For years, The New York Times neglected “real” football, and the few times the paper did bother to cover it, it was called “soccer.” It was therefore a big surprise when, on June 14, 2026, it came out with a two-page report in its “Opinion” section headlined: “How Soccer Changed America, and How America Changed Soccer.” The report showed an American football player holding a round soccer ball the way one would normally hold an oval football (pictured above).
It isn’t even that the Times has traditionally not been big at covering sports, but its negligence towards “real” football has always been puzzling, especially considering that it is read mostly by people who travel, those that follow foreign events, and those who invest in their kids’ “soccer practice.” Surprisingly, when the Times came out with a Sports section a few years ago, it failed miserably, possibly because it neglected the football played with feet, focusing instead on the football played with hands. Sports (mainly American football, basketball, and baseball) are now covered in the Times‘ main section.
The Times’ opinion piece was divided into three parts and covered the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, the three locations where FIFA’s 2026 World Cup is being held. The U.S. opinion piece explained, that, apparently, “The U.S. Is the Future of Soccer, for Better or for Worse,” and noted that, “For decades, soccer’s place in American life was marginal and subcultural.” However, the piece also pointed out that, “in the U.S., ‘world football’ remained a fringe obsession,” and that it is “true that soccer is un-American,” even going so far as to report that Republican Jack Kemp “condemned soccer as ‘European socialist.’ ”
In the Canadian opinion report the Times also reminded readers that “Outside of the Vancouver Whitecaps and the Toronto Blizzard, the two main Canadian franchises in the old North American Soccer League, there was no proper professional league… What emerged was a significant disconnect between the increasing popularity of soccer at the grass roots level, and the indifference towards the national team.” Finally, the piece also took a swipe at “FIFA’s perennial corruption,” and noted that 13 of the tournament’s 104 matches were divided between Vancouver and Toronto.
The third opinion piece, titled “What Did Mexico Ever Do to Deserve Such a Measly Tip?” complained that “One host is the star [meaning the U.S.], while the others have been cast in supporting roles… [Mexico] has long had the upper hand over the U.S., but for this year’s tournament, the hierarchy has been reversed.” In addition, it was observed that “Mexico received only 13 of the 104 available matches [just like Canada]. The U.S., whose football culture we’ve done so much to build up, will host 78.”
However, nowhere in the Times’ opinion pieces was it observed that for a second World Cup in a row, three-minute “hydration breaks” were introduced within each half of the match, even though some stadiums are enclosed and air-conditioned. These breaks have added much needed TV commercial time, in addition to the traditional halftime. On the other hand, this “new” break has received lots of attention outside North America.
Leave A Comment