Yes, the adverb says it all. And we have written on this topic before. Copyright holders tried to sue Roja in Spain, but lost because of “safe harbor” provisions in national law. US law has these as well. Basically, Roja does not control the content of its own site or reproduce the streams, therefore they are a conduit, not a content-stealing-creator.

Legalese? Kinda. But the implications for streaming websites would be terrible if they had to edit every aspect of user generated and submitted content. While they could merely react to complaints, the question arises: how can they test the authenticity of those complaints? Julien Asssange did not cringe at Swedish arrest warrants for sex crimes, but he flipped his shit when the US government asked him to sort through his wires to edit out sensitive content. Data management is costly, tedious, and boring.

So yes, my biases are on the table – like Roman Abramovitch, I like to sail my virtual yacht in safe harbors. But what makes me laugh is this….

The impotence of national authorities. DHS seized the US domain name, thereby disrupting Roja for a total of five minutes while they had to purchase a Spanish domain name. Total cost to Roja? Probably $10.99. Why didn’t DHS respect the Spanish court decision? Perchance…industry group lobbyists with friendly prosecutors that dream of future campaign contributions. (That is speculation. Do not cite me as a fact source.)

In all seriousness and misguided motives aside, Wikileaks showed the limits of this “whack-a-mole” approach – it also shows how ideas have trumped the material world. DHS has a domain worth $10.99, while the idea of Roja has found a new home. National governments have not come to grips with the lack of strength of their grip. They might as well handcuff us with wet noodles.

Another important aspect is the internet’s dissolution of the line between pictures, music, and video. These mediums have all merged into an easily copied, altered, edited, spliced, and improved form of art. Audacity, Windows Moviemaker, and Vimeo have proliferated to touch the lives of semi-creative people across all continents. Copyright law must change to accept this reality. “Fair use” today, is not” fair use” in the 20th century. The law has not accepted this yet, and the aging dinosaur industries dependent upon pay-per-view have not and never will accept it.

In sum, the business models based on 1) Medium monopolies and 2) Pay-per-algo will use their remaining weight to strangle innovators. I thus feel profound sadness for my friends at Roja.I shot them an email. But Roja will win. They fight the good fight. Even if their site disappears, the concept shall live on; the change is in the air. Broadcasters will and must soon rely on revenue by association with non-obnoxious advertisers. This will initially cut profits, but the credible broadcasters will thrive. Those that currently squeeze blood from stones will perish.

In terms of European soccer, the TV rights corporate juggernaut has a grip on our collective conscious, but in many countries a belief exists in a public right to view matters of public affairs. Sport fits into this category. Decades ago, sports made a truce with the devil: get your ads, make some money, but show us to the world.  Now that we no longer need the devil, why keep the horned-fella around? The devil fights tooth and nail because he cannot justify his existence.

Of course, DHS could up the ante and issue arrest warrants for the individuals who ran Roja Directa. Good luck convincing the Spanish authorities…

Don’t make that face. Don’t lie to me. As an individual with a blog and access to Google search analytics, I know the superficial truth and the deeper truth. You hate Landon.The phrase “Donovan is a b$$$ch” populates my website with trolls in waiting. Yet the irony drapes the window of your soul like a curtain. You hate him, yet you actively seek to read about him?

I suggest professional help for the both of you. Like a failed marriage, attempts at reconciliation are a good idea. However, at some point you feel your stomach churn when you get a certain somebody’s tweets. The world turns and spontaneous calls to “check in” turn into needy cries for affection. But a professional can help.

As your trusted blogger, I will agree to file a fan’s dissolution petition for significantly less than the going “attorney” rate. And I’m not like that notary who filed a frivolous asylum petition that got your undocumented friend in hot water. Consto!

So let’s begin.

First, Donovan is destitute. The recession has hit us all in odd ways. He is not getting an Everton-easy-payday-loan this winter, so he has to scrape by on his MLS salary. This is easy when you rent an apartment and drive a clunker, but Mr. Donovan has serious obligations – he’s so down on his luck that he has to drink tapwater. From a fountain.

