Agree 100% why the fuck do we still worship professional athletes? Like them, respect them when they're good or decent people, but fuck them if they're not.

>> ^Yogi:

Agree 100% why the fuck do we still worship professional athletes? Like them, respect them when they're good or decent people, but fuck them if they're not.



It is a dumbed down version of war games, people can feel good about ( no one dies). Me against you, my team against yours. Personally I think its a bunch of bullshit for people who are bored and have a hole in their lives. But it wont change anytime soon. We are willing to pay people to do something we can not to make our nightlife a little easier to take.

I like the line "who apparently are both billionaires and brain-dead". It bugs me that footballers are labelled thick, as if you have to be thick to get paid well over £1,000,000 a year. I know Mitchell has no interest in football, but he's a bright guy and I'm pretty sure he meant this sardonically. He's got to know better, even if much of the general population falls for this cliché.

Of course some footballers are thick, but on the whole, I'd guess top footballers are on average more intelligent than most.

The reason they aren't hated is because they're not responsible for wreaking the economy.

Our ancestors were apes, not monkeys.

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^Yogi:
Agree 100% why the fuck do we still worship professional athletes? Like them, respect them when they're good or decent people, but fuck them if they're not.


It is a dumbed down version of war games, people can feel good about ( no one dies). Me against you, my team against yours. Personally I think its a bunch of bullshit for people who are bored and have a hole in their lives. But it wont change anytime soon. We are willing to pay people to do something we can not to make our nightlife a little easier to take.


I already knew all that stuff but you said it so now you look smarter...Fuck you!

>> ^ghark:

Our ancestors were apes, not monkeys.


That depends on how you define it. We ARE apes, and we share ancestors with other apes, but also with monkeys. The common ancestor of monkeys and humans would probably seem very monkey-like to us if we saw one, but we dont really have a name for it. Evolutionary-wise, you could set apes up as a subset of monkeys, in that sense, we ARE monkeys. See AronRa's breakdown of this problem here: http://youtu.be/Qo-WLiV7Zmg

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

>> ^ghark:
Our ancestors were apes, not monkeys.

That depends on how you define it. We ARE apes, and we share ancestors with other apes, but also with monkeys. The common ancestor of monkeys and humans would probably seem very monkey-like to us if we saw one, but we dont really have a name for it. Evolutionary-wise, you could set apes up as a subset of monkeys, in that sense, we ARE monkeys. See AronRa's breakdown of this problem here: http://youtu.be/Qo-WLiV7Zmg


Aye definition is very important for sure - most recent known ancestors then (and keeping the outdated definition of Ape). Very interesting vid btw, cheers.

We don't hate rich people. We hate selfish profiteering rich people.

Or maybe that's too complicated for the average person. Yeah, let's just hate all rich people, including those who are paid well because they're really good at something they love, and have worked harder on than almost any of us have ever done on anything. Let's hate anybody who's wildly successful for any reason. Way to miss the point, idiot.

>> ^messenger:

We don't hate rich people. We hate selfish profiteering rich people.
Or maybe that's too complicated for the average person. Yeah, let's just hate all rich people, including those who are paid well because they're really good at something they love, and have worked harder on than almost any of us have ever done on anything. Let's hate anybody who's wildly successful for any reason. Way to miss the point, idiot.


Physician, heal thyself.

>> ^Quboid:

I like the line "who apparently are both billionaires and brain-dead". It bugs me that footballers are labelled thick, as if you have to be thick to get paid well over £1,000,000 a year. I know Mitchell has no interest in football, but he's a bright guy and I'm pretty sure he meant this sardonically. He's got to know better, even if much of the general population falls for this cliché.
Of course some footballers are thick, but on the whole, I'd guess top footballers are on average more intelligent than most.
The reason they aren't hated is because they're not responsible for wreaking the economy.


I can only speak from my knowledge of English football but most footballers aren't especially bright. To earn large amounts of money in the game you have to be good at football and many are, apart from Charlie Adam. Most skipped further education and signed on with professional clubs at a young age or flitted around until they failed to make the grade.
Regardless, their working class backgrounds probably meant there wasn't much of a history of outstanding educational achievement. As soon as the talent is evident the desire to balance sporting and academic achievement evaporates.

I have no idea why you'd think that "top" footballers would be more intelligent on average. Than whom? The entire population? I'd guess their football intelligence is better.

Even the foreigners are capable of acting like twits. Apparently Bendtner's got off today on vandalising cars with Lee Catermole, Meanwhile Ricardo Fuller was sent off over the weekend for violent conduct (again) which his manager labelled "stupid" and my favourite player Balotelli indulged in a series of pretty dumb stunts all season long. They all earn incredible amounts of money and don't act in a way that is consistent or respectful of the rather sweet lifestyles they've landed.

