Aw, look you guys: With the grace of a 19th century African expeditionist, the L.A. Times is peering in on what those oh-so-polite Brits write in their oh-so-stilted version of our language as they watch our oh-so-entertaining sports. Awwww:

An NBA game was played Sunday in London, and the Daily Telegraph noted, “As far as value for money goes, not much can beat basketball. Nonstop on-court action breeds scores that reach triple figures, keeping you entertained every minute the ball is in play.”

In other words, it’s not the least bit like soccer.

Whoa. Wait. Was that … a dig at soccer? By George (all British people say this!), I think it was!

That’s confusing, not only because this particular L.A. Times story is written by staff writer Pete Thomas, and is not a column, and thus is ostensibly supposed to be objective. It’s also weird because, like, dudes, really? We’re making fun of soccer because people don’t score 100 points a game? People are still saying this stuff? Is it possible someone could like, i.e., be entertained by both of these sports for the nuance and physical beauty offered by both? I thought we settled on this a while ago.

But no, we all know soccer is teh suxor because there are like no goals and everyone dives and has funny haircuts and they’re foreign and maybe smelly. Gross, right? Am I right? I know, bro. Pete Thomas — you feel me, bro? You feel me.