IT'S GAME TIMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Jersey sponsors? Any news?
Was wondering this the other day: which democratic presidential candidate would make a better footy coach?

I doubt I'm the only one to have ever said, "OMG, my blatter!" as the half time whistle blows. Especially when the beer guy has been close by all game.

Did I just spell bladder, "blatter?"

Old age. It's a terrible thing.

No jersey news. Nothing imminent. Talks continue. Once a deal is reached, it will take some time to actually produce the new shirts for both the team and for merchandising.

No more centerfield foul pole?

I'm outraged! How will our overlapping right side players know where to deliver their pinpoint crosses??

only on a soccer blog could we read of a "centerfield foul pole"

(Of course even the ones in right and left field are "fair poles" -- Warner Wolf)

When the stands were shifted for a soccer configuration, the left field foul pole went with it and ended up in what would be center field.

Blatter is a lying scumbag. But I guess that's not really news to anyone.

Thank you, Goff. You are the ruler of the internets.

BigSoccer has some cool pix of the team store.

What was it before the Nats' store?

Can't make it to the game tonight - I'll risk high blood pressure by relying on FSC's coverage - but very much looking forward to Goff's first report of the year from Estadio RFK!

My guess is that the Jamaicans will get distracted by so much high-quality grass, resulting in a dominating performance by United: 4-0.

My guess is that the Jamaicans will get distracted by so much high-quality grass, resulting in a dominating performance by United: 4-0.

Posted by: BaltoFan | March 18, 2008 10:03 AM

Dude, that is funny on so many levels.

Foul pole, shmoul pole. The only changes that matter to me involve beer. Any word about the most delicious of liquids changing this year? Is the Guinness stand still there? Someone, ANYONE, please help!!!

Hey Goff, any word yet on which players are coming down for the Richmond game on Saturday? Starters?

I thought there was going to be a link to AfroMan's "I wanna get high" video SOMEWHERE in this blog. Out of protest, I am NEVER coming back to the soccer blog : )

ugh, why can't they fill in the pit with just a few rows of seats, or a plaza like the BMO field? they need SOMETHING to cover up the ugly. i was sort of embarrassed at MLS cup that we had to show off our crappy old stadium with a giant hole in one side

9 hours until kick off

I don't think we faced Ireland before Mexico and Germany in 2002. Unless you're not talking about the world cup games. If I recall, our group was portugal, S. Korea and Poland and our first match after group stages was Mexico. Am I wrong?

It'd be great if they built temporary bleachers in that pit and put us there.

Some sweet moves in that video clip.

March 27, 2002: Germany 4, USA 2
April 3, 2002: USA 1, Mexico 0
April 17, 2002: Ireland 2, USA 1

The Americans then played Uruguay, Jamaica and Holland before heading to the World Cup.

As for the Richmond friendly this weekend, I would expect mostly reserves. Won't know for sure until Friday.

¡DALE FÚTBOL! ¡QUIERO FUTBOL! ¡DALE FÚTBOL! ¡QUIERO FUTBOL!

Tonight BABY! Its time for DC To destroy Harbour View!!!!!!

It'd be great if they built temporary bleachers in that pit and put us there.

----------

Now that the Nats are gone, the sports commission will not spend another dime or an extra hour of man power on anything at RFK. And in fairness, RFK currently accommodate 46,000 spectators. DCU averages 20,000. There is no justification for adding seats. Get used to the gravel pit.

Barra4life, why would you want to move the Barra? They have great exposure and have become a signature on telecasts.

I have some sympathy for the Bolivian altitude case, but the "we should play where we were born" argument seems bit absurd.

How about moving that potential Argentina match mentioned above to Nacodoches, TX, home of Clint Dempsey. Perhaps we should arrange a friendly in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - the birthplace of Benny Feilhaber. Coming back to the Bolivian case it should be noted that many great Bolivian players past and present, including Marco and Jaime, were born in places like Santa Cruz which is distinctly not 11,000 feet above sea level.

Absurd? I'll tell you what's absurd, not including Mexico city in that ban. They play at altitude in some of the filthiest air on the planet. Absurd is not banning cities where heat and humidity is overwhelming. More players have died from extreme heat conditions than anything else. No one has died from playing at altitude. This is all politically driven and a farce. You don't think Brazil and Argentina had a say in this decision? And how well do you think it would go over if you included Mexico City in that ban?

Come on, I'm not saying the altitude thing is absurd, as you are right - there certainly seems to be more to the matter than simply altitude. I'm just saying the right to "play where we were born" is a bit silly, isn't it?

I don't understand what's absurd about it. Doesn't the US get to play where ever it wants? They made Mexico play in Columbus in winter. Should the US be forced to play in Houston in a moderate climate so as not to let the mexicans suffer from frostbite? And what about the club teams? Is it ok for the club teams to play in La Paz with no concern to the health of their players but only to look out for the Argentine and Brazilian national players? I was born in La Paz, I shouldn't be forced to travel 2 hours by plane to play the game I love. Blatter's an idiot.

