The Student Room Group

Football is annoying?

I don`t mean playing it, I love playing football believe me, i used to play for my town and still love a kickaround.

I just wondered if anyone else finds it a bit annoying that you turn on the news half of it is consumed by trivial football details...or even worse celebrity gossip..I couldn`t believe it when I saw britney spears on ITN talking about her breakup with some mug....Anyway I digress... I Guess I just find it annoying that people can get more wound up about football tournaments than they do about their government declaring illegal wars, or looting the economy. Some things are more important than others.

Thats why football fans sometimes annoy me.

But not as much as celebrity fans. :smile:

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
I disagree to an extent, I think its great that people can channel a passion into something good and worthwhile in the world. Football has a positive impact on many peoples lifes, whether it be in England or abroad. So in that sense I absoloutley love the sport, everything that comes with it and the people involved.

what i would say is that the national side in this country is over hyped. theres to much made of it and it annoys me at times. especially for the friendly tonight for example, you know, its just a friendly.

long live the sport!
Reply 2
What annoys me is that it seems as if football is the only sport that exists. I know, it's the most popular one but still it's annoying to switch on the tv and see the same game in 3 different channels.
The news isn't really full of 'trivial' football details, usually it's a run through of results, short highlights or maybe a special piece about massive new contracts/transfers etc. Considering football is the national sport, 5 minutes at the end of the news broadcast shouldn't get you worked up.

Real fans of anything will be interested in affairs regarding their chosen hobby, be that fishing, lawn-mowing, or wheelbarrow racing. But every fan has a life outside of their main hobby (well almost everyone), and probably takes an interest in current affairs etc. To imply otherwise is a fallacy.
SiAz
I don`t mean playing it, I love playing football believe me, i used to play for my town and still love a kickaround.

I just wondered if anyone else finds it a bit annoying that you turn on the news half of it is consumed by trivial football details...or even worse celebrity gossip..I couldn`t believe it when I saw britney spears on ITN talking about her breakup with some mug....Anyway I digress... I Guess I just find it annoying that people can get more wound up about football tournaments than they do about their government declaring illegal wars, or looting the economy. Some things are more important than others.

Thats why football fans sometimes annoy me.

But not as much as celebrity fans. :smile:

I agree to some extent. It can be slightly annoying that footballers constantly make the tabloids for club brawls and the fact they are dating singers/models/actresses etc, as opposed to being in the papers for their great performances.

I agree with FK too however, that the game offers some relief for some people, something to immerse themselves in, and for that reason it can be very good. Although what I find more annoying about our national team, not that they are overhyped, just that they underperform all the time.

Personally I am not as vivid a fan as I used to be. Since I got to university I haven't had the chance to watch it much and other things have taken precedence. However I still think it is the best sport there is, both to watch and play.
Reply 5
SiAz
I don`t mean playing it, I love playing football believe me, i used to play for my town and still love a kickaround.

I just wondered if anyone else finds it a bit annoying that you turn on the news half of it is consumed by trivial football details...or even worse celebrity gossip..I couldn`t believe it when I saw britney spears on ITN talking about her breakup with some mug....Anyway I digress... I Guess I just find it annoying that people can get more wound up about football tournaments than they do about their government declaring illegal wars, or looting the economy. Some things are more important than others.

Thats why football fans sometimes annoy me.

But not as much as celebrity fans. :smile:


Your right people get so worked up over football that they just look silly. I mean at games you get grown men shouting and swearing all over the place. I guess alot of footy fans would jump at the chance to elect a manager for their club but wouldn't give a crap about political elections.
clumsy^^
What annoys me is that it seems as if football is the only sport that exists. I know, it's the most popular one but still it's annoying to switch on the tv and see the same game in 3 different channels.

I think what gets to me is the fact that other sports (like rugby and cricket) often require higher levels of more technical skills which the players provide for fans who are just as passionate and committed as football fans and yet those sports get much less coverage. As far as terrestrial tv goes there is effectively no county cricket coverage and very little club rugby. On the international side, if you compare the performance of our national football side with our cricketers over the past five years (current Tour of Humiliation excepted) or our rugby side over the past ten years, they look very very ordinary. When I can't get highlights even (let alone live coverage) of more than one or two of my club's matches in a season, why would I want to be regularly force-fed not just the matches but all the politicking and business behind football?
Fusion
I guess alot of footy fans would jump at the chance to elect a manager for their club but wouldn't give a crap about political elections.