Second, see that ring finger? Yep, Donovan is divorced. He is going through a traumatic and painful times, so he deserves your sympathies like any other human being. Plus, based on his MLS salary and lack of Everton cash, he included a request for “spousal support.” Generally, spousal support is available when one member of the couple assumed a “caretaker role.” So don’t believe your eyes and ignore the television – Landon did not travel non-stop to play sports, he spent all day at home baking brownies for his actress wife. Now that she’s gone, he simply has no alternative means to sustain himself.

Third, Donovan did not disappoint on the field. He scored a heroic goal against Algeria to advance at the World Cup. True, he did dedicate that goal to his estranged (and now ex) wife. Odd? Surely. Out of this world? Not entirely. And he also buried a clutch penalty kick to force extra-time vs. Ghana.

So, yeah, he does the occasional Mexican lottery commercial. He spills beans to journalists instead of confronting teammates. But, despite all that, he deserves your pity. So please, go your separate ways Dono-haters and leave the man alone.

The International Football Association Board has issued a new rule ahead of this month’s World Cup. Law 14, concerning penalty kicks, now reads “Feinting in the run-up to take a penalty kick to confuse opponents is permitted, however, feinting to kick the ball once the player has completed his run-up is now considered an infringement of Law 14 and an act of unsporting behaviour for which the player must be cautioned.”

But why the change? Brazil. Yep. Brazil. We take a sabbatical from Spanglish to educate you on the Portuguesespeakerers. As best we can.

A little linguistic background for the anglos. Parada is the same in Spanish and Portuguese – it means “stop.” Thus, a bus or metro stop would be a parada. Pararse is “to stop.” In Portuguese, rather than saying “illo” or “ito”, they like to add “inho” or “inha” to form the diminutive. Hence, Ronaldinho. Accordingly, paradinha means the little stop. Now onto the law.

First off, the general reaction to Law 14 is simple – what act could possibly warrant a yellow card for a penalty kick. Well, let’s take a look at one such “paradinha” taken by Ronaldo while at Corinthians.

Get over the 2 miles per hour turn and the questionable penalty. Yes, Ronaldo still has nice footwork, but is that penalty even remotely sporting? I was a bit confused – I learned that once an advancing player completely stops, his penalty is over. Thus, I assumed you could not completely stop and then kick.

Neymary did not assume that. Nope, he sent Rogerio of Sao Paolo the wrong way with the greatest of ease.

Granted, Neymar at least did not set his shooting foot down after the first dummy. Surely in the cosmic universal order of justice, that counts for something. Right? Right?

Now, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that a goalie does not bite on the first feint. Let’s assume he is a reaction goalie, like Ricardo of Portugal, and leans on his toes while waiting to pounce. Wouldn’t the paradhina be an easy save?

Also, why a yellow card punishment? Why not just simply disallow the goal and blow the whistle when they stop? It seems that would be the fairest punishment for scoring by artifice and also deter any future paradinhas.

In the alternative, maybe goalies should be allowed to run off their line the second a player stops ala the old MLS style penalty kicks. Just take a look a this Peter Vermes classic…

Do you remember from our Spanglish days that kind of goal? Cucharita, Globito, y Arco Iris are all correct answers.

What did you want for Chrismas? A new Ipod? A new laptop? Well, the mid and lower table sides in the Premiership, nay, the world, really wanted something much simpler – a coherent enforcement mechanism to punish guilty parties.  If Justice without Power is impotence, then power without justice is tyranny. And this Christmas, the Chelsea “appeal” that overturned their transfer ban shows once again that justice for some is not the same justice for all.

Yes, the Blues got a delightful Christmas gift. Bosingwa is out for three months, but no worries – they can just purchase a fill-in with the stadium naming right profits. Feliz navidad for the top of the table, but winter may be a time of desperation for the cash-strapped middle class. Make that may a will.

Many commentators made hullabaloo of the fact Bolton pushed for reforms a few months ago. More specifically, they wanted a financial cushion for team’s facing relegation. But did anyone expect an impetus for change to come from the top of the table? The top four will no doubt push a salary cap so as to control their biggest problem, rampant wages, but none of them would offer a luxury tax as per the US baseball system. Why would they tie their own hands? The aristocracy will not willingly sell the family heirlooms.

