http://www.suntimes.com/news/steinberg/209483,CST-NWS-stein14.article send this jerk an email will you. nsteinberg@suntimes.com
He's old and irrelevent. ALL of his columns are like the babbling of a doddering ancient halfwit. It's his chosen cheeky style. He's a pitiful no talent hack who wishes he had half the talent of Garrison Kieler and even Frank Deford. The Sun Times is really going downhill fast. In a few years it will be down to Dick and Jane reading level.
I like how he had to write not one but two pro-"Hispanic" articles afterwards to try to convince people he's not a xenophobe. Like I've said before, newspapers in their present form have at most 15 years left. This guy is just appealing to the readers he has left, nothing more.
Please use some tact people. I read this guy's column. He will write you off as a nutjob if you send him hate mail. That won't help our cause. Here's what I sent earlier this morning: ********** RE: Neil Steinberg Sun-Times article of 14 January 2007 Dear Neil: I'm a long time reader of your column. You are one of the reasons I subscribe to the Sun-Times. Your’s is the first column I read every morning it is published. I enjoyed your sensibility and your humor. However I have noticed that over the last couple months your columns have turned increasingly petty and negative. One topic after the other is attacked. It is one thing if you are tackling weighty subjects like Bush or Iraq, but Scooby Doo? More and more of your topics seem to be trivial personal annoyances. Now you have gone too far. You have casually attacked one of my deep passions: soccer. I'm sorry you don't like the sport I follow, but why the need to attack it? I am perpetually confused by the vitriolic reaction soccer gets from generic, American, sports fans. Why? Where does this hate come from? Is it fear? Like a homophobe? Are you scared of something you don’t understand? I would not expect that from you based on what you have written in the past. Quite to the contrary. Usually when someone doesn't care for a sport, say NASCAR or hockey, they simply don't tune into the broadcast. But with soccer it is different. Simply ignoring it is not enough. There is a need to attack, insult and snicker knowingly among friends. In your column you sound like all the tired old sports writers who don't understand or appreciate the sport. I’m sorry to see that you have joined the ‘I hate them cause they are different” club. Does it make you feel like one of the good old boys? Again, this is not an attitude I would have expected from you. Why Neil, Why? Why it is so easy to poke fun at an American sports league that is about to start its 12th season? Why so easy to ignore that Toyota Park was opened in Bridgeview last summer to the tune of $100M. That Denver, New York and Toronto are all building their own soccer-specific stadiums? Is it willful ignorance on your part to disregard the fact that the company that owns the L.A. Galaxy, AEG, is a truly massive, international company that runs more teams, stadiums, theaters and entertainment events than any other company in the world? Do you really think they don’t know what they are doing by bring David Beckham to the U.S.? I’m not going to fight fire with fire. I will not return insult for insult. I don’t know what sport you follow. If you love the Cubs, fine - I love going to Wrigley Field. If you love the Bears, great - I hope they go all the way this year. Whatever sport you are into, good for you. I have been a Chicago Fire season ticket holder since 1998. I have watched somewhere around 150 Fire soccer games here in Chicago. I have road tripped to games in D.C., Boston, Columbus, and L.A. I’ll put my team loyalty up against any Chicago sports fan (and that is saying something in this town). I understand passion for sport. I have a pair of seats that straddle the mid-field line (you know it as the 50-yard line) at Toyota Park. I invite you to join me anytime this season. You can come and sit with me, watch the Chicago Fire and experience the sport. You will probably not leave the stadium a fan, but at least you will understand what we see in this simple sport. At very least I know you will quit the hater’s club. Respectfully, Don Crafts **********
Sports fans care about tradition, about legacy. Few fans ever shift their loyalty from one team to another, never mind embrace an entirely new sport, Ahhh, what color is the sky in your world...
Its the same tired argument that sportswriters have been making since 1996. Soccer is boring, unamerican, and will never make it...yawn. His 'facts' ("...Pele did nothing to popularize the sport in America...") are obviously complete bunk. While these idiots scream about how soccer wont make it, MLS has 13 teams, 8 stadiums, new investors, new tv deals, Beckham, and if my sources are correct, Fred will be signing for the Fire on the next few days. So, I write off this tired old cranky SOB as irrelevant and insane. GO MLS!!!!!
