The thesis principle
The structure of the entire text should look something like this: a few theses are put forward, these are well documented if possible, the causes are sought, effects, side effects and/or consequences are examined and alternatives are offered.
With the conceivable and planned demonstration of alternatives, it would already be indicated that, as a rule, it is a matter of grievances that are pointed out. However, the approach remains positive: may football last as long as possible and one (“one” would actually mean everyone, even those who have either never followed the game or have said goodbye to the passion for various permissible reasons ) still enjoys it a lot.
These theses have a number of things in common. Among other things, they are interwoven anyway, comparable to clockwork, where the wheels have to engage in order to read the time, or to a jigsaw puzzle, which only gives a clear picture when every piece is in the right place. Another similarity would be: they are quite unique. However, this already brings with it a questionable commonality: they are automatically doubted. Anyone who knows about football – and that, like the ‘one’ above, is actually ‘anyone’, subject to the limitation ruled out above; anyone who is currently interested in football — can resist this reflex. Precisely because of this property: Reflex. You have no control over that.
In order to show it directly using the example, one would have to set up a thesis that would begin with the wording: “The video evidence is needed because…”. The problem didn’t necessarily appear then. Here the person concerned – reader in this case – will certainly continue reading. No reflex, no direct resistance. However, he will read carefully, the thesis would even have the chance to reflect his own thoughts, possibly run counter to them or deserve some additions, in his opinion, but as a rule he should actually know better and would prefer to be asked to speak for himself will.
The little crux of the matter: you won’t find such a thesis anywhere here. No “big topics” given by the media are addressed, discussed and dismantled, no, on the contrary, they would preferably be left out. There are almost certainly theses that have not been heard before.
The commonality of the triggered negative reflex requires a correspondingly sensitive approach to the search for and processing of documents. However, if someone is fundamentally “perfect” with something and is then confronted with something on this topic that he has never heard of, then the theorist has to reckon with the fact that not a single thesis can be justified. Despite this certainty, there is no other way than to put the theses on paper at some point.
Here is a very short list so that you can see the nonsense of the statements at a glance and check the quality of your reflexes.
Thesis 1: Football today is purely a fan sport.
Thesis 2: More goals would do the game good.
Thesis 3: The current set of rules clearly states that these helpful extra goals could be scored. It would only be about the current interpretation, which stands in the way.
Thesis 4: The current interpretation of the rules disadvantages strikers and attacking actions. The defensive is given priority. Defenders are allowed to do things that forwards would be allowed to do without further discussion. Foul is not foul but judgment depends on where the action takes place.
Thesis 5: The sequence “Foul – free kick” only contains the intention to offer an equivalent replacement of the scene prevented by the foul. This is a fundamentally wrong approach. A foul is a rule violation. A violation of the rules must have adverse consequences for the originator, otherwise the violation will be encouraged rather than prevented and, depending on the situation, used by the defenders to their advantage.
Thesis 6: There is only one exception to thesis 5: the penalty decision. Such a punishment would be very severe, because almost always the situation on which the decision was based will experience a huge revaluation in terms of goal danger. The problem is almost immediately recognizable: this is exactly why the rule is applied so sluggishly. Foul play in the space? Usually no penalty.
Thesis 7: The viewer is not asked what he would like to see. There are no surveys on this. Whereby “the spectator” would always be the “neutral” who is not represented according to thesis 1. This neutral is not represented because he does not want to see everything he gets to see.
Thesis 8: In US sports, the entertainment of the spectators triggered by every game with its current rules comes first. If something is wrong: it will be changed. Injustices, obvious to everyone, would never be tolerated.
In football, somewhere subliminally, you say: you don’t need it. Football is so big, you can do whatever you want – it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t break.
Provocative question: who wants to see head-to-head duels where the elbows play the leading role and show their perfect ability to break noses and cheekbones?
Thesis 9: The media have a high level of responsibility and their control options. If “dirty victories” are sold as desirable, then you have to expect that this requirement will be implemented. If you supposedly “don’t ask me about it next week,” then they’re the ones who won’t — but could well override the law by doing so. “Football is purely a result-oriented sport” only applies because the media declare it to be so.