Yes it's always silly to generalise but as a group they don't veer towards smart cookie territory. For example I give you David Beckham, the popular Joey Barton and possibly the most inept in the brain department Wayne Rooney.

That's 3 names. How many professional footballers are there? This are young men with a lot of money. Of course some will do stupid things. Joey Barton? Why do you think he's stupid? He's a pretentious, self-righteous hypocrite, but none of those mean he's stupid.

Being thick isn't the same as being uneducated. They aren't well educated but this is because they went into football, not because they couldn't handle it. Quite a few have got degrees in their plentiful spare time while playing.

Of course foreigners can be twits. That you would imply I'd think otherwise is what I mean, this idea that footballers, especially British footballers, are uniquely thick.

Why do I think they are probably above average? Because if you have two players of equal technical ability, strength, fitness, etc, the one who is smarter will generally do better and therefore play in a higher standard of league. Egro, the smart rise to the top. Since intelligence isn't a particularly important part of football, the effect this has will be small, but it still exists.

Charlie Adam is rubbish, I'll give you that.

Soccer players get paid?

>> ^messenger:

We don't hate rich people. We hate selfish profiteering rich people.
Or maybe that's too complicated for the average person. Yeah, let's just hate all rich people, including those who are paid well because they're really good at something they love, and have worked harder on than almost any of us have ever done on anything. Let's hate anybody who's wildly successful for any reason. Way to miss the point, idiot.


I don't think it matters how good you are at anything, getting paid thousands, sometimes a 100,000 + a week, is ridiculous. How much do scientists curing horrible diseases get? How much do the greatest psychotherapists making tortured souls lives livable get? Teachers, astrophysicists, soldiers etc etc.

>> ^Quboid:

That's 3 names. How many professional footballers are there? This are young men with a lot of money. Of course some will do stupid things. Joey Barton? Why do you think he's stupid? He's a pretentious, self-righteous hypocrite, but none of those mean he's stupid.
Being thick isn't the same as being uneducated. They aren't well educated but this is because they went into football, not because they couldn't handle it. Quite a few have got degrees in their plentiful spare time while playing.
Of course foreigners can be twits. That you would imply I'd think otherwise is what I mean, this idea that footballers, especially British footballers, are uniquely thick.
Why do I think they are probably above average? Because if you have two players of equal technical ability, strength, fitness, etc, the one who is smarter will generally do better and therefore play in a higher standard of league. Egro, the smart rise to the top. Since intelligence isn't a particularly important part of football, the effect this has will be small, it still exists.
Charlie Adam is rubbish, I'll give you that.


How many names am I supposed to give you? Is there a specific number that should convince you? Put it like this ff you were mining the wisdom of crowds they'd be the last crowd you'd go with.

A lack of education, also known as ignorance and poor critical thinking is linked to lack of comprehension and the wider phenomenon of stupidity.

You're incorrect about intelligence being a differentiator on the field. The number one characteristic coaches look for is attitude. Players with an intense competitive desire and a controllable amount of aggression WITH talent are the ones who make it.

Off the pitch, being able to make smart decisions about contracts, sponsorship is where you'd be right. Actually maybe that means Beckham is a genius and I'm totally wrong! Or maybe he's well advised.

I always admired Klinnsman in that regard. If you forgot the diving you might recall he sorted out his own contract and only hired a lawyer and an accountant. The value of an education there is that you actually eke out a bit more money over the long term.

As for Barton his propensity for violence suggests he's not the poster boy for the football intelligentsia. I know he's been working via twitter to build a different kind of reputation but I'm yet to be convinced. It's amazing what you can cut and paste on the web.

>> ^Deano:

They all earn incredible amounts of money and don't act in a way that is consistent or respectful of the rather sweet lifestyles they've landed.

The idiotic behavior that provides grist for the media mill is a symptom of lack of wisdom and maturity, not stupidity.

I don't know much about Premier Leaguers, but pro American football players are more intelligent on average. A better way to describe it is that their distribution of IQs is much narrower and shifted upwards a bit from the overall population's distribution. American football requires being able to process a lot of information and modifying complex plans all very quickly. It's not a game for idiots.

As for the pay, well they're entertainers. Any entertainer good enough in their field will be paid millions simply because there will be so many people that want to watch that entertainment. Actors, athletes, musicians, writers, artists can all become obscenely rich if they are good enough and marketed well. And as messenger points out, most pro athletes work harder than most people ever will to achieve a level of performance that only a handful of people on the planet can even dream of.

