It's the LA Times, a clearly American newspaper, so of course the reader must assume football = "American" football. This is not contentious.

Further, the contention of the article is simply that there are many perspectives to a game like (American) football, and every perspective is limited in some way, not receiving the full information of everything happening simultaneously, and this also applies to any video source. Not sure how that relates to fascism, but somehow it apparently does. Regardless, the contention is just as applicable to soccer (aka the shortened name the brits made for Association Football)

Unless LA stood for Latin America haha.

Surprisingly, the natively english speaking world is about evenly split on "soccer" vs "football".

I guessed American when it was compared to Hockey, Baseball and Basketball.

In Melbourne, Australia, Football is again another sport (but it not being called Footy gives it a way).

Most of what he writes (including the part on the skycam) applies to soccer as well.

Maybe, but soccer doesn't have very many situations where there are ~14 players standing in spitting distance of each other and a 6 inch shift in the position of the ball or a single player has huge implications for the outcome of the game.

Aren't free kicks an example of this? There must be a few in every soccer game, no?

But I don't know how many times the 14 player scenario happens per game in American Football, is it a lot more?

Soccer fans also miss out on an hour of commercials each game (it's easy to skip the ones at halftime).