Football (soccer): the offsides rule is that much of a sacred cow?

[Dead_Badger]

I’d just like to add that I think a large factor in the American perception that there aren’t enough goals in football stems from the fact that most Americans only pay attention to football during the knockout stages of the World Cup (if then). I think it’s certainly the case that in knockout competition, teams tend to get a lot more defensive in the later stages, because the stakes are higher and the cost of riskier play is much more absolute. So you frequently see very tight matches with neither team willing to commit forward a great deal, lest they be caught on the break and end up trying to break down an opposition defending a 1-0 lead and sticking 11 men behind the ball.

Good old wikipedia indicates there have been 20 penalty shootouts in the World Cup since they were introduced in the early 70s. Due to the various tournament formats used since then, that represents 112 knockout matches (if I haven’t miscounted). So that’s 20 games that must’ve ended even after 90 minutes plus whatever extra time and sudden death was implemented at the time. I can’t seem to find a ready source of data to tell how many of those were scoreless, but it’s still quite a high percentage of draws, it seems to me, particularly taking into account extra time. There were a couple of 0-0s in last year’s tournament, certainly (England/Portugal and the utterly dire Switzerland/Ukraine). If someone more enterprising than me can be bothered to work it out, I wouldn’t be surprised to see 0-0s and 1-0s were much more common in knockout play than in league play.

On the subject of penalties, I really liked the suggestion upthread by MaxTheVool about a better potential tie-breaker. While I’m not convinced that penalty shootouts are the complete travesty they’re sometimes made out to be, I think the sort of powerplay trial scheme he described could be fantastically entertaining. I’d love to see it tested somewhere, even if nothing comes of it.

[Yookeroo]

@Dead Badger

Probably the 3-2 match, but you know it is more likely to have been special precisely because it is relatively rare; if 3-2 matches were made ten a penny, it’d no longer be an indication of an entertaining game.

Why not? It’s not only rarity that makes a 3-2 game entertaining. You’re more likely to have lead changes and come from behind victories. And goals in and of themselves are entertaining.

If you make the 0-0 match extremely rare, would that really increase its entertainment value?

@Dead Badger

Believe it or not, thrilling 0-0 draws do happen,

Yes. this gets trotted out every time anyone suggests that the sport just might be improved by higher scoring games. I see fans waxing rhapsodic about the 0-0 tie, but when it comes down to it, the games fans get excited about are games that match teams with reputations for attacking soccer. And the results that seem to excite people are those 3-2 matches.

@Dead Badger

even if they’re rare. Sometimes teams compete for 90 minutes, and go away with the honours even. And for that matter, 0-0 draws aren’t as common as all that - check out the number of goals scored in the Premiership this weekend, for example. Arsenal recently stuck seven past (an admittedly dire) Slavia Prague, and Chelsea tonked Man City 6-0 over the weekend. Is this really a sport that has problems with scoring?

Changing the rules to increase scoring doesn’t make any of the protagonists more skilful, or the football they play any more entertaining.

The problem isn’t so much a lack of goals, it’s that negative soccer gets rewarded. And with the way things stand now, teams get rewarded for packing the penalty area and hoping to steal a tie or win. Is this entertaining?

Another question, who would you rather watch, flowing attacking soccer, say, Pele era Brazil or Cruyff era Holland or would you rather watch catenaccio.

[Dead_Badger]

@Yookeroo

Another question, who would you rather watch, flowing attacking soccer, say, Pele era Brazil or Cruyff era Holland or would you rather watch catenaccio.

Honestly, both. And indeed I can; the very existence of the two contrasting styles for you to cite is surely proof enough that both can flourish, and have done in the past. Moreover, if I simply decided that the former was the be-all and end-all, and legislated its dominance, I would have taken away its very purpose in the first place. The whole point of attacking flair is that it is tested against resolute defence. I have never understood this almost ritual belittling of defensive play; without it, the attacking flair that is apparently so prized would be superfluous. If you can’t appreciate the skill involved in a well timed last-ditch tackle, or see the value in a well-organised defence or intelligent goalkeeper, then you’re missing half the game. And this goes for pretty much any sport you care to name.

