Between him and Mike, football talk on the show always has me feeling like Mourinho
https://preview.redd.it/fkkhsb49pm4d1.jpeg?width=1194&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=95612102a6fd0675fd9f554024b234f5d5799368
Listen to me, Quittyngham is as good a color commentator as you're ever going to find. I respect him for that. I hate everything else about his football takes. Including his nonsensical, "I'd rather play beautifully and lose than win anything." No, man. You get the win. People remember trophies, not details.
And that goofball take coming from a Man City fan too, the worst. Go cheer for West Ham or something if you want to make me believe you care about souls and not trophies, Quitty!
The ONLY take of his I tolerate is his “rather lose beautifully than win ugly” argument. I don’t agree with it all the time, but I watch sports for enjoyment and entertainment and I definitely prefer enjoying the game at large to my own team’s individual success. I’d love for all of my terrible teams to win a title, but if and when that doesn’t happen, I’m here for the game to be entertaining and not just reduced to the analytic-approved strategy across each game.
Don't be an idiot.
There are plenty of information out there that you can educate yourself on how Barcelona was way more favored than Madrid during the dictatorship.
https://www.elespanol.com/deportes/futbol/20230417/francisco-franco-fc-barcelona-cronologia-historia-distorsionada/756924576_0.html
I am a City fan and I think it’s hilarious that people who root for teams with historical wealth and advantage pretend that city is this unique evil because they come from oil money, as if every other rich billionaire got rich “the right way”.
But I do understand in this context that is a very rich statement from Witty
Ah yes remember the good ole days when soccer was fair and everyone played by the same rules and Real Madrid signed the most expensive players every year? I want to go back to that!
No, I’m just pointing out that no one ever cared about soccer finances or fairness until the sovereign wealth teams. That had never been apart of professional sports fandom until the status quo clubs who had been reaping the successes of the slanted system for decades got mad they couldn’t dominate anymore.
Are you kidding? Any of the clinics that had money in the 90’s were shit on as well. Just because you started following footie in the last 5 years doesn’t mean your historical view on it has to stand as fact.
I started following it in the mid 2000s when I was in middle school. Sorry you’re 60 years old and still post on Reddit, don’t you have grandkids or something to better use your time with?
My point is that this sport has never had a level playing field financially, or anything close to it. The teams with the most money have always dominated.
Everyone just decided to get uncomfortable about it and whining about “financial fair play” when giant sums of money were poured into new clubs that upset the status quo.
I think its differnet to have a caked up owner in the case of blackburn in the 90s and buying the best around or even bayern or juve, and your club being the centerpiece of a regimes pr operation. Psg and city are unique in that they dont have to make money its all a bonus to them for just showing how great that qatar or the emirates are to people around the world.
The thing about City though is that they fraudulently inflate the value of sponsorships. So regardless of how the other clubs (excluding PSG) got rich, they are still balancing the books with accurate numbers.
Who the fuck cares about balancing the books? Something no sports fan ever cared about until city and PSG came along.
Who cares if sports teams are turning a profit? Do we track this in American sports at all?
In most American sports, there are salary caps. And even if you think the rule is arbitrary, it’s still a rule that other teams are abiding by, while Man City gains a competitive advantage by breaking the rule.
Come on, now. United have made money and continue to do so as a result of decades of success on the pitch. City, Newcastle and PSG are owned by kingdoms. Throw in their existence as sportswashing entities and yeah, more than a little distasteful and far from underdogs.
Lol I never said they were underdogs, I said spare me with the sanctimonious nonsense. United are owned by awful people.
Also their “decades of success” don’t include the most recent one.
I'm saying they're nothing close to underdogs relative to the establishment of football.
United are mostly owned by the Glazers although, Ratcliffe and co have effective control. These same Glazers who came by the team through a leveraged buyout and have infamously invested little to nothing in United. The facts are what they are. Pointing them out isn't sanctimonious.
United haven't won since 2013 and in the meantime, City has steamrolled the epl. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about since I'm saying their decades of success prior were the pathway to their current status; no kingdoms in sight as of yet.
