Adani slave to his character, viewers reject the show at the World Cup

In the case of Adani, the supporting actor should be the sidekick of another supporting actor, the commentator, who in turn should be able to keep the right distance from the protagonists who move on the field.

Then, there they are the word. They should be chosen and handled with care, even and above all when they are put at the service of the story of football, the most popular expression of the collective ritual. When there are too many, and lined up with the preconceived objective of always surprising a little more, they also become grotesque. Not because they are exaggerated nor because they are biased. Exaggerating, every now and then, can make sense and showing your infatuation with a football culture or its main interpreter without too many filters should not be considered a crime.

The problem, which is substantial and not formal, is to think about the effect that words have, on the final result they produce. It would remain on a formal level if Adani did not respect his role but managed to convey something that adds value to what he sees on the field. It could be judged more or less effective, more or less appropriate. Instead, it becomes a substantial question when looking at the increasingly widespread perception of those who listen to it. The barrage of negative comments that it collects via social media comes close to the judgment that even experts are now struggling to dilute. It is the viewers, even before the critics, who reject a show that has lost its meaning.

Adani says, coldly, after the commentary is over: “The words come to me on their own, they are words of feeling and sometimes I don’t even know what I’m saying. They are the tears brought on by the love of football and I’m happy to share them.” The theme, which is anything but secondary, is to understand how many people are still really happy to listen to them.