Responses to Ethan Tussey’s “Imagining Possibilities at the 2026 Men's World Cup”

Charlotte Howell, Boston University: First, I appreciate that we're both calling the tournament the Men's World Cup. It's a phrasing I've seen a lot in feminist sports fan circles (and online influencers) but I’m all for incorporating it into the scholarly discourse as well! I think it's especially pertinent given your topic and the way sex-segregated sports represent homosocial spaces that can sometimes be read or re-written as homosexual. I, too, saw a lot of the Heated Rivalry edits for Haaland and Bellingham, and praise for both individually for their "renovated masculinity." But I think it's also interesting thinking about this tournament and its star media narratives in terms of rivalries (or lack thereof). The most prominent rivalry in men's soccer (Ronaldo vs. Messi) has fizzled in recent years as both have moved on to lucrative but distant non-European leagues. The rivalries that were hyped (England vs. Argentina; Spain vs. France) were far less interesting than the underdog games that you started off discussing, and they didn't quite have the same personal star vs. star narrative that often goes into these international tournament rivalries. I mean, one of the biggest points about the England vs. Argentina match was that it was the first time the teams had faced each other in 20 years. Not exactly the most gripping interpersonal drama! Instead, we had the future of the sport without the heat or rivalry; just respect and (in fan edits) affection. Finally, I must recommend Abby Waysdorf's article about football (RPF) slash fanfiction from Transformative Works and Cultures. 

Kathryn Hartzell, Denison University: Thank you for this thoughtful discussion of the possibilities and productive reimagining of masculinity these romantic edits produce. Before the Men's World Cup, I'd been aware of these edits and of the popularity of the relationship between Haaland and Bellingham in general. However, I was shocked to see the widespread circulation of these edits, likely (as you note) in response to the popularity of Heated Rivalry. Historically, Real Person Fanficaton (RPF) has been a subset of fan practices that is often looked down upon by other fan creators who may view RPF as invasive or exploitative (I note Elise Vist's project on hockey RPF). What is really interesting to me is the way sports marketers, and other creators working in a promotional capacity for sports leagues, have been adopting these narrative strategies in attempts to sell sports to women viewers. Although some creators posted their edits to popular social media platform like Instagram, marketers and opportunistic creators have also taken edits, gif sets, or fanfiction originally written for small publics online out of context and shared more widely to increase engagement online. Fan creators often have negative, or at least highly ambivalent feelings about seeing their works shared with the objects of their writing or with a general public that does not have the same community values. As the industry once again interprets the success of these edits as evidence that sports media should be "feminized" to recruit women to these events (Rowe, 2011), I think of Charlotte Howell's work on the marginalization of women's sports and women's women sports fans. The subversive and joyful nature of slash edits of sports stars quickly become complicated when exploited for economic gain by institutions that consistently see women as a different and distinct segment rather than the core, male sports audience. I'm really interested to see whether these trends continue and how fan creators respond to their own post-Heated Rivalry exposure. 

Responses to Charlotte Howell’s “Telemundo vs Fox: Established vs. Event Soccer Fans Appeal”