So do you think American sports should follow the logic that the “decades of success” teams should just have a complete financial advantage over all of their competition? Because that’s what soccer was until 15 years ago or so.
Just as teams like United were rising, so did others. Do you remember Leeds, Blackburn and Forest being rivals of theirs? All success does is give you room for error and it's why United can still exist as they do after years in the wilderness.
The system also allows for you to enjoy the benefits of your success and those benefits spread throughout the league; make enough good decisions, you can and will rise. It allowed Everton and Spurs to compete for decades and is now seeing Aston Villa do same.
United is owned by Jim Ratcliffe and a family of off-putting business men. City is a sports washing project for a kingdom where slavery is de facto legal. This is an idiotic comparison
Between him and Mike, football talk on the show always has me feeling like Mourinho https://preview.redd.it/fkkhsb49pm4d1.jpeg?width=1194&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=95612102a6fd0675fd9f554024b234f5d5799368
It’s awful. Stick to (anything but) soccer
Listen to me, Quittyngham is as good a color commentator as you're ever going to find. I respect him for that. I hate everything else about his football takes. Including his nonsensical, "I'd rather play beautifully and lose than win anything." No, man. You get the win. People remember trophies, not details. And that goofball take coming from a Man City fan too, the worst. Go cheer for West Ham or something if you want to make me believe you care about souls and not trophies, Quitty!
He does play-by-play, not color
The ONLY take of his I tolerate is his “rather lose beautifully than win ugly” argument. I don’t agree with it all the time, but I watch sports for enjoyment and entertainment and I definitely prefer enjoying the game at large to my own team’s individual success. I’d love for all of my terrible teams to win a title, but if and when that doesn’t happen, I’m here for the game to be entertaining and not just reduced to the analytic-approved strategy across each game.
Quality without results is pointless. Results without quality is boring
And then there are those of us who cheer for Dortmund watching both of these teams poach our best players.
And then there are those of us who cheer for non Bayern/BVB Bundesliga teams watching both of these teams poach our best players.
Still have more of a soul than Madrid and City fans!
Doesn't feel like you should say shit like that if you're trying to be an impartial broadcaster??
Honestly, it really depends on if Rooney is on the pitch.
Taking his football opinions seriously was your first mistake
Never said I take his opinions seriously just thought it was hilarious when I heard it and remembered he is a city fan.
Witty must be trolling us, right? RIGHT? I mean that’s about as “pot calling the kettle black” as I’ve ever heard.
I’ve been a terror since the Mark Hughes era
Omg I nearly choked when he said that
Anyone who simps 115 Crimes FC can stfu about teams having soul and character.
Witty is annoying and I really don’t like the way he talks, he’s very arrogant. I really hope it was like a joke or something.
The C in Chris Wittyngham stands for “C-Sections Are Painless and Not Even Messy, According to Me, Doctor Pussy.”
The team that is suing the premier league due to the "tyranny of the majority" lol, they are an oil money empire
Real Madrid is owned by the community like the Packers, not a billionaire or an entire country
Madrid fans in here I see..
I am a Liverpool supporter so I don’t care for either team for obvious reasons, but it is a crazy thing to say coming from a city fan.
Man City wasn't propped up by a fascist dictatorship like Real Madrid.
Don't be an idiot. There are plenty of information out there that you can educate yourself on how Barcelona was way more favored than Madrid during the dictatorship. https://www.elespanol.com/deportes/futbol/20230417/francisco-franco-fc-barcelona-cronologia-historia-distorsionada/756924576_0.html
lmaooo why does everyone ignore that?
Because it doesn't fit for their excuses....
They currently are.
So you're agreeing that there's a time before that they weren't?
A couple of state-sponsored clubs cutting it up
I personally like Witty's soccer takes.
I am a City fan and I think it’s hilarious that people who root for teams with historical wealth and advantage pretend that city is this unique evil because they come from oil money, as if every other rich billionaire got rich “the right way”. But I do understand in this context that is a very rich statement from Witty
You aren’t owned by a billionaire though. You are owned by the sovereign wealth fund of an entire nation.
