Better Informed in just 3.1416 minutes

Get the daily email that makes learning about current tech and coding trends fun. Stay engaged and on top of your industry, for free.

Subscribe Now

Thanks to a heroic goal by Captain America himself, Christian Pulisic, the US men’s national team defeated Iran to advance to the knockout round of the World Cup.

But what may end up in the history books wasn’t the action on the field, but the tumultuous political currents that were swirling ahead of the match. The US and Iran are geopolitical foes whose hostility toward one another has only been ramping up recently. And Iran itself is going through its biggest political upheaval in years, which has generated controversy around its soccer team. All this resulted in one of the most politically charged World Cup games in recent memory.

Perhaps the best place to start is at a wild press conference that took place on Monday. Iranian media (some of which is state-affiliated) grilled US coach Gregg Berhalter and team captain Tyler Adams with questions that were overtly political.

• An Iranian reporter asked Adams, who is Black, whether he felt comfortable representing a country that discriminates against Black people. (Here’s how Adams responded.)
• Another reporter asked Berhalter why he hadn’t asked the US government to remove its military presence in the Persian Gulf.

This aggressive line of questioning came after the US Soccer Federation waded into Iran’s domestic political issues. Anti-government protests have exploded across the country following the death of a young woman in police custody, and US Soccer briefly posted a doctored image of the Iranian flag on social media to show support for the protests. Iran’s government was incensed, and demanded that FIFA kick the US out of the tournament.

But the Iranian government also had political activism from its own team to worry about. Last week, players refused to sing the country’s national anthem before their match with England to show solidarity with the protests. They began to sing again in subsequent matches, but according to a CNN report, Iranian officials threatened players’ families with “violence and torture” if they didn’t sing the national anthem or engaged in other protests.

The public’s anger against Iran’s leaders is so intense that many Iranians were seen actively rooting against their own soccer team, understanding that their government would use on-the-field success as propaganda to boost its power.—MM, NF

The post USA beats Iran in politically charged match appeared first on Buzz Badger.

Better Informed in just 3.1416 minutes

Get the daily email that makes learning about current tech and coding trends fun. Stay engaged and on top of your industry, for free.

Subscribe Now

Barry Bonds hit more home runs than any other player in MLB history (762), hit more home runs in a single season than any other player in MLB history (73), and is undoubtedly one of the best hitters who’s ever stepped into the batter’s box.

And yet, in the 10 times Bonds was on the ballot to be considered for the Baseball Hall of Fame, he has never gotten enough votes to be immortalized among the sport’s greats in Cooperstown, New York.

That could change today, when a 16-member group, known as the Contemporary Baseball Era committee, will decide on whether to grant Bonds—and seven other baseball players, including star pitcher Roger Clemens—entrance into the HOF.

But it’s doubtful Bonds will get the 12 votes necessary to send him to the Hall. And it’s for the same reason that he was consistently snubbed in prior rounds of voting: The bulging frame that whacked all those homers is viewed as artificial, the result of alleged use of performance-enhancing drugs.

The debate over Bonds’s candidacy has ripped open old wounds over baseball’s shameful “steroid era,” and sparked deeper questions about how we should remember our blemished superstars. Let’s get into the arguments.

The case against Bonds in the Hall of Fame

Those who want to keep Bonds out say it’s pretty simple: He cheated, defiling the integrity of the sport. It would be immoral to “honor” him with a plaque in baseball’s hallowed museum, next to all the players who punched their ticket the right way.

In the Washington Post, John Feinstein wrote, “A Hall of Fame should be about more than numbers; it should be about what a player—or manager or owner or commissioner—meant to the history of the game.”

Ryne Sandberg, a Hall of Fame baseball player himself and a member of the committee who will be voting on Bonds’s candidacy today, has drawn a similar line in the sand: “It’s about stats, integrity, and playing by the rules. There’s no cheating in Major League Baseball or the Hall of Fame,” he said in 2018.

The case for Bonds

The folks in this camp say the anti-Bonds people need to lose their monocles and enter the real world. “It’s a museum. About baseball. It ain’t a church, synagogue, or mosque. Nor is it a world heritage site. And it’s absolutely not a club where only the sanctified should be allowed entry,” Adam Caparell wrote for Complex.

Bonds supporters say the Hall of Fame is already littered with unsavory people—including known racists and plenty of players who were caught using performance-enhancing drugs. Heck, Bud Selig, MLB’s commissioner during the steroid era, is in the Hall. By snubbing Bonds and denying his role in baseball’s history, voters are trying to preserve the purity of an institution that has none.—NF

The post Does Barry Bonds belong in the Baseball Hall of Fame? appeared first on Buzz Badger.

Better Informed in just 3.1416 minutes

Get the daily email that makes learning about current tech and coding trends fun. Stay engaged and on top of your industry, for free.

Subscribe Now

In 1982, President Ronald Reagan described US relations with the Netherlands as “the longest unbroken, peaceful relationship with any foreign country.”