An example of the negative effects this sort of mentality has was the refereeing at the last World Cup. Sepp Blatter, in his infinite wisdom, decided that the flair players must be protected at all costs, and directed his officials to throw around yellow cards like confetti. Instantly, said flair players recognised that throwing themselves to the ground in the hope of getting their opponents booked was a far more reliable tactic than actually playing the game, and thus at a stroke exciting attacking play was reduced, even as defenders were hamstrung, then suspended for some of the most important matches of their careers.

As demonstrated to you earlier by mhendo, 0-0 is really not that common a result; only 8 in 107 matches this season in the Premier League - is that really a worrying number? I quite honestly don’t think you’ve even nearly demonstrated the existence of the problem you’re insisting we “solve”. There are plenty of sports that have higher scoring than football, none of them intrinsically more exciting to my mind, and certainly none with anything like the global following of football. Simply put, if it weren’t exciting, people wouldn’t be excited; and yet…

Why not? It’s not only rarity that makes a 3-2 game entertaining. You’re more likely to have lead changes and come from behind victories. And goals in and of themselves are entertaining.

No, the entertainment is not solely in rarity, it’s also in the skill involved. And I repeat: if you reduce the skill involved, the entertainment is lessened. In a basketball match, how many times will the ball be netted? Scores; a basket occurs on the majority of offensive plays in my experience. Are basketball matches twenty times more exciting than a football match? Are individual baskets cheered with anything resembling the same fervour that greets a goal in football? Clearly not, on both counts. Nor does the alternating lead necessarily entertain. It’s perfectly possible to follow the ebb and flow of a football match, even if it’s not continuously reflected in the scoreline.

Take last weekend’s Liverpool/Arsenal match, one of the games of the season so far in my opinion. It took a fluent, attractive Arsenal 80 minutes to break down a dogged Liverpool, having conceded early in the match to a great free kick. I can say, even as a Liverpool fan, that there was huge entertainment in waiting to see whether Arsenal could translate their (at times, total) dominance into a goal. I don’t think the same would have been true had their goals flowed as of right. It might have been entertaining in other ways, but even assuming it was, that’s just change for change’s sake. People appreciate football for what it is. If I want to see a cricket score, I watch cricket.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Yookeroo

This happens much too often. And then it’s far too easy for an inferior team to bunker to protect that lead they got against the run of play.

I think not only to you have the natural resistance to change that you get with a very entrenched sport, you also have a defensiveness to any suggestion that comes from the U.S. I think the idea that only Americans high scoring games is bullshit. But ask yourselves this: without knowing anything about the match except the final score, which game would you rather watch, a 3-2 match or a 0-0 match?

Now, I don’t have a good answer on how to increase scoring without changing the fundamental nature of the sport. Larger goals isn’t the answer (imagine have to change out all the goals all over the world).

As far as the claim that the game is played the same way on all levels, at the top levels, referees have wireless communication systems. I don’t see that on the youth fields.

How it is refereed is not the same thing as the rules by which it is played, now, is it? :dubious:

And depending upon the game, I’d be quite pleased with nil - nil, and 3-2 could have been quite boring, so I don’t leap to any conclusion about the game from the scoreline. That’s because, unlike most Americans, I don’t equate scoring with excitement.

And, finally, no, inferior teams winning though luck followed by a bunker in mentality doesn’t happen that much. That’s why the Premier League, Serie A, the Bundesliga, La Liga, etc. are usually good indicators at the end of a season as to which teams are playing the best: look at the top of their tables. It may be that they are there because they have the money to buy the best players (can anyone say Yankees?), but inferior teams winning happens rarely enough that it’s a real treat when it does happen, and quite fun to watch (can Man. U. break through against the Saints as they try to steal the win their goal against the run of play in the 15th minute has given them the chance at?).

In general, soccer outside the United States goes through relatively few periods of concern over scoring. I remember that there was a big outcry over the relatively low scoring 1994 World Cup. All sorts of suggestions were offered to increase goals. But, of course, by 1998, the goals per game were up again, and they really hadn’t had to do too much tweaking to make that happen.

So, I again ask: in light of the fact that the game has never been more watched, has never had more attendance, has never made so much money, not just in Europe but world wide, why would soccer feel any need to change???

[DSYoungEsq]

Now, I will address officiating, because that aspect of the game does face some challenges. Basically, there are three main aspects to officiating where modern technology raises questions about how the games are officiated. First, there is the issue of simulation of fouls. Second, there is the issue of proper calling of offside. Thirdly, there is the issue of goal/no-goal (ball across the line). I’ll work these in reverse order.

