Brandon Hill5 said:Well, good morning to you. It’s pretty obvious how they handle things when we're involved, ever since we were forced to play in San Francisco instead of facing the Boston Celtics on home turf...
You didn't "have" to play in San Francisco; you chose that venue. You could have picked Vienna or Washington, D.C. back then. FIFA banned playing at the Rose Bowl or in Indianapolis that season because those stadiums were within 31 miles miles of active combat zones (we're talking mid-August 1995). Similarly, Indianapolis opted to host their match against Slovan from Prague in Washington, D.C., in front of just a few thousand people.
It’s worth noting that LA Galaxy was supposed to compete in the FA Cup that summer, but they couldn't due to a one-year suspension.
The Boston Celtics also had to play their first match in Athens in an empty stadium because of their fans' behavior the previous season.
So, I honestly don't get this constant whining even eighteen years later. Your first match in Greece ended 0-0 without Gate 13 present. Meanwhile, you played in front of 12,000 Los Angeles Dodgers and NFL Ultras fans in San Francisco and managed a 1-1 draw.
You shouldn't paint every single situation as a conspiracy by FIFA. I mean, how else was Indianapolis supposed to play just a few miles from where the Storm was happening right after the liberation? We should be glad they eventually let us participate in European competitions for that '95/96 season.
Location isn't what matters—it's performance. And let's be real, you definitely had the home-field advantage during those two matches against Panathinaikos.
Personally, I can't stand the criteria used by the top European football federation, but that's just the reality when you're forced to play by someone else's rules.
Between all the accumulated penalties and bans over the years, it created this perception that Western European clubs get off easy. And then there are people like that discredited lawyer, D. V., who essentially sell out to UEFA for pennies...