But today, the two nations will put their friendship on ice as they battle in the World Cup at 10am ET. It’s the knockout round now, so you either win or go home.

To get you prepped for the game, here’s how the countries stack up against one another.

Mobility: The car-loving Americans can cover great distances on the pitch in quick bursts, but plumes of emissions and traffic jams could easily frustrate their attack. The Dutch, meanwhile, never run out of gas. In 2019–2020, the Dutch made 28% of all trips by bicycle, and there are more bikes in the country than people. Advantage: Netherlands.

History: The Dutch scored a huge own-goal by handing over ownership of Manhattan to England in the 17th century. But they’ve still managed to leave their imprint on the city through language (Breuckelen → Brooklyn, Haarlem → Harlem). Advantage: US, because it owns NYC now.

Consistency: Both teams have been plagued by moments where they get really, really excited for a short period of time…then crumble embarrassingly. The Dutch pioneered this strategy with tulip fever in the 1630s, but the US has also been vulnerable to bubbles—the dot-com era, SPACs, and (much of) crypto were all victories that turned into epic defeats. Advantage: neither one.

Prediction: USA 1, Netherlands 0.

Here are the other 14 teams in the knockout round.—NF

The post USA vs. the Netherlands square off at the World Cup appeared first on Buzz Badger.

Better Informed in just 3.1416 minutes

Get the daily email that makes learning about current tech and coding trends fun. Stay engaged and on top of your industry, for free.

Subscribe Now

Morocco continued its improbable, historic run at the World Cup by defeating Portugal on Saturday, becoming the first African country to ever make the tournament’s semifinal round.

The team’s success has galvanized not only Moroccans living in the country, but also the estimated 5 million living abroad—which is where the majority of the team grew up.

Fourteen of Morocco’s 26 players were born abroad, the highest share of any team competing in the World Cup. One of its stars, Hakim Ziyech, was born in the Netherlands, and another, Achraf Hakimi, was born in Spain. So how can they play for Morocco? Under FIFA rules, players must be citizens of a country and check off certain requirements showing they have a “clear connection” to it, such as a parent or grandparent who was born there.

Big picture: The share of foreign-born players at the World Cup has been surging in recent decades, shaking up the traditional power dynamics associated with global soccer, Vox reports. At the first World Cup in 1930, 5% of players were born in a different country than they represented. This year, the share is 16.5% (about one in every six).

African countries have been especially aggressive in recruiting players from abroad. Of the 38 French-born players not playing on the French team this World Cup, for example, all but four represent African countries.

Speaking of France…it will try to end Morocco’s Cinderella story in Wednesday’s semifinal. The winner of that game will play the winner of Argentina vs. Croatia, which is taking place on Tuesday.

The post Morocco looks outside its borders for World Cup success appeared first on Buzz Badger.

Better Informed in just 3.1416 minutes

Get the daily email that makes learning about current tech and coding trends fun. Stay engaged and on top of your industry, for free.

Subscribe Now

Sports, like religion, have sometimes been criticized as an “opiate of the masses” for having the power to distract people from their real-world problems.

Right now in Argentina, it appears to be somewhat true. Despite the country’s swirling economic and political troubles, soccer-obsessed Argentines have been focused on little else but their beloved Lionel Messi beating France tomorrow and claiming the World Cup title.

“Football is our salvation. Everything around us is getting worse, yet this week we’re all joyful,” one fan told the FT.

So what’s getting worse in Argentina?

• The economic situation, for one. Nearly 40% of Argentines live below the poverty line, and annual inflation is expected to reach more than 100% in December.
• Other problems include: a drought that’s hammering crops, unsustainable debt loads, and political unrest after Vice President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner was convicted of corruption.

Being ticked off with the government is nothing new for Argentines, who tend to protest at the end of the year in a ritual known as the “December effect.” This December, the streets are again full—not with protesters, but with fans cheering on the Albiceleste, as Argentina’s soccer team is known.

Argentina isn’t the only economically hobbled country rallying around soccer. Moroccans, too, brushed aside their anger over skyrocketing prices to get behind their team’s magical World Cup run. “The Moroccan team has made us forget about our problems and the high cost of living,” a delivery worker told Africanews.

A victory could mean more than a morale boost

The country that wins the World Cup typically experiences an extra 0.25% bump in economic growth in the two quarters after the tournament, per new research from Marco Mello at the University of Surrey. That pick-me-up can mainly be attributed to an increase in exports as the country elevates its brand on the global stage. So, for instance, you might be more inclined to drink an Argentine Malbec over a Côtes du Rhône should Messi and the squad prevail tomorrow.

Bottom line: A World Cup victory will do little to cure Argentina’s long-standing economic and political challenges. But “even briefly,” Argentine writer Ariel Scher told Agence France-Presse, “it dazzles us with something that leaves a lasting memory.”—NF

The post In Argentina, hopes for soccer glory overshadow economic woes appeared first on Buzz Badger.