Great letter Don. I emailed him before I read your post, so, my letter might be a little 'spicy'. But I think it will give him a different perspective. And considering his other perspective was the inside of his colon, a change for the better.
Off topic but, Football is a Commercial whore! I don;t understand all the yelling coming from the stands, don't they have a nice fight song to go along with the game? I slept half way the game (Bears vs. Seahawk) on TV , speaking of soccer as a boring game! By the way, football the way american calls its pointy ball is the one that will never, ever, ever be the worlds game.
I couldn't agree with you more. Here's the exchange I had with him yesterday. I was responding to the paper edition released Saturday. I edited out only my email address and last name. ------------------------------------------------------ From: Lee Sent: Sat 1/13/2007 2:41 PM To: Steinberg, Neil Subject: "Soccer the bidet of U.S. sports" Besides finding your article very insulting, which I've come to expect from American writers, it's full of false statements. You have every right to give your opinions on a sport you know little about, but you shouldn't resort to false statements in the process. 1. You wrote: "The Los Angeles Galaxy... (bashful comment) ... is throwing away a quarter of a billion dollars over the next five years, assuming they don't go bust first..." First, the Galaxy is NOT paying Beckham 250 million in salary. Salary is only about 50 million over the next five years. The 250 million figure is an estimate, and the bulk of it will come from his image rights and endorsements. Another thing to keep in mind is that the Galaxy and the league probably earned that 50 million back in free publicity within the first hour of the announcement. Second of all, there is a 0% chance that the Galaxy will go "bust" as you say. The Galaxy is owned by AEG, a multi - BILLION dollar global entertainment company very willing to take losses with their MLS teams in hopes of future rewards. 2. You said that Pele "did nothing to popularize the sport here." This is also untrue. Soccer in the U.S. got a huge boost from Pele's signing, as evidenced by the numbers of new fans attending games during his playing days here. The failure of American soccer after Pele was a result of mismanagement on the part of the NASL. 3. As to your assertion that soccer couldn't take off because of too many existing sports, tell that to NASCAR. I won't ask you to stop bashing soccer, because I know you'll only do that if forced by the numbers, but I am asking you to learn a little about your subject before you write something so full of errors. -Lee Aurora, IL ----------------------------------------------------- "Steinberg, Neil" <nsteinberg@suntimes.com> wrote: I would say you need to develop a thicker skin then. Those aren't errors, those are nit-picks, and as far as "I've come to expect from American writers" I hate to break it to you, but you live in Aurora, pal. Don't take it out on me. NS ------------------------------------------------------- From: Lee Sent: Sat 1/13/2007 3:43 PM To: Steinberg, Neil Subject: RE: "Soccer the bidet of U.S. sports" I'd say that your assertion that the Galaxy will pay 250 million instead of 50 million counts as more than nit-picking. You overstated it by 200 million or 80%! And implying that it's possible the Galaxy may go broke is false from every angle you may want to take. I know it can't be fun to point out blatant errors in your piece, as evidenced by your cheap shot about me residing in Aurora, but try to stick with the facts next time you bash soccer. Thanks for your reply. Lee Aurora, IL -------------------------------------------------------- "Steinberg, Neil" <nsteinberg@suntimes.com> wrote: Don't kid yourself Lee. The endorsements, etc. -- assuming they come -- will in part be because he's playing for the Galaxy, and thus rights the team is ceding to him. And your residing in Aurora isn't a cheap shot -- I'm just pointing out that looking down your snoot at Americans is sorta silly when you're in the armpit of the Midwest. Again, don't blame me. NS -------------------------------------------------------- From: Lee Sent: Sat 1/13/2007 7:05 PM To: Steinberg, Neil Subject: RE: "Soccer the bidet of U.S. sports" Those endorsements the Galaxy will cede to him are endorsements they wouldn't have had were it not for Beckham signing with them, so the net cost to the Galaxy for ceding those rights is $0. MLS is a fiscally conservative league, and it will be clear once all the details emerge that this transaction doesn't depart from that standard. The 250 million figure is purely for publicity. It's like the Cavaliers having announced a contract extension for LeBron James worth 200 million or so (including endorsements) instead of the 60 million. Beckham's promoters and MLS released 250 million as the figure in order