Good job it's a guess, as a statement that would be a sweeping generalisation without any back-up.
Reply 8
Well, i find the money in football annoying. doctors deserve millions not footballers. what do footballers do? think, its only kicking a ball. im going to make a big generalisation but you notice that the less intelligent ones are those that are good at football and are getting millions for e.g rooney. i think doctors deserve more, surgeons deserve more money, they save peoples loves for god sake. what do footballers do? i hope in the future footballers get the same as a normal perosn should. it is stupid money in football. we all are to blame for it, we got to matches, buy their merchandise and that!
Just think of those that have to go to university and get years of practice to get a decent paid job. Don't they deserve a lot more?
Reply 9
Charlottie
Good job it's a guess, as a statement that would be a sweeping generalisation without any back-up.
No it wouldn't
Fusion
I guess alot of footy fans would jump at the chance to elect a manager for their club but wouldn't give a crap about political elections.
It is in fact a truth. A lot of footie fans would. But i suppose it depends what you mean by a lot (or "alot":p: ). Even if it's not true, it's not a sweeping generalisation.
Charlottie
Good job it's a guess, as a statement that would be a sweeping generalisation without any back-up.


But it would be true nonethless.
jamlan
No it wouldn'tIt is in fact a truth. A lot of footie fans would. But i suppose it depends what you mean by a lot (or "alot":p: ). Even if it's not true, it's not a sweeping generalisation.

A lot... a considerable number, so how is the implication of...

"A lot of football fans would choose their club's manager but wouldn't vote in a general election, which they don't give a toss about" NOT a sweeping generalisation without back-up? Also, what is there to suggest that? To put it another way, "A considerable number of football fans don't give a **** about politics," "I am a football fan, there I am unlikely to vote in general elections"... how on earth does that follow? I don't see it.
Reply 12
kingsholmmad
I think what gets to me is the fact that other sports (like rugby and cricket) often require higher levels of more technical skills which the players provide for fans who are just as passionate and committed as football fans and yet those sports get much less coverage. As far as terrestrial tv goes there is effectively no county cricket coverage and very little club rugby. On the international side, if you compare the performance of our national football side with our cricketers over the past five years (current Tour of Humiliation excepted) or our rugby side over the past ten years, they look very very ordinary. When I can't get highlights even (let alone live coverage) of more than one or two of my club's matches in a season, why would I want to be regularly force-fed not just the matches but all the politicking and business behind football?


I disagree while its true that football has got more publisiaty, national cricket games are always on the tv, plus international rugby is usually shown ethier on sky or on bbc 1/2. However you say about county cricket and rugby not being on its a simple fact that it is nowhere near as popular as football, and also the quaility is not as high. (county cricket teams usually pale in comparisation in quaility to international teams, while club football the quaility of the top clubs is higher) Also county cricket is mostly there jusy to develop players for the national teams, and so when international teams play clubs best players leave for international duty, and this does not happen with football. (imagain a england football match on the same day as man u v chelsea and the uproar that would cause.
Reply 13
Charlottie
Good job it's a guess, as a statement that would be a sweeping generalisation without any back-up.


It doesn't matter that its not true but my point is the amount of emphasis people put on football in their lives is worrying in comparison to other more important stuff.
Reply 14
Fusion
It doesn't matter that its not true but my point is the amount of emphasis people put on football in their lives is worrying in comparison to other more important stuff.


Hold on you say it doesnt matter if its not true, the surley ure point isnt valid anyway. Also id rather people do things they enjoy rather than get involved in things they dont know much about.
Reply 15
Charlottie
A lot... a considerable number, so how is the implication of...

"A lot of football fans would choose their club's manager but wouldn't vote in a general election, which they don't give a toss about" NOT a sweeping generalisation without back-up? Also, what is there to suggest that? To put it another way, "A considerable number of football fans don't give a **** about politics," "I am a football fan, there I am unlikely to vote in general elections"... how on earth does that follow? I don't see it.
It would have to be "football fans would choose their club's manager but wouldn't vote in a general election, which they don't give a toss about" rather than "a lot of football fans" for it to be a sweeping generalisation
No it wouldn't. Sweeping can be all-inclusive, but it can also mean covering a wide-range. My interpretation of "a lot" is that it acts synonymously to "the majority", maybe others didn't read it like that... I took it as the implication, or what would be the point in saying it? The guy who posted it was going for an effect, he was trying to point out that he thinks the “emphasis people put on football in their lives is worrying in comparison to other more important stuff”… people in general, not the odd bloke in the street, if he’d said, “the odd bloke takes football too seriously” it wouldn’t have the same effect. He’s entitled to his opinion of course, I just think that what he actually said is a bit ‘let’s hit football fans with the idiot stick’ and that isn’t fair.