One alternative to any radical change, such as a relegation “golden parachute,” could be to simply grease the wheels of justice already in place. A look at recent punishments and appeals shows a gaping chasm between the haves and the have-nots. Let’s take a brief glimpse at some recent cases.

West Ham had  a third party contract, all too common in the real world (The Beatles do not own their music!), with Carlos Tevez, got sued, settled, and the EPL banned third party deals. United tried a similar third party clause in their Howard loan to Everton, the clause got torn up, but Everton ultimately acquiesced to not playing the Yank goalkeeper vs. United.

So, the mid-table club gets punished and pays for third party meanderings, the law is rewritten to prevent similar future deals, but my beloved United circumvents the law with a gentleman’s agreement. Peachy. Does this show the limits of a white paper law in a world of green financial muscle… or an unwillingness to add teeth to enforcement?

A more recent case was the FIFA playoffs, which put the “seedy” in “seedyings.” The system was implemented ex post facto to ensure several marketable nations with a strong traveling contingent can book their flights to South Africa in advance. But the shenanigans did not stop there.

For the World Cup draw, FIFA decided at the last minute to rank teams based on October, not November, so as to buck France from the top pot. In lieu of actually punishing them by suspending their star striker with the quick hand, that is.

And now the case at hand. Sepp Blatter said the Chelsea ban was final. Chelsea appealed, even though (snicker) their chances were deemed “slim.” And they won. I can see the cognitive dissonance in your eyes – it looks like a combination of fog, mist, and soda foam. Me, the Madrid fan, the champion of the limited champions league, complaining about CEO-Judge backscratchery? Yes.

The double standard on appeals boggles the mind. On the one hand, a modest Chilean team (relegated) filed a lawsuit against its national association and FIFA twisted arms to get the case dismissed. However, when Chelsea appeals to the Court of Arbitration, the case gets fast tracked to overturned and nobody cries foul. A yellow card? No. That’s a straight red!

A meritocracy requires success based on merit. I have no trouble with a club buying a player, but bending and twisting the rules to the breaking point is a different matter. As the Premiership records record profits yet the major clubs get mired in debt and the rich-poor gap exponentially explodes, perhaps the time has come for investment in an old fashioned concept: the rule of law. But the rule of law entails stepping on big toes at inopportune times….

…and what grinch would want to ruin the Christmas celebrations at Stamford Bridge?

No word generates more confusion in the American English language than “strike.” When referring to the long revered sport of bowling, a strike is when the player knocks down all the pins on his first attempt. A strike is desired. When referring to America’s national past time, baseball, a strikeout is when the pitcher manages to throw three strikes past a waiting batter. The batter is then “out.” Thus, a strike is undesirable.

And, of course, my preferred terminology is strike the verb – “to strike a match.” TV deals, expansion and the MLS Expansion Draft, Seattle sellouts: MLS is a league on the rise. Yet Grant Wahl‘s recent Becks book showed the pauper class primarily responsible, the overeducated and underpaid college graduates who toil from coast to coast in packed coach flights.

Well, they’re pissed. And the simmering tensions threaten to engulf a virgin forest of a league in the ensuing flames. 

I remember the NHL heyday in the last 90′s and early twenty first century, when the league expanded into the southern United States and the sky was the limit. However, when the CBA expired, disagreements arose because the commissioner insisted on “cost certainty.” Basically, the owners wanted a link between player’s salaries and team revenues. Players, of course, wanted free-for-all competition so that team owners would outbid one another for their services. The dispute led to the cancellation of the season, and the NHL is still recovering.

The current MLS dispute has the makings for a major problem. The MLS players union believes in a philosophical shift from the single entity structure to individual ownership. The MLS owners enjoy the current structure and want to talk dollars & cents – less onerous contracts and a decent pay bump. In sum, the two sides can’t even agree to disagree because one talks apples and the other oranges.

Despite the modest TV contract, very few MLS teams turn a profit. In fact, for the last decade, several owners have been eating losses on the sport for either love of the game or anticipation of long-term gains. Or perhaps they like to pretend they are mini-Sheiks.