David, having spoken with Oscar and Chico at length I can tell you for a fact that they could care less about being on tv. They want us to be the driving force behind the team. Historically the barra's in South America stand behind the goals. That's their vision for the the Barra here. Maybe in the new stadium it will come to pass.

And I know the stadium here isn't going to spend anymore money, I was just wishing outloud.

Now that the Nats are gone, the sports commission will not spend another dime or an extra hour of man power on anything at RFK. And in fairness, RFK currently accommodate 46,000 spectators. DCU averages 20,000. There is no justification for adding seats. Get used to the gravel pit.

Posted by: Goff | March 18, 2008 11:06 AM

Word.

By the way, given that the negotiations with the DCSEC are apparently not done for either DCU or the Nats, is it clear who gets parking revenue?

One of your colleagues (Fisher) told me in an e-mail that both teams get "almost entirely" all of the parking receipts, respectively. Is that what DCU says? I've always heard otherwise, but who knows what's true. I'd be disappointed to see DCU fans in effect subsidizing the Nats' parking plan (but life isn't fair - so it may be true).

Mr. Goff,

Any idea that if the England friendly does become official when it will be announced? I know many people are anxious to buy plane tickets. And will US Soccer get a ticket allocation?

Thanks. Oh yeah, I dig your site too!

Wish I could be there...any idea who will be the announcers torturing us tonight on FSC? Will they be here or in studio?

Here's an antidote to torture, to be used in conjunction with the mute button on the telly:

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/

Heading to Wembley,

I wouldn't worry about getting tickets for the England game. I don't see the English selling 90k seats to see the US national team come to town.

Blatter: To prate; to babble; to rail; to make a senseless noise; to patter.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Blatter

You honestly can't see 90,000 Brits that want to see their national team play?

Absurd? I'll tell you what's absurd, not including Mexico city in that ban. They play at altitude in some of the filthiest air on the planet. Absurd is not banning cities where heat and humidity is overwhelming. More players have died from extreme heat conditions than anything else. No one has died from playing at altitude. This is all politically driven and a farce. You don't think Brazil and Argentina had a say in this decision? And how well do you think it would go over if you included Mexico City in that ban?

Posted by: BarraBoliviano | March 18, 2008 11:28 AM
___________________________________________

EXACTLY! No one gave a Crap about playing in La Paz when we were getting whipped 7-0 6-0 in the 70's and 80s at home to brazil and Argentina, but all of a sudden when mighty brasil fell to bolivia in la paz and finally were once defeated in a qualifiers they claimed it was the altitude....

Don't forget that some of the initially restricted high-altitude cities were removed from this banned list.

You honestly can't see 90,000 Brits that want to see their national team play?

Posted by: Befuddled | March 18, 2008 12:37 PM
=========================================

If they don't get to Wembley for this match, their next chance to see their national team in action will be in October, against the glorious nation of Kazakhstan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_-_UEFA_Group_6

The USA-England game will be announced when negotiations are complete. I can't tell you more than that. Tix will be available through both the USSF and English organizers.

From what I understand, the Fox Soccer Channel game tonight will again utilize announcers watching a monitor at their studio in Los Angeles.

RK's right and it just goes to show the political aspect of this decision. Maybe next time we kick Brazil's butt in Santa Cruz they'll give us some props.

I guess the only fair thing to do is to play all future games in outer space or on the moon

Hello Mr. Goff,

Do you know if the field's alignment is pre- or post- Nationals? I used to be front row, center line for years. Baseball rotated the field so I moved almost eight yards down. Based on your previous comment about no thoughts by DCSC to improve the estadio, I was not sure if anything has been, or will be, done to move the field back where it was.

Well, any progress at RFK is good progress I suppose, even if those godforesaken dugouts are still there. And I've been following the updates on the team store on bigsoccer.com -- it looks awesome!

I can't wait to get to tonight's match. Vamos United!

WC Qualifiers in Barrow, Alaska!

If they don't get to Wembley for this match, their next chance to see their national team in action will be in October, against the glorious nation of Kazakhstan:

Posted by: tri-village

Very nice!

WC Qualifiers in Barrow, Alaska!
=========================================

That raises an interesting question: Has any U.S. men's or women's national team, at any level, ever hosted a match of any sort outside the lower 48? Also, has any Canadian national team ever exploited an opportunity to play an opponent north of, say, Edmonton?

Come on, I'm not saying the altitude thing is absurd, as you are right - there certainly seems to be more to the matter than simply altitude. I'm just saying the right to "play where we were born" is a bit silly, isn't it?

Posted by: NW FC | March 18, 2008 11:35 AM

No it isn't. It makes complete sense.

Let's kick some butt this evening, guys. Looking forward to a great game back at the wondeful estadio RFK. Can't wait until beertime and kickoff!!!!!!

I was born in Alaska. USSF please please set up a world cup qualifier against Mexico here! Seriously though, as long as the stadium and playing field is in accord with FIFA standards, any national team should be able to host matches where their "players wore born", end of discussion.