>> ^Deano:


How many names am I supposed to give you? Is there a specific number that should convince you? Put it like this ff you were mining the wisdom of crowds they'd be the last crowd you'd go with.
A lack of education, also known as ignorance and poor critical thinking is linked to lack of comprehension and the wider phenomenon of stupidity.
You're incorrect about intelligence being a differentiator on the field. The number characteristic coaches look for is attitude. Players with an intense competitive desire and a controllable amount of aggression WITH talent are the ones who make it.
Off the pitch, being able to make smart decisions about contracts, sponsorship is where you'd be right. Actually maybe that means Beckham is a genius and I'm totally wrong! Or maybe he's well advised.
I always admired Klinnsman in that regard. If you forgot the diving you might recall he sorted out his own contract and only hired a lawyer and an accountant. The value of an education there is that you actually eke out a bit more money over the long term.
As for Barton his propensity for violence suggests he's not the poster boy for the football intelligentsia. I know he's been working via twitter to build a different kind of reputation but I'm yet to be convinced. It's amazing what you can cut and paste on the web.


I'd like over 50% of footballers, that would convince me. It's all anecdotal otherwise. The last crowd I'd go for would certainly not be footballers, it would be unemployed, ex-convicts who left school early because it was too hard for them.

Again, while a lack of education is linked with stupidity, this is because the reason is often that thick people can't handle school. Leaving school for a lucrative career is very different.

The characteristic that coaches look for is being a good player and more intelligent people will generally be slightly better. You mentioned this yourself - footballing intelligence. That's not a separate part of the brain, that's good old intelligence, along with experience on the pitch. If you have 2 players with equally intense competitive desire, controllable aggression and talent, the smarter one is the one who will pick better passes, position themselves better, concentrate better, be a better player.

Klinsmann is far from the only player who did his own contracts but then that's not really relevant - having good advisers might be the intelligent choice; if they get you 30% more and take 15% then they're worth hiring. Also, frankly, diving is intelligent given how pathetically advantageous it is.

You can add being a thug to Barton's rap sheet and that is pretty dumb. Whether he's just copy and pasting from www.NietzscheForDummies.com we don't know but even if he was, this would require a greater understanding of the world than British footballers are given credit for.

>> ^Quboid:

>> ^Deano:

How many names am I supposed to give you? Is there a specific number that should convince you? Put it like this ff you were mining the wisdom of crowds they'd be the last crowd you'd go with.
A lack of education, also known as ignorance and poor critical thinking is linked to lack of comprehension and the wider phenomenon of stupidity.
You're incorrect about intelligence being a differentiator on the field. The number characteristic coaches look for is attitude. Players with an intense competitive desire and a controllable amount of aggression WITH talent are the ones who make it.
Off the pitch, being able to make smart decisions about contracts, sponsorship is where you'd be right. Actually maybe that means Beckham is a genius and I'm totally wrong! Or maybe he's well advised.
I always admired Klinnsman in that regard. If you forgot the diving you might recall he sorted out his own contract and only hired a lawyer and an accountant. The value of an education there is that you actually eke out a bit more money over the long term.
As for Barton his propensity for violence suggests he's not the poster boy for the football intelligentsia. I know he's been working via twitter to build a different kind of reputation but I'm yet to be convinced. It's amazing what you can cut and paste on the web.

I'd like over 50% of footballers, that would convince me. It's all anecdotal otherwise. The last crowd I'd go for would certainly not be footballers, it would be unemployed, ex-convicts who left school early because it was too hard for them.
Again, while a lack of education is linked with stupidity, this is because the reason is often that thick people can't handle school. Leaving school for a lucrative career is very different.
The characteristic that coaches look for is being a good player and more intelligent people will generally be slightly better. You mentioned this yourself - footballing intelligence. That's not a separate part of the brain, that's good old intelligence, along with experience on the pitch. If you have 2 players with equally intense competitive desire, controllable aggression and talent, the smarter one is the one who will pick better passes, position themselves better, concentrate better, be a better player.
Klinsmann is far from the only player who did his own contracts but then that's not really relevant - having good advisers might be the intelligent choice; if they get you 30% more and take 15% then they're worth hiring. Also, frankly, diving is intelligent given how pathetically advantageous it is.
You can add being a thug to Barton's rap sheet and that is pretty dumb. Whether he's just copy and pasting from www.NietzscheForDummies.com we don't know but even if he was, this would require a greater understanding of the world than British footballers are given credit for.


I think the smart answer from you would be to accept I'm not going to type hundreds of names out for you. That's not a real answer or proof. Your response is disingenuous.
We're going with our knowledge of what this demographic is. Note I've never said or claimed that footballers are universally "dumb". I said they aren't especially bright. I have said and will always maintain they certainly are not the smartest slice of the population. And by the way going back to the video, Mitchell is clearly taking the piss. It *is* a comedy program with exaggeration a key component.

"Thick people can't handle school"? I think there's a huge number of educationalists would argue that one. Provision levels and equality of opportunity along with socio-economic factors play a huge role. Footballers from poor working-class families more often find themselves excluded from progressing in the educational system and it's not always because they're "thick". In London I know the debate re the lack of educational achievement in boys linked to the decline in male teachers. You cross that with the race issue and it's even more complicated.