Goal/No-goal: Here, technology should be used at the highest levels. It’s relatively simple to position cameras in a position to look across the end of the field from both sides, looking slightly down at the goal mouth, utilising super slo-mo technology. This would allow a much more definitive determination of whether the ball has completely crossed the line (thus scoring a goal). Given that the TV broadcast often manages something close to this already, it is important to offer this at the top flight level. The relatively few instances where it would be needed could be speedily resolved. Like the “advantage” rule, in the case the referee and the assisstants don’t feel a ball scored, the game could continue until such time as the defending team gains possession, at which time, if the issue has not already been resolved through a fourth official’s review of the evidence, the play could be stopped until it is. Restart with an indirect free kick if the referee was right, with a kick-off if not. Of course, the opposite situation (referee indicates goal scored) is much easier to deal with on review.

And, as Yookeroo points out, the game IS officiated differently already at the higher levels, as it should be (heck at lower levels, who hasn’t had the fun experience of using two-man, or even solo systems? :eek:).

As for offside, there simply is no good way to deal with this issue. The best way would be to finally fully implement what FIFA have been trying to get implemented since 1990: an offense-oriented approach to application of the rule. In other words, don’t call it unless you are certain that it WAS offside. If that happened, then if a goal was scored and a question of offside arose, you could have some mechanism for reviewing, one supposes. But clearly if offside is called, and you are wrong, there is no good way to rectify the error. Even a free kick doesn’t do much, because the offense will be unhappy that the flow of play got stopped; the defense will complain bitterly about facing a set piece with good scoring opportunity. I have been a proponent of sparing use of the offside rule to stop attacks since I started refereeing in 1990; slowly but surely, I see the mentality starting to make headway among referees.

Lastly, there is the issue of simulated fouls. Now, bluntly put, there is little the referee can do about this. Yes, it would be nice to have referees who deal harshly with simulation, but as a referee, I can assure you that a) being completely certain that you saw an attempt to pull the wool over your eyes is very hard, and b) pulling the trigger on a red card when you aren’t completely certain is even harder (since red cards have such drastic effect upon the game). As far as I am concerned, this is where the governing body of whatever competition is involved should aggressively fine and suspend those discovered to have been cheating by simulating. If someone gets suspended for five games because he tried to fake being fouled, even if the referee was fooled, he will think twice about doing it in the future. I don’t know there is any other way to effectively deal with that aspect of the game, and it has its own potential difficulties, if implemented.

[mhendo]

@Sal Ammoniac

Is this really true? Figures from MLS show that they’re averaging almost 16,000 fans a game (cite here). This is still small potatoes compared to some sports, particularly if you look at all the ancillary business other sports do with jerseys and souvernirs and whatnot, but to me it means that MLS is at least making money. Attendance-wise, it’s almost on par with the NHL.

Well, sort of.

First, i never denied that the MLS is making money. In an economy as large and diverse as that of the United States, it’s perfectly possible to make money while still not being nationally significant in terms of popularity.

Second, it’s not really fair to suggest that MLS is “about on par with the NHL” in terms of attendance. Sure, the average per-game attendance is clos, but that doesn’t tell the whole story.

The average MLS attendance, from your link, is 15,897. The average NHL attendance, according to my calculations from this table, is 16,954. Seems pretty close so far, right?

But let’s look deeper. First MLS played 138 games last season, for a total attendance of 2,193,786, or just under 2.2 million. NHL played 1230 games, with a total attendance of 20,854,299. So almost ten times as many fans attended NHL games as attended MLS games. Now, you might argue that it’s the average attendance that is important, but do you really think that MLS could sustain almost 16,000 fans per game over an 82-game season, the way the NHL does?

Also, look at percentages. While the NHL averaged “only” 16,954 fans per game, that constituted an attendance rate (in terms of filling the stadiums) of 91.9%. Of the 30 teams, 10 sold out their stadium basically every time they played a home game, and only 5 teams had attendance rates of less than 80%.

In contrast, the smallest MLS stadium i could find holds 20,000 people, with most holding more, and a few teams (e.g., DC and NY) playing in stadiums with 50,000+ seats. The percentage of seats filled at MLS games is therefore considerably smaller than the percentage at NHL games.