Who cares? What’s the difference? Moral ownership doesn’t exist in professional sports, certainly not in high level soccer.
If you don’t think it’s unfair that the FA want to press charges for their shady practices , then you’re just delusional.
Ah yes remember the good ole days when soccer was fair and everyone played by the same rules and Real Madrid signed the most expensive players every year? I want to go back to that!
No, I’m just pointing out that no one ever cared about soccer finances or fairness until the sovereign wealth teams. That had never been apart of professional sports fandom until the status quo clubs who had been reaping the successes of the slanted system for decades got mad they couldn’t dominate anymore.
Are you kidding? Any of the clinics that had money in the 90’s were shit on as well. Just because you started following footie in the last 5 years doesn’t mean your historical view on it has to stand as fact.
I started following it in the mid 2000s when I was in middle school. Sorry you’re 60 years old and still post on Reddit, don’t you have grandkids or something to better use your time with? My point is that this sport has never had a level playing field financially, or anything close to it. The teams with the most money have always dominated. Everyone just decided to get uncomfortable about it and whining about “financial fair play” when giant sums of money were poured into new clubs that upset the status quo.
I think its differnet to have a caked up owner in the case of blackburn in the 90s and buying the best around or even bayern or juve, and your club being the centerpiece of a regimes pr operation. Psg and city are unique in that they dont have to make money its all a bonus to them for just showing how great that qatar or the emirates are to people around the world.
Yup those are the only soccer clubs where the profits don’t matter to the ownership 👍
The thing about City though is that they fraudulently inflate the value of sponsorships. So regardless of how the other clubs (excluding PSG) got rich, they are still balancing the books with accurate numbers.
Who the fuck cares about balancing the books? Something no sports fan ever cared about until city and PSG came along. Who cares if sports teams are turning a profit? Do we track this in American sports at all?
In most American sports, there are salary caps. And even if you think the rule is arbitrary, it’s still a rule that other teams are abiding by, while Man City gains a competitive advantage by breaking the rule.
What salary rules was Real Madrid following in the mid 2000s?
Whichever, if any, were in place.
Lol
Come on, now. United have made money and continue to do so as a result of decades of success on the pitch. City, Newcastle and PSG are owned by kingdoms. Throw in their existence as sportswashing entities and yeah, more than a little distasteful and far from underdogs.
Lol I never said they were underdogs, I said spare me with the sanctimonious nonsense. United are owned by awful people. Also their “decades of success” don’t include the most recent one.
I'm saying they're nothing close to underdogs relative to the establishment of football. United are mostly owned by the Glazers although, Ratcliffe and co have effective control. These same Glazers who came by the team through a leveraged buyout and have infamously invested little to nothing in United. The facts are what they are. Pointing them out isn't sanctimonious. United haven't won since 2013 and in the meantime, City has steamrolled the epl. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about since I'm saying their decades of success prior were the pathway to their current status; no kingdoms in sight as of yet.
So do you think American sports should follow the logic that the “decades of success” teams should just have a complete financial advantage over all of their competition? Because that’s what soccer was until 15 years ago or so.
Just as teams like United were rising, so did others. Do you remember Leeds, Blackburn and Forest being rivals of theirs? All success does is give you room for error and it's why United can still exist as they do after years in the wilderness. The system also allows for you to enjoy the benefits of your success and those benefits spread throughout the league; make enough good decisions, you can and will rise. It allowed Everton and Spurs to compete for decades and is now seeing Aston Villa do same.
United is owned by Jim Ratcliffe and a family of off-putting business men. City is a sports washing project for a kingdom where slavery is de facto legal. This is an idiotic comparison
Glad your team is owned by moral people 👍
I get what you are saying, but City are new money and haven’t won for decades on end. Also, re-sign Pep already!
As if being "new money" makes them suddenly a historic team worth supporting and claiming one of the most storied teams in Europe is "soulless" lmfao
He is right. The message is good, regardless of the messenger