“Everyone knows the laws that the coach comes first.” Exactly when the media made the law valid in their own way.
Thesis 10: Reporting in this country is – to use reporter jargon directly – “underground”. A barker would sell his rotten little eggs to the man with his entertainment and sales skills. At least with Sky Germany (where did Sky England actually get the money to take over the ailing “Premiere”?) you pay huge sums for golden eggs, stand on the market and murmur to yourself that the eggs are way too small, rotten and too are expensive – and is surprised that no one wants them.
Evidence of the theses
With the first thesis “football is purely a fan sport” one would first have to ask for a clarification: “What does that mean exactly?” Then the follow-up question would be: “Is that an inventory or a point of criticism? A dubious or self-evident, maybe even positive development behind it?”
If one sends question 2 in advance, the thesis itself might already have been accepted. Like: “So what? Is just the way. What’s the problem with that?” However, once the problem has been described, the doubts would inevitably come – only regrettably belatedly, from a purely logical point of view. This is called “interview technique”. Only in an illogical, but often used sequence.
The path of logic should preferably be followed here. First evidence for the thesis. That would be the extremely simple question that you ask yourself but also everyone else who is connected to football in one way or another – and somehow almost everyone is? — which reads: “Do you watch football?” “Yes, from time to time. Sure.” “What games do you watch?” Well, here are a few case distinctions that could come into question. Stadium goers, the small village club, your own home club, your own children’s youth games, the big tournaments on TV, Bayern-Dortmund if possible, the Sky subscriber who switches on the conference when “his” team isn’t playing, or alternatively, “his” team in the individual option.
Now you would have the chance to take the slightly provocative direction: “I’ll give you a ticket to a game.” “Oh, yes?” “What’s your favorite club?” “VfB Stuttgart! Ever since I was little!” “Ok, I’ll give you tickets for the Eintracht Frankfurt vs. Werder Bremen game. Are you looking forward to it?” Now one might be stunned, amazed, but the gift horse? Nevertheless, one would certainly have to struggle badly with oneself to be happy about the “gift”. Why should you watch this game?
Maybe the little story has already given a little hint. You could also simply ask: “You’ve always been a fan of football.” The big question here alone is how to classify the “normal” citizen here. “Friend of the game”, “follower”, “passionate stadium-goer”, “sports watcher”, “newspaper reader”, “just passing by”. So, to put it another way: “You’re kind of a footballer, like me…” “Yes, ok, next?” “When was the last time you watched a game for 90 minutes without your team being represented?” Well, not Germany nor Dortmund in the European Cup against a foreign team or whatever a clear positioning would entail.
This question probably made you feel slightly cornered. “I know my way around football, I always know what’s going on, the big issues? Would you have to ask me? I know the table and know where the coach is wobbling and who is under enormous pressure and who is currently flying high. But why are you embarrassing me here?” So you kind of get a sense of where this is going. You just don’t watch a football game without this emotional connection. Not more than 90 minutes. Summaries always work, of course. A few nice goals, capturing the atmosphere, the occasional emotional outburst, now beauty, now a nasty foul, a red card, a nasty injury, a few firecrackers and a few fan riots. Everything with chips and beer and in a nutshell. But 90 minutes? No, that would go too far.
The precision would therefore probably be included. The question of the problem would still remain in the room. The stadiums are full, the ruble is rolling, the sales figures for fan articles and dimensions that have never been reached before, the worldwide spread of football is growing. “Pure fan sport” or not.
Consequences, side effects, consequences
If the thesis that “soccer is purely a fan sport” were accepted, then the following argument would be considerably simplified in relation to all other theses. Thesis 1 is, so to speak, the “basic thesis”. Because: the thesis principle in the way presented here has to fight as a decisive hurdle in general the recognition of the same or with the spontaneously triggered reflex that triggers the contradiction from which there is no return: “That’s not true and I’ll stick to it!”