Regardless, both sides feel underpaid and overextended. Owning the Columbus Crew does not carry the same prestige as Newcastle United (well, well). And puritanical restrictions on sports gambling prevent lucrative sponsorships like in the UK. So even though you could go to the BetUS site to place football bets, creative MLS owners could not place their moniker on a jersey.

So let’s assume the CBA expires and we enter into a lock-out/strike scenario. The MLS could alter its organizational rules to bring in South American talent all too happy for a paycheck in dollars. Conversely, US players could exodus to Scandinavia for a chilly paycheck. Think I’m crazy? Several NHL players plied their trade in Russia for the NHL lockout. Brush up on your Swedish, Conor Casey.

But where does that leave US fans? And how would that affect TV contracts with ESPN? And attracting new ownership? Olvidatelo!

My sincere hope is that the MLS players union has really good attorneys who have started off by asking for the world, but will gravitate towards the reality of a nascent league starting to grow some legs. In reality, a decent pay bump and the elimination of “option years” on rookie contracts would allow young MLS players to test European competition against stingy American owners. If I were a gambling man looking to beat the sports book spread, I’d lay down a fiver on this possibility. But I’m also a broke optimistic fool.

Regardless of motives and negotiation tactics and my not so subtle sponsor plugs, both the players and owners  should heed a warning from Prometheus. Fire consumes everything it touches, even it’s creator. Be careful before striking a match.

Despite apology after apology, Sir Alex has been punished by the English Football Association for criticizing referee Alan Wily’s fitness after a 2-2 draw with Sunderland. Sir Alex was fined and banned from the touchline for 4 matches, 2 of them suspended.

Suspended? Basically, if Sir Alex “misbehaves” at a future date, he can be punished for the second offense in addition to being banned two games for the prior misconduct. I understand the rationale: deterrence. Supposedly, Sir Alex will not want to engage in risky behavior with the 2 games hanging over his head.

But does this rationale add up? Here’s how I think it will play out…

Let’s assume Sir Alex is a rational actor and take look ahead at United’s schedule. In early January, it would be in the Scots’ best interest to have a go at a ref before or after the Birmingham game, sit out Burnley & Hull City, and then have no leash in the build-up to the potentially crucial Arsenal game.

He could also wait until the end of March, complain after the West Ham match, miss Wolves & Fulham, and have a license to ill vs. his nemesis Mr. Benitez. Assuming Rafa is still employed.

Or maybe, just maybe, a coach who throws shoes at his players is not a cunning sophisticated actor. In which case, the premise behind suspended sentences is an academic’s wet dream but a legal practitioner’s headache.

I think Sir Alex will try to get the games served before the Arsenal game, assuming he doesn’t make any related New Year’s resolutions.

I have one simple question: if the Spurs have truly spent a ton in the transfer market, then why do you not hate them as much as City? Granted, the Carlos Tevez posters were poor taste, but surely someone must hate Tottenham for their exorbitant cash splashery. Are Arsenal fans merely ahead of the curve? Explain yourself!

More importantly, where is all this money coming from? Is Harry Redknapp’s football manager deal really that lucrative? Or perhaps the Spurs board, in close consultation with an honorary member named Madoff, has imported the Pompey-funny-numbers-approach. Is an AIG mega sponsorship deal in the works?

Then it hit me – the ace in the hole, the trick up the sleeve. What was Spurs’ biggest moneymaker? Berbatov. BERBATOV. Of course! Just look at this paragraph closely…

Did you see that nebulous little tidbit about the Berbatov sale? The ever-so-crucial detail which will cause gold to rain down on Radio Shack -White Hart Lane? Look again.

Clauses! The deal has performance clauses! This means Manchester United could still pay an arm-and-a-leg to Spurs depending on Berbatov’s form. Thus far in his illustrious Red Devils career he has 13 league goals in one-and-a- half years. So at roughly $15 million dollars per goal, Spurs are in the clear. And if the deal is for $20 million per goal, they are sitting pretty.

Now if only Harry could clear his good name. And one can only begin to fathom the cosmic tension in the universe as Spurs fans watch every United game, holding their breath and hoping for a Berbatov appearance, while, on the other hand, United fans watch the same game and…