to create a huge buzz - and they obviously succeeded. And I wasn't looking down on Americans. I'm a proud American citizen. I was simply pointing out the fact that American writers like you from coast to coast are almost unanimous in the disrespectful manner with which they treat soccer. Best wishes, Lee ------------------------------------------------------- "Steinberg, Neil" <nsteinberg@suntimes.com> wrote: Well, let's not debate this. My point is that soccer isn't popular here and never will be. Get back to me when that isn't correct. NS ---------------------------------------------------------- From: Lee Badragan Sent: Sat 1/13/2007 9:08 PM To: Steinberg, Neil Subject: RE: "Soccer the bidet of U.S. sports" I hope to have that pleasure. Thanks for the exchange. Best wishes, Lee Badragan
I tend to enjoy his stuff. Like Don & Lee I sent him a reasonable note this morning. Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 07:09:24 -0800 (PST) From: "Jon Holtzee" <holtzeej@sbcglobal.net> Subject: Not You Too! To: nsteinberg@suntimes.com Like most folks, I haven't taken a moment to let you know of the 90% of the time when I agree with what you write in column, even at your most cantankerous. Often, you're willing to put into print what many of us are thinking but not saying and I admire that. However, today I have to admit to disappointment to find that you are among the great masses of U.S. Soccer bashers. First off, your premise about "not enough space" may be correct. There's no doubt we have a very crowded sports entertainment market in the United States and for any sport to achieve the level of success of baseball, football or basketball will be difficult, if not impossible. But that doesn't really matter. In the era of non-stop competing sports networks, it's all about offering continuous programing and creating niche markets. If successful at achieving that goal, then perhaps some other sport might challenge the marketing pantheon. If not, there's still a place for golf, hockey, soccer, NASCAR (although that may have already moved into the larger category), tennis, poker, lacrosse or synchronized swimming. What's more troubling than a cold, calculating discussion of the sports entertainment marketplace is the underlying xenophobia that I really believes underlies the perceptions and opinions of many in this nation when it comes to soccer. As you can tell, I find a great joy in the sport. Others don't - that's fine. I can't decide what you or anyone else will enjoy or won't enjoy, that's your call to make. What seems to happen though is that those who don't like soccer find it necessary to rain on everyone elses parade. It's almost as if the louder they protest, the more likely it is that they'll pound some "common sense" into the rest of us. Come on, if anything, each and every rant only strengthens our resolve and creates a stronger esprit de corps among soccer fans as misunderstood outsiders. Strangely, there are many global events occurring right now where the same dynamic seems to be taking place Bottom line is that bringing Beckham to the U.S. is a marketing decision for AEG and the sponsors (folks like Adidas, etc.) who will pony up the money. If they see a reasonable investment here, good for them. Why rain on it? If they succeed, they're geniuses, if they fail, they're another on the trash-heap of American soccer. That's their decision to make. Why would those who don't profess to care about soccer even pay enough attention to complain? There seems to be a bit of a double standard at play here. Ultimately, while I love baseball, football & soccer, I'm not such a big fan of basketball , NASCAR or hockey. Do I rip on them or feel the need to pound my chest and prove my intelligence or masculinity on the perceived corpses of those enterprises? No. . .I ignore them and let my economic decisions make the statement. If others enjoy those activities more power to them. I hope they find joy in them. However, it's up to them to find their markets and make their own way without my dollars. I just really don't understand why Americans can't adopt that same attitude toward soccer. Something a little too Freudian is going on here. Go Fire! Jon Holtzee Chicago, IL (Address edited out for public posting)
I ran this through Babelfish, and this is the result: I moved south for 6 months, just to vote for David Duke, and if you don't like it, then get the ******** out of my country...
I just got a response from Neil, "I'm printing a bunch of the more colorful responses, and would like to include yours. Could I have a first name--it does'nt have to really be your first name--I assume you're ashamed of your opinions. Any first name will do. Thanks." I told him my first name, "Neilsteinbergisadick, sorry, it's foreign"
Okay so he should join Section 8 on a road trip to Dallas, sounds like he'd fit right in, that is if he can leave the state.