Kathryn Hartzell, Denison University: The dueling 2026 Men's World Cup coverage on Fox and Telemundo was one of my favorite meta-narratives of this summer's games. Thank you so much for delving into the rupture created because Fox viewed their audience as generally U.S. sports fans rather U.S. soccer fans. Peacock's more affordable coverage of every game compared to Fox's fractured telecast distribution that spanned broadcast, cable, and occasionally streaming made Peacock a much more convenient option for many people living in the U.S. Language, it turned out, was less of a barrier to many U.S. viewers than price or ease of access. It was also, as you argue so well, the style of the telecasts and shoulder programming in the form of studio shows that made Peacock more attractive to so many viewers. Aaron Timm's takedown of host Alexi Lalas in The Guardian memorably summarized the frustration of many seasoned U.S. soccer/football fans with Fox's uncomfortable incorporation of rants and polemical invective — common in U.S. football media — into the very short studio analysis segments. With so little time devoted to Fox's analyst teams compared to commercial breaks, how important really was language fluency? I will be very interested to see how long international/transnational soccer rights continue to be split into two language packages. This summer, NBCUniversal Telemundo acquired Spanish-language rights to all UEFA competitions. I suspect however, that the popularity of Paramount's UEFA Champions League banter cast, in which the wonderful Kate Scott essentially babysits ex-club players, will continue. The cosmopolitan make-up and sporting talent of Paramount's analysts will likely afford the hyper masculine, personality-driven hijinks of that show an "authenticity" pundits like Lalas fail to achieve. Also, I note that Apple is cutting its Spanish-language commentary teams for MLS. This suggests that Apple's premium subscription strategy for MLS is a deterrent for an audience that embraces soccer. It also shows an unwillingness to cater to a passionate fanbase that Apple deems less valuable than the Anglophone audience.

Ethan Tussey, Georgia State University: Your closing sentence, "Fox was for the every-four-years fans, and Telemundo was for the every-season soccer fans." perfectly captures the logic of the broadcasting strategies of the different networks. It plays into the cosmopolitanism that you note in your post and allows "true futbol" fans to further distinguish themselves from a broader American audience. I am left wondering if you think this will ever change. Perhaps it is the whims of my algo, but there seemed to be more complaining about Alexi Lalas than I can ever remember reaching the broader conversation. Part of that complaint was the imbalance of the expertise of the panelists, accomplished global football stars Thierry Henry and Zlatan Ibrahimovic having much more impressive international credentials than Lalas. Additionally, the way that US audiences embraced watch parties and civic gatherings reached Olympic level enthusiasm. I understand that the joke about the Olympics is that every four years, American viewers relearn the rules of curling or gymnastics, but football is on many more broadcasters and streaming platforms than those niche sports. Maybe the next broadcaster, if Fox was to lose the rights, will lean more into NBC's approach to the Premiere league and let Rebecca Lowe drive a bit more? At least that will take some of the sting out of the "hydration breaks." 

Responses to Kathryn Hartzell’s “What is a Social View? The Fragmenting Sports Mega Event”

Charlotte Howell, Boston University: Thank you for the deep-dive into all the different fractured attempts by Fox to engage the Men's World Cup audience! There's a lot more visible ways to build hype for a media product than there used to be, but it's also interesting to think about the creators hired by Fox or FIFA in terms of who they are and what kind of audience niche they're addressing (or are at least meant to address). iShowSpeed, for example, isn't known as a soccer fan, correct? More of a general sports fan if anything. And at a different scale, Fox employing NFL stars Gronk and Jameis Winston for both a soccer talk show on Tubi called The Other Football which positioned them as newbies to the sport, and embedding Winston with fans as a correspondent during the tournament indicates the desire to bring in fans from other sports to the tournament instead of working within established soccer stars and influencers. Of course, given my piece, you can probably guess my thoughts on that. :) 

Ethan Tussey, Georgia State University: Thank you for your piece and for highlighting the ways that media companies use social numbers as part of their claims of broad viewership. I find these claims especially frustrating given Branden Buehler's work on alternate broadcasts which point out that these multiplatform or alternative booth options that have been brought about by digital media have degraded the communal experience of sport. On the other hand, it may lead more fans to the main broadcast via niche interests, not unlike the Heated Rivalry themed shipping I discussed in my post. I wonder if in your dive into the numbers you got a sense of how many folks were drawn into the main broadcast after discovering a frame for watching the games via an influencer. I can imagine that there were many consumers of the men's World Cup whose experience was entirely dedicated to watching foreign visitors marvel at American culture, food, and places. One could have had a pretty excellent viewing experience just living vicariously through German Freddy's social media posts. While a certainly valid way to experience the tournament, does it provide the same shared experience as watching the games themselves? Does sport still bring people together if it is merely the backdrop to a food tour of America? I suppose it depends on what viewers' lasting impressions of the games will be.