I must be missing something then. Johnnie Futbol, I am not being a jerk here, I just don't get it. Explain that slogan to me. I've been to Estadio Hernando Siles, watched lots of soccer there and understand the Bolivian argument. Hell, I think there is a good case to keep playing there. While "football is universal, do not discriminate against us" is a quality slogan, what does "we have a right to play where we were born" really mean? Not knocking the cause, just the slogan. As people have pointed out here, there are far better lines of reasoning to base the playing at altitude thing on than that line. Not to draw my previous and trivial comment out, but just clarifying my point, as silly and superfluous as that may be on its own.

Can the Croatians play a game in Brazil then since Eduardo was "born there"?

From the info I know Barra Brava will never sit behind the goal, they make enough moeny and have tV exposure in that section they are at now. Whoever wrote that Barra is not in it for exposure is Lost and confused. Please give me a good explanation as to why Barra has been in that section for 12 years if they really feel that being behind the goal is where they want to be? Do they need Bush to pass a law to allow them to sit there? If I am correct I read somewhere that LA NORTE formed from Barra members who wanted to sit behind the goal like in south america. The higher ups did not agree (including selling out there tickets to guate fans against the US). So those members left Barra Brava and started LA NORTE. I also read somewhere that the majority of the founders of LA NORTE are rarely part of LA NORTE anyway. Go figure.

BARRA Brava will stay in that section forever, even in a new stadium. so don't try to write somthing that is wrong. Unless a barra brava fan can actually tell me a good reason why they have not moved there already?

This is not a knock on Barra Brava or LA NORTE or the Screaming eagles (had to mention you so you don't get mad). Its a knock on the person who wrote such a false statement or got false information.

Maybe they use it because it's a catchier slogan than "Blatter's a corrupt, lying cheating scumbag"

And besides living in Cuba or North Korea, everyone has the right to play where they were born.

...what does "we have a right to play where we were born" really mean?

Posted by: NW FC | March 18, 2008 02:29 PM
--------------

Aside from the obvious literal meaning of letting someone play where they born, live, and implicitly die, there is the populist intonation that Morales has successfully played in other political issues.

Having been to La Paz, I think it's a beautiful and amazing city, but the lack of oxygen is a ligitimate issue. Requiring more time to climatize is a legitimate solution as well. It's not a fair comparison to extreme temperatures. You can still breathe when it's snowing, or hot and humid. But given your heart naturally beats faster when there is less air, regardless if you run or not, I think the argument can be made that for health reasons, you have to allow time for climitization.

But like all things Blatter (or Warner), this is far more policitical than anything.

Allow me to clarify some points regarding the Barra Brava. We've been in those same sections for the past 12 years because that's where the team put us from day 1. We had no idea about camera angles or tv exposure. We just took it and grew our group. The reason we're not behind the goal is because there are no seats behind the goal. It's our intention to do so in the new stadium as we want to keep ticket prices affordable for our members and to support United in our own way.

La Norte did in fact splinter from the Barra Brava. The issue of being behind the goal had nothing to do with it. They left for reasons I'd rather not go into on this blog.

Hi NW FC,

I just don't see much difference in the "football is universal don't discriminate against us" argument you prefer to the "you have the right to play where you were born." same thing to me. football is a universal sport, which means whereever people are born and raised there's football. therefore the sport should be played and enjoyed wherever people inhabit the earth. it's not satisfactory to say there are some Bolivian players from Santa Cruz, they can just play there. that still excludes a huge part of Bolivia's population.

in addition, maradonna's slogan clearly is meant to target people directly affected by FIFA's proposed restrictions and much less so those of us on the other side of the hemisphere. by suggesting it's a birth right the point is simply emphasize how fundamental the right to play football is (or conversely how fundamentally wrong it is to arbitrarily restrict where the game can be played), and to really connect with the anger Bolivians feel in response to FIFA's ban.

Any members from the orignial LA NORTE know the real story?

It wasn't anything bad or horrible, just a disagreement in support styles. If you really need to know, send me a PM on BigSoccer and I'll be happy to answer your questions.

Just post it on this blog. I want to know the story of LA NORTE.

Feel free to look me up at the Barra tailgate in Lot 8. I'll be there in about an hour.

Okay, I'll explain -- Barra was going to be the "People's Popular Front for the Support of United," but LN wanted to be the "Popular People's Front for United Support."

Weather tonight: Low 50s/High 40s with a 30 percent chance of rain, according to the National Weather Service.

Here's hoping the weather affects HV more than it affects DCU...

I don't know why you guys are going on about this "play where you were born stuff". This is just a sentence that Maradona spoke to a crowd at an event.

I, for one, stopped paying attention to what he says once he crashed and burned in a spiral of drugs, women and dulce de leche.

Splitters...

All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/quotes

Three hours!

Yo Goff what's the word on tonights game!!

....and I'm off to the tailgate!!! Vamos United!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think DC United is missing a great opportunity - they should build up the area behind the north goal, plant some grass and let people spread out some blankets to watch the game. Those tickets would sell.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.