Yes. Was that hard?
The WSJ didn't write this article for you, it isn't an industry rag. This is like complaining that their scientific articles try to dumb it down for a layman's depth.
A football field or soccer field is a perfectly reasonable unit of measure when you're simply trying to convey "a lot" to someone.
Apply the Principle of good faith and you'll see you're the one getting worked up over nothing...
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. They include:
"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."
I've linked to the OP's original comment but to paraphrase:
"LOL, I can't take anyone seriously when they use Imperial units. It's unprofessional."
Soccer pitches? Not so much ... FIFA states the field of play for international matches should be 100-110m long and 64-75m wide (tolerances are relaxed to 90-120m long by 45-90m wide - which oddly means you could have a square pitch). If one would like an example of a comically undersized pitch, look to NYFC playing at Yankee stadium - they had to get a special exemption from MLS, IIRC.
Still useful, though, and I think a reasonable person with familiarity with either soccer or football would get a rough idea.
Please don't take this as criticism ; it's not meant to be. The mention of football and soccer fields being used as a measure of size in the same sentence sparked recollection of some not-otherwise-useful knowledge stuck in my brain.
Most people have seen a football or soccer field and understand the approximate size.
At least in the UK it's somewhat of a 'meme', a byword for a tabloid, in the same league as irrelevant mentions of age and house price, etc.
I've seen golf bags mentioned quite often. But, come to think of it, that's about equivalent to a body, isn't it?
An example: https://youtu.be/J-falgJE1xg?t=211
