to ponder. One could also dare to look in the mirror at the exact moment when the word is spoken. Or try to put it in your mouth yourself when you are in company – and look around to see what triggers it.
A certain uniformity will probably not be denied. Own thoughts, looks, reactions, whatever: you should immediately be a conversation partner yourself and/or have found someone. At the same time, the facial features should radiate something like “transfiguration”, at least for a brief, almost unwanted moment. Then you immediately pull yourself together again. A slight, cautious smile could remain, which would at least reflect: “Yes, football, I know my way around, we can talk about it.”
The subject itself always drags. The tiny problem, however, would be how to make yourself heard with your own views. You can drop any keyword and — if you are in a group of five — you would have five opinions, which need not be synchronous or asynchronous, but which can be unified by the fact that each is a well-considered and educated opinion Opinion acted which would have to be expressed much more directly and loudly, long before any of those sitting around took the floor. If you weren’t quick enough and were polite enough to let the current “spokesman” finish speaking, then only on the premise that you already knew his assessment, thought it was rash, knew a better answer and drummed your fingers waiting for it to finally come up to wield the scepter. “No, that’s quite different, namely…”
Let’s take a keyword like “video evidence”. It almost hurts to name it. It is just as difficult as the word “soccer” to put such a word on virtual paper. Because: at the moment of having done it, one spontaneously hears from the reader who has lost his way up to here all the arguments that are so arbitrarily familiar to one that are pouring down on oneself, which, however, do not get a single millimeter further, let alone that one would have to assume that your own assessment would have any relevance, especially not for the current “interlocutor” that you intend to acquire in this way. The conclusion: everything has been said about it and everyone knows everything about it, just a little bit better. Save all further words.
Just to make sure: the video proof should not be mentioned here or later at all. A “non-topic” so to speak.
Coming back briefly to the transfigured look that triggered the naming of such a big word: whoever saw the word must have thought of something that induced this look. Whatever it was: it is exactly what football has lost and what somehow needs to be brought back. This is what is finally called at this point.
What do you see when you hear the word? Somehow everyone sees a Fritz Walter in 1954, sweaty and radiant and carrying a World Cup trophy in the air, carrying it on his shoulders, who gave this trophy to a country that was still helped fallow but just in the midst of an economic miracle, with heart and passion, class and iron will, commitment and enthusiasm, but – and here more aptly than ever as “last but not least called” – had fought for with all finesse as captain of that legendary team. Turek, Eckel, Liebrich, Posipal…etc.
Perhaps you can still see Uwe Seeler being led off the pitch at Wembley Stadium with tears in his eyes because he won the same trophy in 1966 with the curious goal that made it 2:3 – in or out? – could not be handed over and Uwe Seeler inevitably thinks of a duel, which he of course, as the rules stipulate, led with an applied rm. At the same time, Uwe Seeler, because he simply did not follow the call of money to Italy, but preferred his Ilse and his home town of Hamburg and his HSV. Maybe that’s exactly what the “game” has lost – the quotation marks only because it hasn’t been one for a long time, at least not what is practiced in the “professional sport of football” today.
In the present work, the author draws a picture of his ideal and perfect soccer world. However, such a thing would have to fight or live with these two flaws: the soft focus always spontaneously allows the appreciation “cheesy” and the classification “idelist” would only be suitable for the little word whispered behind closed hands but which probably comes much closer to the reliability “ Spinner” to enter, for the purpose of short-term benevolent exemption.
So the kitschy image of a weirdo is presented in order to get to the heart of the matter without the spare units and without beating around the bush.
Once you have now self-confessedly turned into this fairway, it becomes much easier to paint this glorifying picture even further. Pink is the background color anyway, maybe the babbling brook too? A princess must not be missing, where is the prince? Oh, you can already see him riding up on his little horse?!
Or, alternatively, take a quick look at the picture that professional football paints today. Perhaps, after realizing that the momentarily transfigured gaze is quickly removed, one gathers oneself to wave away shortly afterwards. You might get as far as: “Oh, today, you can all vajessen. No, if I just look at the jeeps…”
Football today is sick. And pretty sick. If you take the term “ugly scenes” to illustrate this with an example.