I know it is probably enjoyable, but one can get into a rut of just sitting around. 12-14 hours per week IS a lot. Might I suggest turning the TV/computer/whatever off occasionally and doing something instead of sitting and watching football.? After all, Saints play only around 90+ minutes a week, so where's the need. Life is passing by. Pretty soon you get to the age where those things you wanted to do, and do quite well, but never got around to it are beyond your physical reach. Not criticising, just suggesting, as you revealed your habits in asking the question. In answer, for me, I would say about 2 hours a week. 90 minutes plus a few extras. Nothing if there is an international break.
Well I do do stuff, and am more active than a majority of people I know. I play football 3 times a week and go to the gym 3 or 4 times a week. After working for 8 hours Monday-Friday then after either an hour of football or 60-90 mins in the gym I am usually pretty content to cook some dinner and watch football on TV. Weekends I will play a match on the Saturday then go for a couple of beers after, so I think I am having a pretty balanced life between being a football watching hermit and actually doing something as you put it.
Arrogant = Sergio Ramos!! He is the King of the profession. We better not forget Eric Cantona and Roy Keane, whose arrogance seems to have increased since becoming a pundit!
Man Utd will keep winning against weakened teams with their own weakened team, and Mourinho will keep moaning about fixtures, and they'll go on to win it again
Victory for the (relatively) 'little guys' as the top six abandon their plans to try to force through a change to TV rights income distribution to give them greater proportion. Proportionally higher payments for top clubs isn't about rewarding success, but (further) entrenching their position.
please log in to view this image Harry Reed has started for Norwich who are currently leading hosts Arsenal 1-0 .
I agree...they don't need the money. They may be logically correct in the idea that the big clubs are watched by more people and perhaps the ones at the top deserve more....however, they have plenty of money...it's just greed.
What they fail to realise is that a competitive league is a more appealing product, both nationally and internationally. Half the reason the Premier League is hyped as the best league in the world is that supposedly anyone can beat anyone (which is rubbish, but anyway) and compared to a lot of other major European leagues, it is a lot more competitive, even if most teams are making up the numbers. By giving the top clubs more and more money and increasing the gap between the top and the bottom of the league, the league will become even less competitive and the occasional defeat of Man City or Chelski or Man U by less glamorous clubs will become as rare as Leicester's PL win. Similarly, part of my attraction to the NFL is that it's such a competitive league where anyone can beat anyone, so much so that the term Any Given Sunday was used as the title of a film. The NFL, unlike those incompetent fools at the FA/PL, realise maintaining competitiveness is essential for maintaining appeal, hence there are various safeguards to ensure competitiveness and prevent the elitism that can be seen in English football.
