Father Gascoigne

It's interesting to me how massive Brazil's market actually is. You would think by all measures that Bayern, as the biggest German club and one of the most successful in Europe, would be more popular than Flamengo globally, and by some distance. While brand recognition of Bayern is clearly higher around the world, when you look at Google stats on how many people search for those clubs online, Flamengo beats Bayern comfortably. It's impressive that it manages this while ostensibly only relying on its internal market. It's a bit like the whole cricket vs football popularity. Football is obviously more popular than cricket if you look at how many countries prefer football. But in gross terms, when you consider the size of India's internal market, the differences between football and cricket popularity globally shrink vastly.

Echoing this. Bloom and the Ted Lasso assistant carried the movie, but they were that good it didn't need anything more. Not even Bryce Dallas Howard, who was massively miscast, could derail it. On that note, I can think of at least two red-haired British actresses that would have been a better fit. Definitely worth a watch for those who enjoy awkward comedy.

St Helens doesn't need an official moniker because it's right there in the name of the town, which is what people use to refer to them. Are there jaguars in Jacksonville? Or lions in Detroit? There are, but only in cages. London RFC is no better or worse than London Broncos, and London Broncos is no better or worse than London Hounds. Given enough time, just about anything would become acceptable and part of tradition. That London Broncos is deemed as worthy of change suggests a) broader efforts at establishing at the club in the city haven't worked as planned and b) there is a desire to cut ties with the past, which often goes hand in hand with new leadership and direction.

It probably stems from tradition dating to when the English sports were codified, but whatever the true reason, I'm glad that when I sit down to watch a game of rugby league it's over in 90 minutes, and it never deviates from that. I'm guessing that's partly the reason: there is very little deviation in length from one game to another. Meanwhile there are baseball games that end after two hours while others can go for three and a half. NFL games would never end if they stopped after every play. It's a godsend that the clock runs down when they're still inbounds.

The problem with any global competition, including the FIFA World Cup, is that it has to cater to a global audience. Whether it's played in Europe or Asia or the Americas, there will always be games starting in the afternoon going through to late night because that's the only way to satisfy all audiences to some extent. I'm not sure if that proves that TV viewers are more valued than those paying for tickets; it suggests that, as with the FIFA World Cup, a balance needs to be struck but, in striking it, it's inevitable that compromises are made which hurt both matchgoers and those watching at home. This situation is not a problem at the FIFA World Cup because the tournament has such prestige that people buy tickets years in advance and schedule holidays/their lives around it. Next year will be its 23rd edition, and I think this is the key to ascertaining the future of the CWC. I'd ask anyone who wants to the compare the CWC to the WC to look at interest and attendances in the first few editions of the WC. The English paid such little heed to it that they didn't bother making the trip to South America in 1930 for the first edition. There were half-empty stadiums at the WC as late as 2002. Hell, the home of football had a ton of games that were sparsely populated at Euro 1996. It's only recently that full-capacity games have become an expectation regardless of who is playing. To put that in perspective, this current format of the CWC, which is so unrecognizable to what it replaced to the point where it may be considered an entirely new competition, will have its 23rd edition in the year 2113. I think the second edition will be an improvement on the first, let alone the 23rd. So I think we shouldn't be too caught up in what we're seeing in this first edition, but rather whether it has merit, and whether it should be allowed its place in the calendar (which may have to come at the expense of something else). I can only speak for myself, but even after just 20 of 81 matches, I've seen enough to know that I want this tournament to become premier competition in the calendar and a priority for clubs. But even if we do focus on just this first edition, rather than seeing what it could grow into given time, I still think it's been a success. It's a new format/competition, it's held in a non-traditional footballing nation where casual sports fans are either apathetic to it or outright hostile, it doesn't have the cachet of the international version, it hosts half the games in the afternoon during weekdays when people are at work, many of the games are held in open-air stadiums in the sweltering heat of summer, the dynamic pricing model being employed has resulted in absurdly high ticket prices, it contains a lot of participants who have little to no brand-recognition in America (pitting the likes of Mamelodi and Ulsan against one another) and yet despite all that it's averaging 36,000 at present and monopolising football-related discourse across the world because high interest in it does exist. I'll never understand why this sport is followed by so many people that appear to hate it. If this was any other sport, they would be singing the tournament's praises to high heaven. For a football fanatic like me, it's a dream to see something I fantasised about as a kid, spending hours modding Football Manager to create similar competitions, come to fruition, and am even more excited about what it could grow into.

Only people who aren't watching would say that. From game one it's been taken seriously by all teams, and it's obvious to anyone watching. I think this tournament is going to be hosted in the North America and East Asia (with a group or two based in South-East Asia and Australia). The Middle East has an opportunity if they want to buy it (and especially now with the DAZN-Saudi connection), but it would be a worse tournament for it. I don't expect this will become a prelude to the FIFA World Cup by being hosted in the same nation, and I certainly can't see it ever being hosted in Europe. The US is the perfect host for this, for innumerable reasons which need no elaboration. It just needs to be better calibrated. That includes using MLS stadiums more often for lower-demand games in the group stage and having 8-10 teams who qualify via invitation.

The Australian media really is a bunch of schoolgirls. It's beyond embarrassing. They'd say it's tongue-in-cheek I'm sure, but it's nevertheless incredibly disrespectful to the biggest national sporting event on the calendar. On the upside, they don't pull this kind of nonsense with sports they don't fear. So it's yet another win for rugby league.