As for the emphasis put on football (Dirk) I can see your point, but I don't think it's such a big deal. Football is a release. You go to watch a match and, as a football fan, you're in the moment. That doesn't mean it's the primary concern in your life though. I know for me there are things that are more important than football, things that I'd miss a game for, I know that's the same for the people I go with, for other people I talk to about the match. To me, football is exciting, gripping, emotional... but it's in the moment, you cry your eyes out at relegation, it makes you feel down, but it won't stop you going to work or school the next day like any other day. It won’t stop you kissing your kids goodnight. On the terraces we joke that it’s a drug, that we can’t stop punishing ourselves, but that’s what it is a joke. We can get very involved with football, we can really care about our teams, about being part of that community, but as long as we realise there’s more to life why is it such a big deal? Your comment made it sound like people are picking football over politics, or, football over more important things. Why does it have to be a choice? Why can’t people have both the football and the things society in general considers important?

Now, as for overpaid and over-hyped footballers go, that is annoying (if that‘s the right word for it). It’s killing football as it really was and really should be… people buying hats and scarves doesn’t really fund big wages, those of us who support struggling lower clubs know that there just aren’t enough people to buy enough hats and scarves. The thing that forces high wages isn’t the fans buying merchandise, it’s competition at the top… it filters down and clubs end up having to pay money to compete or die… and then when they pay the money to compete and it doesn’t come off they start to die anyway… it’s not the best being down there. Football would be much more enjoyable without the money worries, then we could concentrate on what goes on on the pitch, not the financial crises off it.
Dirk666
I disagree while its true that football has got more publisiaty, national cricket games are always on the tv, plus international rugby is usually shown ethier on sky or on bbc 1/2. However you say about county cricket and rugby not being on its a simple fact that it is nowhere near as popular as football, and also the quaility is not as high. (county cricket teams usually pale in comparisation in quaility to international teams, while club football the quaility of the top clubs is higher) Also county cricket is mostly there jusy to develop players for the national teams, and so when international teams play clubs best players leave for international duty, and this does not happen with football. (imagain a england football match on the same day as man u v chelsea and the uproar that would cause.

It simply isn't true that cricket internationals are "always on". The BBC have been showing highlights (and highlights only, no live coverage [regardless of the time difference], no repeats if you miss their one and only programme) of the cricket just recently because it's Australia v England, the biggest contest in the cricketing world bar none. As far as rugby goes, yes the internationals are shown but where's the club rugby? It's a thriving professional sport (my club, Gloucester, will soon be moving into a 25,000 seater stadium that they will fill 3 weekends in 4). And yet, we have to put up with 2 hours of live coverage (on the main BBC channel) of a dire (and frankly meaningless) friendly against Spain. And how can you say that the quality is not as high when a cricketer has to react more quickly to a smaller, faster-travelling and more unpredictable ball than a footballer ever has to? And rugby players have loads more infringements to avoid with loads more tactics to remember whilst having 2 or 3 18-stone bruisers bearing down on them at a rate of knots.
Coverage in this country is skewed and doesn't give a fair chance to any sport but football.
Reply 18
Market economy
Reply 19
Charlottie
No it wouldn't. Sweeping can be all-inclusive, but it can also mean covering a wide-range. My interpretation of "a lot" is that it acts synonymously to "the majority", maybe others didn't read it like that... I took it as the implication, or what would be the point in saying it? The guy who posted it was going for an effect, he was trying to point out that he thinks the “emphasis people put on football in their lives is worrying in comparison to other more important stuff”… people in general, not the odd bloke in the street, if he’d said, “the odd bloke takes football too seriously” it wouldn’t have the same effect. He’s entitled to his opinion of course, I just think that what he actually said is a bit ‘let’s hit football fans with the idiot stick’ and that isn’t fair.
Fair enough. My interpretation of "a lot" isn't synonymous with meaning the majority of people. The point in saying it may have been to emphasise that it's not as unusual a case as people may think. For me and in this case "a lot" means more people than most people would think. For example "How much did that pint of milk cost?" "80p" "that's a lot". 80p clearly isn't a lot, but it's more than was expected. At any rate, it's not what this thread's about