Not Our Cup of Tea… or Coffee
King actually says lots of stupid things. And likes coffee. That actually describes so many people we’re starting to wonder how King gets employed by Sports Illustrated and NBC.
Anyway, we don’t get too bent out of shape about people who really don’t know much about soccer, like King, going off like they’re suddenly experts because their employer sent them to the World Cup.
But in the aftermath of the US draw with Slovenia, King penned this column. Most of us here tuned completely out when he referred to the African Cup of Nations as the “African Cup.” He also belittled the tournament.
Anyway, predictably it set off some sort of eSh*tstorm that resulted in King apologizing.
Funny thing about King’s apology, he defends himself by deferring to the point he was making—”FIFA thinks it has to put refs from all regions…” Okay, it’s a truncated Twitter apology, but it seems reasonable to think the statement is about how FIFA’s need to include refs from all of its regions means there are substandard refs.
Fine, but if you read his SI post, that point isn’t found anywhere in the piece. The closest I can find to an explicit statement matching what he says he’s saying is the following: “But FIFA deserves equal blame, for putting a system in place that allows incompetent officiating to skate free”
But that’s more about how the refs don’t have to explain their decisions after the match, not that they get to officiate because of where they might be from.
Anyone else find that curious? If King is apologizing because he is getting called an “ugly American”—and let’s be honest here, he is a) American and b) not a good looking man—the lack of ability to really own up to what he said probably only reinforces the idea that he is indeed an ugly American.
Sure King was angry and fired off a few hundred words. He went after the ref, FIFA, anyone not in blue, etc., in a pretty hapahazard way. We do the same thing from time to time. But to then backtrack with a weasel-like apology that doesn’t really reflect what you actually said anywhere is super weak.
Basically King should kind of shut up and stick to talking about the phone calls he gets from NFL players. We doubt that will happen though. As one of the commenters in the Big Lead post pointed out, King loves going to sporting events and attention. That pretty much nails it.
Amazing how successful he is at that for someone who says so many stupid things.
Meh.
Americans coming through.
Apologies for the long post. This is a comment a friend of a friend wrote in response to King’s article. Thought it was worth reposting here…
Peter, in your article on SI.com today, you wrote that “in his first World Cup game, referee Koman Coulibaly, from the landlocked West African country of Mali, ran into the fray and blew off the goal.” So I’m left to wonder: why is it relevant that Coulibaly is from a landlocked, African country? I agree with your main point: the call was patently wrong, the referee may have been under-qualified, and that the lack of explanation is not only bad for America’s (and perhaps most soccer fans’) collective digestion but also bad for the sport. However, you don’t need to denigrate a country for being 1) on the African Continent or 2) for being landlocked just to prove a point. Don’t look now, but you also brought yourself down in the process.
Forgive me for misinterpreting the connotation of “landlocked, African country” if you did not intend it to be negative, but let’s be honest, how else could it be interpreted in the context of your article. Just to be clear: the notion that being from an African country prevents an individual from being competent is, for lack of a better word, disgusting. The notion that one needs a bordering body of water to be competent is just plain idiotic.
As an investor in Africa since 2004, I have encountered plenty of Africans who are eminently qualified for jobs that dwarf soccer refereeing both in complexity and importance, so I am lucky enough to know how irresponsible your expression of anger and disappointment was. Most of your readers though, may not be. You should feel ashamed of perpetuating such anachronistic stereotypes of Africans.
The continent, just so you know, is in the midst of a 12 year economic growth spurt that puts all first world economies to shame. McKinsey just wrote that “While the global meltdown has shown that great risks may lurk in even the most transparent economies, many African nations have brought inflation under control, opened the door to international trade, and improved the regulatory environment.” Finally, the World Bank ranked Rwanda, also a landlocked, African country, as the world’s top reformer this year in its annual “Doing Business” report.
Africa is not without its problems. Aids, corruption, child mortality and misogyny are all much too prevalent in the majority of countries. Still, the continent has made great strides, and this is no small part thanks to a legion of African entrepreneurs, workers and government officials who are enthusiastically, and with great skill, pushing its renaissance. Jingoistic statements like yours insult not only their efforts, but also lower the nobility of your profession. Today, instead of a Monday Morning Quarterback, you ended up a Friday afternoon throwback to an era of racism and ignorance.
damn…we need to get this text sorted out.
Peter King should probably stick to laundering Brett Favre’s BVDs like he does every offseason.