I thought the same thing watching it. The CB pairing will give way to Rudiger and Militao once they're back from injury, but apart from the ill Mbappe that was Real's starting XI. Real was a reactive team under Ancelotti, but it was still surprising to see the ease at which Al Hilal asserted themselves. Then again, as you alluded to, most of their players are well known, so it shouldn't be that much of a surprise. By the way TAA was pilloried for his performance defensively. I think Liverpool fans are happy they're finally free to start calling him out on that aspect of his game devoid of internal conflict.

Is this actually true? Nine Entertainment is a much smaller business than the BBC or Sky Group. There would be no immediately obvious reason why they'd have better equipment. Affordability certainly wouldn't be an issue. What Nine does have over the BBC at least is expertise. They've produced hundreds of hours of live rugby league content year-round for decades. It would not, no. It would obviously still retain its importance to Blues and Maroons fans if it resembled games from 40 years ago, but the optics of the series are 100% part of the package today. The stadiums are world-class, they're brimming, and even smaller details like a sea of blue or maroon, contrasted with an end full of the opposition colour, all play their part in the overall presentation.

It is sold out, and with segregation at Everton games, I dare say the Test might hold the ground record for some time to come.

It's been covered by others, but only the first round of PL fixtures has concrete kick-off times. Notice how everything after August 24 kicks off on the same day at the same time. It's just placeholder until the broadcasters decide how to divvy it up.

Blues outpossessed and outran QLD, had fewer errors, but were let down by Lomax's kicking (in admittedly difficult conditions from the sideline) and ill-discipline which saw the penalty count end 10-2 against them. At worst it was a coin toss--a real game of two halves--and no one could say the Blues stole it had they won. Had Lomax converted juts one of those kicks, the momentum was with NSW, and we're probably talking about a potential sweep.

Totally agree. I only became interested once I knew Australia made the final. For me the issue is that the ladder doesn't work when series are played at different times. If every country played on the same given weekends throughout the year, at least I'd feel like I'm following something cohesive, and I could look at the results and make sense of them in relation to Australia's position. As it is, it's too unfocused, and there's no clear fix because you're not going to be able to set up Test cricket the way you would a rugby league comp. As with the upcoming England x India series, I'm interested in it because it involves two powerhouses in the game, not because there are points at stake for the next edition of the WTC. I'd happily watch England or India win all the WTCs for the foreseeable future if it meant Australia won the Ashes and Border-Gavaskar trophy every time.

Not a bad idea as I'm always surprised how expensive they are per kilo. I'm more of a fruitarian and tend not to eat many vegetables (ignoring that tomatoes are technically fruits), but Truss tomatoes can get up to $8 a kilo here, far in excess of what you'd pay for other common vegetables. I don't know what kind of yield your garden offers but any saving on tomatoes sounds like a good investment.

Totally agree regarding the Palmeiras x Porto game. It was half-full at 45K but the atmosphere was fantastic. Ended scoreless but the game itself was pretty good. I'd rather watch that matchup than Porto x Man City in the CL group stage. There's a novelty and excitement to it that you don't get any more with most CL group stage matches. The videos floating about of Palmeiras fans in New York malls, outside Times Square, Boca fans in Miami, you can really see how much it means to them to be there. Then again, that's nothing new. They were huge travellers under the old format. But it reinforces that European opinions about the CWC differ greatly to the rest of the world. The money distribution is an interesting one. If it stays quadrennial, it shouldn't alter things too radically and should help those leagues with player retention and recruitment as you say. The danger for me is that, as in Europe, the money upends competitive balance, whether it's one team dominating as in the smaller leagues or a cabal of clubs being established at the top as in the bigger leagues. It would be a shame if that happened in Brazil, as it's one of the more competitive leagues, with no one club establishing any kind of long-term hegemony and titles being shared around (though that's largely because great teams end up being dismantled by European buyers). In helping clubs to retain players, it could have an adverse effect on competitive balance. In a way, Brazilian clubs being serial sellers and restrained spenders helps them function similarly to how it might if they had a salary cap. Again, though, that would be more an issue if the CWC turned into a biennial competition and those funds were more readily available as in the CL. Anyway, like you, I'm enjoying what I'm seeing despite the room for improvement. I'm not sure I'll get over the thought of the current league champions of the two best leagues in the world--who also happen to be two of the four best supported clubs in the US--not taking part in a CWC taking place in the US. Whoever wins it will be a deserving world champion, but I'd still have liked to see Liverpool, Barcelona and even Arsenal as they'd add that final bit of legitimacy to proceedings. Just to clarify on MLS as I don't think I worded that properly: The $5 billion figure isn't how much MLS is generating alone but football as a whole, though MLS accounts for about $2 billion annually these days. I remember when I started following it in 2007 the then newest team Toronto paid a $10m expansion fee and their stadium was built for $60m. They're now valued at $725m (LAFC is first at $1.25bn), and the three newest stadium projects currently under construction (Miami, NYCFC) or in planning stage (Chicago) cost $1bn ($350m stadium only), $780m and $650m respectively, with not a single one housing more than 25,000 seats. MLS is a unique case study in that it's incredibly successful in many ways for a relatively young league and yet is ignored by most of the broader sporting public in the states and dwarfed by the interest in European clubs among American soccer fans.