But even more important than all that is the issue of popularity beyond the gate totals. How many people watch MLS on TV in America? For that matter, how many go out of their way to watch the much higher standard of soccer played in Europe or South America? TV contracts are where the really big bucks are, and i just don’t see any real embracing of soccer at this level in the US, either by the networks or by the fans themselves.

Of course, for soccer to become a really big TV sport in the US would require more than simply higher scoring. They would also have to work out how to delay the game to allow for more commercial breaks. A 90-minutes soccer game, instead taking about 100-110 minutes as it does in Europe, would probably end up taking about 150-180 minutes by the time the American networks got their grubby hand on it.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Sal Ammoniac

Is this really true? Figures from MLS show that they’re averaging almost 16,000 fans a game (cite here). This is still small potatoes compared to some sports, particularly if you look at all the ancillary business other sports do with jerseys and souvernirs and whatnot, but to me it means that MLS is at least making money. Attendance-wise, it’s almost on par with the NHL.

Well, that’s a classic case of bad statistics. The mean is inflated by the outliers of the two weeks that Posh Spice’s husband was active. The median is probably closer to 15,000 than 16,000, and please note that that would represent an actual drop in attendance from the year prior.

Now that’s better than it used to be. Partly its because they are finally having a significant number of games in soccer stadia, rather than in cadaverous and empty football arenas. It’s also helped to have Chivas in the league, thus finally attempting to cater to the potentially large audience of Hispanic fans.

No, we have not “embraced it,” yet. But we aren’t quite spurning it, either.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Yookeroo

Another question, who would you rather watch, flowing attacking soccer, say, Pele era Brazil or Cruyff era Holland or would you rather watch catenaccio.

You ask that as if catenaccio was a recent thing. :smack:
Another example of not quite knowing the game…

[Snarky_Kong]

@DSYoungEsq

Well, that’s a classic case of bad statistics. The mean is inflated by the outliers of the two weeks that Posh Spice’s husband was active. The median is probably closer to 15,000 than 16,000, and please note that that would represent an actual drop in attendance from the year prior.

Now that’s better than it used to be. Partly its because they are finally having a significant number of games in soccer stadia, rather than in cadaverous and empty football arenas. It’s also helped to have Chivas in the league, thus finally attempting to cater to the potentially large audience of Hispanic fans.

No, we have not “embraced it,” yet. But we aren’t quite spurning it, either.

Chivas is one of the worst drawing teams in the league. Median attendance for the regular season in 2007 was 15,353 which was the highest in the history of the league.

You want to know how to get soccer to catch on in America? Have the league be around for more than 12 years. Yes there was the NASL, but the way that league was run was completely retarded.

mhendo, there will never be stoppages in play for commercials. I’d pretty much completely abandon the league if that happened, I’m sure there’d be thousands others that would too.

[GorillaMan]

@mhendo

Now, you might argue that it’s the average attendance that is important, but do you really think that MLS could sustain almost 16,000 fans per game over an 82-game season, the way the NHL does?

I don’t think the Premiership would sustain that, either, so perhaps there’s something (I don’t know exactly what) that’s wrong with the comparison.

In contrast, the smallest MLS stadium i could find holds 20,000 people, with most holding more, and a few teams (e.g., DC and NY) playing in stadiums with 50,000+ seats. The percentage of seats filled at MLS games is therefore considerably smaller than the percentage at NHL games.

Those few large non-soccer-designed stadiums are going to be skewing the percentage. The average gate of soccer-specific stadiums only therefore probably is 80%-90%. And one of the long term priorities for MLS has been getting into its own purpose-built venues, both in size and in structure (smaller pitches than for American football, and preferably crowds right up to the edge of the pitch).

For comparison, there’s not much difference between these samples and this or this.

But even more important than all that is the issue of popularity beyond the gate totals. How many people watch MLS on TV in America? For that matter, how many go out of their way to watch the much higher standard of soccer played in Europe or South America? TV contracts are where the really big bucks are, and i just don’t see any real embracing of soccer at this level in the US, either by the networks or by the fans themselves.