Wow. I try not to laugh at the mentally disabled but this guy is too much for words. Ignoring the email correspondance, which is about troll level on one of these forums, the arrangement of his article has to be the most unintentionally funny thing i've read. Portion one: Soccer will never succeed in this country. Its a foreign sport. Its un-American. Portion two: Correction on a story about Mexican owned pizza restaurant expanding throughout Southern U.S. catering to large latino population which will soon comprise over 25% of the population. And the jackass didn't stop to think how those two parts of his article might be contradictory. And people wonder why the concept of old age scares me. If I ever lose that much of my cognitive functions please just take me out back and shoot me.
I'm curious as to why you feel this way. Do you think that there will be a major overhaul to the format of newspapers in the coming years? Just curious because I've heard this sentiment from someone else recently and didn't have a chance to ask him about it.
Sadly you've just given him "proof" that soccer fans are all out of their minds and collectively a larger threat to American than al-Qaeda. If I read newspapers anymore, I might take the time to contact his editor and let him know not to expect my renewal. But as I said, he's just appealing to his readers. Why be one of them?
I emailed him, too: Mr. Steinberg: I read with interest your column on the David Beckham signing today, and while this isn't going to be one of those too-often-done, soccer-fan-foaming-at-the-mouth responses, I would like to point out a few things: I understanding that a columnist doesn't have to deal in fact the way actual journalists do, I still take issue with a few things you wrote: "The Los Angeles Galaxy, a soccer team -- who knew? -- is throwing away a quarter of a billion dollars over the next five years, assuming they don't go bust first, paying the salary of David Beckham." The Galaxy aren't writing Beckham salary checks that will add up to $250 million. Much of the deal is in endorsements from sponsors and in him regaining all the rights to his own image - the rights which he's split with Real Madrid the last few years. It's actually only about $9 million in salary, and the owner of the Galaxy is Phil Anschutz, who has quite a few millions to spare. But fact-checking isn't a requirement for a columnist. In fact, it often gets in the way of your raison d'etre, which is to elicit an emotional response. I understand that. "Remember Pele? The Brazilian superstar who, like Beckham, having lost his edge in the international soccer world, decided to put in a few very profitable pre-retirement years playing in America. It was good for him, no doubt, but did nothing to popularize the sport here." That's actually quite false. Demonstrably so. Pele's stay here did a lot to popularize the sport here. I don't know how you can be the age you appear to be in your photo and not know that. "Why? Why couldn't soccer take off in the United States? Easy. There's no room for it. We have too many pro sports as it is -- baseball and football, hockey and basketball. Sports fans care about tradition, about legacy. Few fans ever shift their loyalty from one team to another, never mind embrace an entirely new sport, surrendering precious moments that could have been spent glued to NFL football in order to pay attention to a gang of perfumed foreigners kicking a ball pointlessly around an enormous field." Besides the gratutious "gang of perfumed foreigners," when the vast majority of MLS players are Americans, this is one decent observation.One reason soccer hasn't gotten a foothold here is because of the overabundance of other sports in America. But we're not asking soccer to "take off" in the United States. We're trying to bolster it, make it more interesting to those who actually like soccer but don't like MLS for many reasons and if we can get some of the folks who haven't given soccer a look at all, we'll be doing fine. Trust me - we're not trying to horn in on your precious NFL and MLB with our "perfumed foreigners" (again, of which MLS has precious few to begin with). "Soccer is like bidets. Do you know what a bidet is? Some strange hygienic device usually parked next to the toilet in European bathrooms. Very big over there. But nothing over here. Don't need 'em, don't want 'em, never going to have 'em. Ditto for Beckham, even at a million dollars a week. Especially at a million dollars a week." Well, you could argue that Americans could use something that cleans their backsides better than they do. But Beckham's not going to receive a check for a million dollars a week. So the extrapolation from bad facts doesn't help your case as a journalist, even though it's right in line with what you have to do as a columnist. I'm sure you got plenty of "Yeah, that's just what I'm saying!" responses from the average Joe, but I just wanted to present some facts for you. Thanks for your time. Best regards, Kenn Tomasch Play-by-play Announcer Chicago Fire (MLS) --------------------- To which he replied: Mr. Tomasch: Well, I didn't expect actual