Posnanski has jumped on this thing, too, on the heels of 2 or 3 post/articles where he obliquely slated soccer.
TFA: Yeah, I tried to go in and force breaks and it still stripped them out. At it to the ‘to do’ list.
Seems to work on the mobile site though.
It could be worse. He could actually be announcing games like Dave O’Brien did in 2006.
So I should call Gary Faulkner and tell him our trip to Mali has been canceled?
You people are absolute idiots. You pretend that his comment about Mali makes everything else he said irrelevant. Ummm, no, it doesn’t. Sorry if its not politically correct, but nothing he says is wrong. My only disappointment is that he apologized. If you disagree with his content, say so. But to criticize him for pointing out that Mali is landlocked? Really? Shut up, losers.
This seems like an unpopular opinion around here, but I don’t think anything he said was that outrageous. I’m sorry in advance for the long post.
Koman blew the call. His call was indefensible, hence FIFA’s silence. They should require more transparency from the ref, if not during the game, than at the very least in the match report, particular for something so game changing and so controversial. FIFA as an organization is pretty untouchable, which is a problem.
_
I think these are things we can all agree on. People seem to be taking issue with his description of Mali and the standard of football/refereeing in Africa. Mali is a landlocked country in Western Africa, a phrase he probably lifted straight from the wikipedia page. His football analogy was a little harsh, but is it really that far wide of the mark? We’ve all seen the African Cup of Nations, and the standard of play is generally pretty terrible. As we’ve seen from African nations so far this World Cup they’re still a step behind performance wise.
_
And Berg, as far as your friend’s comment goes, Africa is a backwoods undeveloped s**thole, I’m sorry. I’m not saying people can’t be competent and be from Africa, or that they haven’t made strides to improve their situation. But the man wasn’t up to the occasion, as evidenced by his performance. To pretend otherwise just because Africa’s feelings might get hurt is absurd.
_
Finally, yes his apology was a little half-assed, but look what happened to the writer who made those comments about the Haiti earthquake? Nobody wants to get s**tcanned because people can be too sensitive. And while he didn’t directly mention FIFA’s requirement in his post, he does allude to that fact by criticizing a ref from a substandard football region allowed to play at the big dance.
Ace – I was going to write something polite and point out the many errors in your brief repost without judging your intelligence, but unfortunately I’m already eight beers in. You’re a complete jack ass. Next time before you rail against something try to read the whole article, and more importantly try to understand it. If that’s not possible, than don’t participate in the discussion.
To say that we “pretend his comment about Mali makes everything else he said irrelevant” is simply false. In fact, to quote:
“I agree with your main point: the call was patently wrong, the referee may have been under-qualified, and that the lack of explanation is not only bad for America’s (and perhaps most soccer fans’) collective digestion but also bad for the sport.”
In case you couldn’t figure it out, the point of contention with his post was not with his main point (with that we we all agreed). It was the use of Africa and land-locked as seemingly derogatory terms.
Your anger at pointing out the innappropriateness of using Africa (racist) or land-locked (asinine) as derogatory terms is a bit odd.
At best you just didn’t understand. That’s ok. Not everyone is smart. At worst, you got it and dismissed it. And for that you’re no better than the last few words of my previous post.
You suck Ace-Hole!!!
LE – to be fair, I was reposting something else. I make no contention that Africa is a happy wonderful corner of the world. I agree with the fact that FIFA is complicit, he was by no means ready for this competition, and Africa has serious problems that can’t be ignored. Pointing out that he is a bad ref, and as a representative of Africa as their best ref suggests that they don’t have good referees is perfectly fair. But to suggest the reason he is not good is because he is African or simply because he is from a land-locked nation is what’s troubling. Say Fifa f*cked up by giving every continent a referee (although it would be odd if the World Cup in Africa didn’t have an African referee), say he was terrible, say he shouldn’t be near the pitch the rest of the Cup. But please don’t say he was terrible BECAUSE he’s African. That’s the problem and implication from King’s post.
[...] Peter King Said Something Stupid | Unprofessional Foul [...]
Berg: I totally agree. I know you were reposting, sorry if I came off overly harsh
…you’re kidding, right? Is the next post going to excoriate the UF commentariat who said much, much, much worse things about the ref? Or do we get to pick on Peter King b/c he’s not part of the “in crowd” of soccer know-it-alls?
He nowhere suggested any such thing. It requires virtually willful misreading of his column to extract those ideas from it.