You’re quite right that the TV audience isn’t there. And that for a league to make huge money, it would need it. But MLS has not set out to be a huge league. TV money is a nice extra for Championship sides in Britain, but gate receipts are a more reliable and often larger source of income. Also a lot of money is to be made from academy systems, bringing young players into the professional game, with multi-million sums to be made selling them on to Premiership clubs. This is something MLS is in a prime position to do.

Of course, for soccer to become a really big TV sport in the US would require more than simply higher scoring. They would also have to work out how to delay the game to allow for more commercial breaks. A 90-minutes soccer game, instead taking about 100-110 minutes as it does in Europe, would probably end up taking about 150-180 minutes by the time the American networks got their grubby hand on it.

Hmmm. Fox and its 666-bearing offspring manage to make a fortune out of TV sport, mainly football, in the UK and elsewhere without needing to break a game up. Why the difference? (And yes, when the TV companies moved in on football in a big way, there was concern that they would do things like this, but they realised how foolish it would be.)

[Dead_Badger]

Basically, what I’d like to boil down this argument to is the idea that score is an indicator - no more, no less. You no more transform a boring game into an exciting one by scoring it with bigger numbers than you make Titanic a good film by awarding it an Oscar. To pretend otherwise is not only to display ignorance of what football is about, but of what sport is, in its entirety.

None of this is to say that the rules can’t be tweaked - such a claim is patent rubbish. But the bald premise that “more goals = good” is so utterly simplistic and so wrong-headed in its outlook that it really needs no understanding of the game in question to disprove. Discourage cheap spoiling tactics, sure, discourage dirty play, discourage cynicism; but don’t pretend that there’s only one kind of valuable skill; don’t traduce the very competition of talents that sport is supposed to provide.

[Dead_Badger]

@Yookeroo

Yes. this gets trotted out every time anyone suggests that the sport just might be improved by higher scoring games. I see fans waxing rhapsodic about the 0-0 tie, but when it comes down to it, the games fans get excited about are games that match teams with reputations for attacking soccer. And the results that seem to excite people are those 3-2 matches.

Sorry for the double-post, but I forgot to address this earlier. Firstly, you seem to have carefully omitted the bit where I say, “even if they’re rare”, and have completely ignored the fact that the very article I linked to acknowledged that 0-0 thrillers are the hen’s teeth of football matches - I am not claiming otherwise. Secondly, my point is not that 0-0s are intrinsically thrilling (far from it), but that the matches are not dull because they ended 0-0; they ended 0-0 because they were dull. This is a very important distinction.

Your whole argument is essentially a classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Dull sporting encounters are as much a fact of life as death, taxes and Britney Spears headlines. There’s no gussying them up, no polishing the turd; they simply exist, and thus will ever be the case. The recent Giants/Dolphins clash in London was just such a (non-)spectacle*. And it wasn’t made any more edifying for the final scoreline reading 13-10. In football, it would’ve most likely been 1-0 to the Giants, and would’ve been no better or worse for the 20-fold decrease in the scoring.

*Which is not to say we didn’t enjoy it for other reasons - all my sport-watching friends were very excited about it, and I heard not one suggestion of what the sport “needs” to succeed in the UK (save the occasional whinge about ad breaks).

[DSYoungEsq]

@Snarky_Kong

Chivas is one of the worst drawing teams in the league.

For 2006, Chivas drew an average home crowd of 19,840, second only to the 20,814 for the Galaxy. Their road attendance was 14,725, placing them in the middle of the pack. Total average was 17,282, again, second in the league.

Median attendance for the regular season in 2007 was 15,353 which was the highest in the history of the league.

Median attendance for the clubs in 2006 was 15,726.5, according to MLS’s own stats. I don’t see where they have reported 2007’s figures yet, but clearly they aren’t higher than last year.

May I suggest getting facts straight before using them to draw conclusions, let alone getting snarky about them?

You want to know how to get soccer to catch on in America? Have the league be around for more than 12 years. Yes there was the NASL, but the way that league was run was completely retarded.

So in actuality, you think we should have a league that is around for more than 12 years AND runs itself well? Well, MLS has been around for 12 years, hasn’t been stupendously stupid, and is bumping along fair to middlin’. Of course, let’s not forget that while there was a period NASL was gone and MLS didn’t exist, America continued to have professional soccer (not indoor, the real thing) with at times two different leagues competing, both of which were roundly ignored. I was the stadium announcer for one of them.