Ah now you're going with my definition of football intelligence? Well that's what I've been driving at. They're good at football. They know how hard to strike the ball, when to time a run, how to employ gamesmanship. They have good spatial awareness. You could now start to talk about different kinds of intelligence. But that's a bloody complicated area. I would however continue to separate football smarts from intellectual ones and general life skills.

You're right, having good advice on hand is advantageous. But some footballers are smarter than others. Tevez for example might be the dumbest, or unluckiest, guy in the game. Mostly the infrastructure is already in place for these guys. Word of mouth is important. I would love to know whether they would make more or less if they didn't employ representation. It would be interesting to know wouldn't it? I suspect it would take a huge amount of balls at a young age to do it yourself or entrust mum or dad.

I never intended to claim Klinnsman's diving was dumb, merely that I note it as a low light of his professional career. I saw him play once and he was excellent in what was really a workmanlike Spurs team.

I'll call it a draw with Barton. I don't know if you're calling *me* dumb but yes he is an unpleasant thug. He's a moron who's been unable to learn from his mistakes. Guess who's got the most yellow cards for QPR this season?

>> ^Deano:


I think the smart answer from you would be to accept I'm not going to type hundreds of names out for you. That's not a real answer or proof. Your response is disingenuous.
We're going with our knowledge of what this demographic is. Note I've never said or claimed that footballers are universally "dumb". I said they aren't especially bright. I have said and will always maintain they certainly are not the smartest slice of the population. And by the way going back to the video, Mitchell is clearly taking the piss. It is a comedy program with exaggeration a key component.
"Thick people can't handle school"? I think there's a huge number of educationalists would argue that one. Provision levels and equality of opportunity along with socio-economic factors play a huge role. Footballers from poor working-class families more often find themselves excluded from progressing in the educational system and it's not always because they're "thick". In London I know the debate re the lack of educational achievement in boys linked to the decline in male teachers. You cross that with the race issue and it's even more complicated.
Ah now you're going with my definition of football intelligence? Well that's what I've been driving at. They're good at football. They know how hard to strike the ball, when to time a run, how to employ gamesmanship. They have good spatial awareness. You could now start to talk about different kinds of intelligence. But that's a bloody complicated area. I would however continue to separate football smarts from intellectual ones and general life skills.
You're right, having good advice on hand is advantageous. But some footballers are smarter than others. Tevez for example might be the dumbest, or unluckiest, guy in the game. Mostly the infrastructure is already in place for these guys. Word of mouth is important. I would love to know whether they would make more or less if they didn't employ representation. It would be interesting to know wouldn't it? I suspect it would take a huge amount of balls at a young age to do it yourself or entrust mum or dad.
I never intended to claim Klinnsman's diving was dumb, merely that I note it as a low light of his professional career. I saw him play once and he was excellent in what was really a workmanlike Spurs team.
I'll call it a draw with Barton. I don't know if you're calling me dumb but yes he is an unpleasant thug. He's a moron who's been unable to learn from his mistakes. Guess who's got the most yellow cards for QPR this season?


Of course you're not going to type out hundreds of names and that wouldn't be enough anyway - that's my point. I could name clever footballers - including ones who have a reputation for being dumb (Frank Lampard) - which would be pointless too. It's all anecdotal, it's basically meaningless.

I'm not sure what point you're making with regards to education, "it's not always because they're 'thick'" seems to be agreeing with me.

I didn't mean to say you're dumb, I was referring to Barton's thug past implying that he isn't a genius. Getting most yellow cards isn't necessarily bad, he's a tough tackling midfielder so it's his job to throw himself about (and getting a booking is clever if it stops a goal!). I took your comment about Klinsmann diving to mean he's stupid, sorry about that.

It's certainly complicated and the socio-economic and race issues you touched on only make it more so. In fairness, I don't know. You make good points and you aren't falling into the trap that bugs me, the idea that British footballers are barely capable of tying their shoe laces (or putting on their own bibs ... oh!). I expect they are above average, a bit, but you make good arguments for them being a bit below average.

This clip is from Mock the Week, there was a Franky Boyle bit about the England team writing their own song (this is the best I can find: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpbvF1dESFY&feature=related ). I know this is exaggerated for comic effect but for me, people saying that or laughing at that are the thick ones. Comic exaggeration of an already at-best exaggerated opinion is brainless.

>> ^Quboid:

Joey Barton? Why do you think he's stupid? He's a pretentious, self-righteous hypocrite, but none of those mean he's stupid.


He's fucking stupid...move on.

You mean David missed the point, or I did?>> ^Payback:

>> ^messenger:
Way to miss the point, idiot.
Physician, heal thyself.