employees of the Chicago Fire to appreciate my point. I could quibble with your assessments (the Galaxy yielding rights it might have withheld is in essence paying him, etc.) but I'll limit myself pointing out that people who are not addicted to the minutia of sport are not as exercised over whether Beckham will actually be getting a million dollar check every week or a dozen smaller checks. That wasn't my point. My point -- which I don't see contested -- is it won't help the sport, long-term. Sure, Pele caused a splash. But that was it. Anyway, good luck with the season. NS -------------- To which I replied: Mr. Steinberg: Thanks for taking the time to write back. It might be quibbling, but might not. The fact is, those revenue rights wouldn't exist for the Galaxy without Beckham, so in essence, they're letting him have outside revenue that they wouldn't ever see. There's a difference between that and "paying the salary of David Beckham." His salary is in the range of $9 million, which is a lot, but not a million a week. But I can see where, in order to make your point better with those who might not be as savvy, you have to use the biggest number you can. It's your opinion it won't help the sport long-term. I think where we might differ is more "how much it will help the sport." Pele not only caused a splash in 1975-77, the fact that he came here and legitimized the sport as a spectator sport for those years helped lay groundwork that resulted in the US getting the World Cup in 1994 (the most successful World Cup ever, and, no, it wasn't solely because of foreigners coming here for the games) and us setting up a professional league that's much more stable. It also helped fuel the soccer participation boom in this country, which continues unabated to this day. It's superficial to simply look at the fact the Cosmos helped everybody spend the NASL out of existence and say "The Pele signing didn't have a long-term positive effect because the NASL folded." You have to look a bit deeper than that to understand the net, long-term positive effects that move had on American soccer. Soccer fans realize it. I am sure most of your readers do not. I, too, am of the opinion that soccer as a professional, league, week-in and week-out spectator sport is never going to approach the interest, TV ratings or revenue of the biggest sports in this country. But I don't think it has to to be successful, and it surely doesn't have to to be relevant, or to reach a point where it's immune from the rote dick-joke bashing that columnists nationwide have been dining out on for years. I think Beckham's signing will have splashy immediate benefits and we'll see how big the impact is long-term. I don't think either you or I can accurately predict the future. The difference is - I'm willing to admit that, and you can't if you hope to elicit the emotional response that a columnist needs. By the way, I'm not a Chicago Fire employee - but I am a college-educated, literate soccer fan who believes that some issues are more complex than a simple soccer-bashing knee-jerk column would lead you to believe. Thanks again for taking the time to write back. Kenn Tomasch
You have nothing to worry about...until people start referring to you as "Old Yeller"... Long EDIT short: Some good replies have been reposted here...moreso than the usual basher responses, that's for damn-sure. I just think there doesn't seem to be much 'prophet' in telling Mohammed his mountain is eroding, if you catch the very long term and esoteric view of my drift...which, I swear to you, goes beyond the simple pun, and even the metaphor it may appear to be.
Well, I'm certainly not an expert on the subject of print media, but newspapers will need to do something to rectify the fact that they provide the exact same content you'd normally find online or on television, just 12-24 hours later. It's a topic I hear about pretty often when I hear the future of newspapers and magazines being discussed. With podcasts, smartphones, and good old fashioned surfing while at work, it just doesn't seem all that bright a future for the papers, and the subscription statistics back that up. It's especially something they should be worried about with younger people. "Newspapers" will increasingly push online content more, and with blog-style posting comes the opportunity for quick, instant feedback that can be seen by anyone who goes there. It's easy for these guys to pick and choose the letters that show that soccer fans are morons, but not so easy to do so when a much broader range of letters shows up (look at, for example, The Guardian's football commentary blogs). As the media becomes more of a two-way street, you won't be able to have guys like this pushing their xenophobic opinions on everyone without having to stand up to the resulting scrutiny. All in due time, I figure.
One thing I wrote, "If you got paid for that article, then I should get paid every time I take a dump."
Two things: 1) This guy is a bonafide KKK member. 2) The ONLY way to deal with these soccer-bashing schmucks is to cancel your subscription, and let the editor know the reason for doing so.