[DSYoungEsq]

By the way, average attendance in 2006-7 for the English Premier League was 34,363 (mean), for a total of 13,000,000+ fans. Not a shabby total.

[DSYoungEsq]

@DSYoungEsq

I suggest getting facts straight before using them to draw conclusions, let alone getting snarky about them?

Ah, yes, Gaudere’s law (or an extension thereof) strikes. :smack:

My apologies. Median attendance in 2006 was only 14,776 (I can’t consider both the home and away figures).

I’d still like to see the figures for this year. I’m betting that there is a substantial (and unsustainable) Beckham bulge.

[John_DiFool]

My argument is really an aesthetic one; I just don’t like the field being clogged up by extra players when those players inhibit the flow of the game. If the scoring level were to go up at the same time the play was opened up that would be a secondary outcome as far as I’m concerned; soccer IMHO is imbalanced in a fundamental way, that’s all I’ve been trying to say really. At any rate I much prefer the style, speed, rapid counterattacks, and pace of ice hockey than I do that of soccer; YMMV of course as it always does when two or more people are expressing their opinions.

[mhendo]

@GorillaMan

I don’t think the Premiership would sustain that, either, so perhaps there’s something (I don’t know exactly what) that’s wrong with the comparison.

I’m sure you’re right. I as just making a general observation about overall attendance.

@GorillaMan

Those few large non-soccer-designed stadiums are going to be skewing the percentage. The average gate of soccer-specific stadiums only therefore probably is 80%-90%. And one of the long term priorities for MLS has been getting into its own purpose-built venues, both in size and in structure (smaller pitches than for American football, and preferably crowds right up to the edge of the pitch).

For comparison, there’s not much difference between these samples and this or this.

Again, i’m sure you’re right. I was simply attempting to rebut the notion, advanced by Sal Ammoniac, that soccer attendance is about on par with the NHL. Even with your observations, i don’t think that’s true.

@GorillaMan

You’re quite right that the TV audience isn’t there. And that for a league to make huge money, it would need it. But MLS has not set out to be a huge league. TV money is a nice extra for Championship sides in Britain, but gate receipts are a more reliable and often larger source of income. Also a lot of money is to be made from academy systems, bringing young players into the professional game, with multi-million sums to be made selling them on to Premiership clubs. This is something MLS is in a prime position to do.

Absolutely. But there’s a chicken and egg question here. Isn’t it possible that “MLS has not set out to be a huge league” precisely because they are aware of how difficut this would be in the United States?

As i suggested in my earlier post, there’s nothing wrong with them occupying a niche market, but i really don’t think they could be more than that even if they tried. I just don’t think there’s a big enough audience here in the US.

@GorillaMan

Hmmm. Fox and its 666-bearing offspring manage to make a fortune out of TV sport, mainly football, in the UK and elsewhere without needing to break a game up. Why the difference? (And yes, when the TV companies moved in on football in a big way, there was concern that they would do things like this, but they realised how foolish it would be.)

Right, that’s because there is, in the UK, a strongly entrenched football culture, one that has certain expectations about the length of games and the amount of disruptions. Trying to change that would have been, as you rightly suggest, pretty foolish, as they would have absolutely alienated the massive fanbase.

But in the US, there is a fairly well entrenched acceptance that sporting contests with break for commercials, and that the game will be significantly lengthened as a result. If soccer tried to go “big time” in America, it would be interesting to see whether the culture of the game, or the culture of American sports TV, won the day. I suspect it might be the latter.

Remember that the primary aim of my posting in this thread is simply to rebut the notion that there’s something inherently wrong with soccer that needs to be fixed by reducing player numbers or some other radical change. I’ve been arguing that virtually the only people i ever hear making these criticisms are Americans, and trying to show that the relatively low popularity of soccer in America, and the unlikelihood of that changing anytime soon, means that the powers that be in soccer would be crazy to make changes to a globally successful product just to appease a small potential American market.

[Snarky_Kong]

@DSYoungEsq

For 2006, Chivas drew an average home crowd of 19,840, second only to the 20,814 for the Galaxy. Their road attendance was 14,725, placing them in the middle of the pack. Total average was 17,282, again, second in the league.Median attendance for the clubs in 2006 was 15,726.5, according to MLS’s own stats. I don’t see where they have reported 2007’s figures yet, but clearly they aren’t higher than last year.