Personally, I’ve always enjoyed Peter King’s writing and I think his posts from SA2010 have been clever and well written. Peter King is coming at this as a fan, he’s admitted such in his regular MMQB columns. He’s still a bit of a neophyte in the soccer sense, but still a very fine reporter. He’s refreshing in the fact that unlike many other main stream sports types (I’m looking at you Mike & Mike and Colin) he’s not condesending toward the game we love. If this sport is to grow here in the States, it’s mainstream types like King that will help it along.
Anon – really? He had already identified the ref’s homeland in an earlier paragraph. That was useful information. He then further described that country as West African and landlocked in an ire filled sentence. Why? Having already told us where he’s from, what’s the purpose? Geography lesson? Why not tell us where Slovenia is then as well?
I find it hard to believe he meant it as a compliment given the context.
@berg: But in that earlier sentence, it was a throwaway, in which he also mentioned Marietta – i.e., not useful information. Here’s the later “offensive” sentence:
Peter King’s not a terrible writer. He knows how to use words to indicate causation. If he meant “the referee f**ked up this call because he’s from the landlocked West African country of Mali,” he could have said: “But in his first World Cup game, referee Koman Coulibaly ran into the fray and blew off the goal, because he’s from the landlocked West African country of Mali.” However, in what he actually wrote, he comes nowhere even close to suggesting or inferring that Coulibaly’s Malian heritage makes him a bad referee.
berg – “But in his first World Cup game, referee Koman Coulibaly, from the landlocked West African country of Mali, ran into the fray and blew off the goal.” That is the first sentence he mentions the ref by name and it makes sense to say where he’s from, despite the fact that the lead in paragraph offhandedly says “But whether you’re from Mars or Marietta or, in the incompetent match referee’s country, Mali.”
-
As to the purpose, it is literally the first line of Mali’s wikipedia entry. I can guarantee Peter King had never heard of Mali, wikipedia’d it, and just copied the description he saw there. And it is relevant to his point that the ref was from Africa, because he suggests the standards of refereeing are not up to scratch, because the standard of play is not up to scratch. It is not relevant to tell us where Slovenia is.
I don’t get this whole thing at all. What exactly did he say that was stupid? If this happened to England, how would this be any different from every story you’d read from “journalists” who ACTUALLY KNOW THE FRICKING SPORT? He’s admitted he’s just a semi-fan enjoying the trip, and he reacted just like any of us would/DID, and now he’s being judged for it? I’m more upset that he apologized. He’s not a soccer reporter, and he’s never claimed he was. And I don’t think there was overt racism or paternalism or colonialism in what he wrote…bad choice of words, yes, but he’s assuming he’s talking to an audience no smarter about footy than he is. Same thing with Poz – he likes soccer, but he doesn’t ever write to soccer fans…he writes to the other 280 million members of the US population, just like King does…
bergkampesdios —
_
You describe King’s sin as “the innappropriateness of using Africa (racist) or land-locked (asinine) as derogatory terms.” Sorry, but no. Just no. Using “Africa” isn’t racist. Using “Africa” pejoratively is not racist. Using “Africa” to explain a referee’s ineptitude is not racist.
_
Your statement is also an example of begging the question. You deem King’s words to be “derogatory terms” which thus renders them “inappropriate” — when their “derogatory” status/nonstatus is the whole issue in the first place.
_
People like you are responsible for making modern life far more complicated and tricky to navigate than it needs to be. Don’t worry, I’m not going to go on some long diatribe about PC culture and postmodernism blah blah — we all know the arguments inside out — but suffice it to say that DAMN, people like you can be a pain in the ass. It’s all so freaking hair-splitty and convoluted.
_
Oh, and good trick on the whole underscore thing, Lennon’s Eyebrow.
_
Y’all really need to get the paragraph-break thing straightened out around here!
LSBV – thanks for coming late to the party. Before you get your panties in a tizzy any further about my overly rambunctious PCness, check my comment around 8:30am in the Paraguay / Slovakia live blog.
[...] I don’t think that Posnanski used the word “overmatched” because, like Peter King, he saw a bad call made by a Malian ref and said “wow, that ref sucks and was only appointed to [...]
Peter King is just as dumb and racist like most americans.The americans should just stick to their superbowl and basketball and quit butting their nose into the world cup.I just hope america gets eliminated very soon out of the world cup.Screw them anyway!
Ignorance is bliss…..
I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…
King has to be one of the dumbest analysts ever.