May I suggest getting facts straight before using them to draw conclusions, let alone getting snarky about them?

That Chivas figue includes a 90k game at the Rose Bowl which was a double header. Take 5k off their average and that’s a close approximation.

For 2007 their average attendance was 14,305 and a median of 11,253. This includes 2 games against the Galaxy that sold over 20k tickets and a sell out against Chicago. In all three of those games the majority of the fans were not for Chivas. They play in the same building as the Galaxy, and for Chicago they showed up to see Cuauhtemoc Blanco. If you take out those three games the mean is 11,438 and the median is 10,854.

What’s that about being snarky?

Where do you get your information for median attendance? I don’t see it on their site, but their listed average attendance is 15,504. That’s lower than what you claim is the median. There’s absolutely no way that the mean is higher than the median with all the double-headers and special promotions to bump up some figures. I guarantee my numbers are since they’re compiled directly from the game reports from each match.

So in actuality, you think we should have a league that is around for more than 12 years AND runs itself well? Well, MLS has been around for 12 years, hasn’t been stupendously stupid, and is bumping along fair to middlin’. Of course, let’s not forget that while there was a period NASL was gone and MLS didn’t exist, America continued to have professional soccer (not indoor, the real thing) with at times two different leagues competing, both of which were roundly ignored. I was the stadium announcer for one of them.

Yes, I think MLS will be fine. It’s stupid for people to say how crappy it is when it’s such a young league. Give them 50+ years like the rest of the major sports in America and then lets talk.

edit
Sorry, I didn’t see your corrected numbers. I still didn’t see that on their site. Here’s attendence figures for ever year of the league.

[GorillaMan]

@mhendo

I’m sure you’re right. I as just making a general observation about overall attendance.Again, i’m sure you’re right. I was simply attempting to rebut the notion, advanced by Sal Ammoniac, that soccer attendance is about on par with the NHL. Even with your observations, i don’t think that’s true.Absolutely. But there’s a chicken and egg question here. Isn’t it possible that “MLS has not set out to be a huge league” precisely because they are aware of how difficut this would be in the United States?

Absolutely. They’ve learnt from the mistakes of the NASL, and are establishing a firm reliable niche market as a reliable foundation. Doing this without the unpredictibilities of TV income might in the future mean that they can attempt expansion without the risk of financial implosion.

But in the US, there is a fairly well entrenched acceptance that sporting contests with break for commercials, and that the game will be significantly lengthened as a result. If soccer tried to go “big time” in America, it would be interesting to see whether the culture of the game, or the culture of American sports TV, won the day. I suspect it might be the latter.

I too would find it very interesting to see what would be attempted, and I suspect (and hope) differently.

Remember that the primary aim of my posting in this thread is simply to rebut the notion that there’s something inherently wrong with soccer that needs to be fixed by reducing player numbers or some other radical change.

@John DiFool

My argument is really an aesthetic one; I just don’t like the field being clogged up by extra players when those players inhibit the flow of the game.

Be careful with words. What you’re meaning is not that there’s ‘extra players’ ‘inhibiting’ the game. Your aesthetic judgement is ‘I don’t like it because it’s not like hockey’, is it not?

@DSYoungEsq

I’d still like to see the figures for this year. I’m betting that there is a substantial (and unsustainable) Beckham bulge.

:dubious:

[Cheesesteak]

@mhendo

The question, though, is why they should consider changing the most widely and wildly popular team sport in the world, especially when the only people i’ve ever heard complain about the game in any numbers are North Americans.
But your implication that it somehow needs changing relies on a set of assumptions that are probably not shared by the majority of the hundreds of millions of people worldwide who watch soccer every week.

This is the sort of thing that disturbs me about these soccer rules discussions. The idea that soccer fans (outside of the US) are unanimous in thinking the rules are perfect exactly the way they are.

Are there NO soccer fans who think watching a team sit on a 2-0 lead for 30 minutes is the least bit unappealing? Nobody thinks that offsides is too restrictive, or that the game wouldn’t be more free-flowing and fun with fewer people? There have been no changes to soccer strategy or method of play in the last century that has affected the game in a negative way?

You don’t have to be Stepford Fans to enjoy the game. You can look at your favorite sport and decide for yourself that it would be better under slightly different rules, because those rules reflect your personal likes and dislikes.