Disagree slightly about NFL. In 2002 there were a total of 1270 TDs in the league. Divide that by 32 teams and 16 games and you get 2.48 TDs per game per team. Cite
Now I’m eliminating Field Goals because soccer, for instance, doesn’t have a “oh, you’ve tried hard, here’s a consolation prize” scoring system. I do realize that if there were no FGs, more TDs would be scored.
Don’t get me wrong - I love the NFL. But good soccer is not boring - it’s just watched by boring people 
C’mon, the average hockey game has as much action and scoring as the average soccer game. Any of either is more interesting to me than, say, arena football, where virtually every play is an end-zone pass. I see a comment that a scoreless game means “nothing has happened” - nobody with any appreciation of sports could say that.
But yes, soccer does have a real foothold now, and not just because of extensive youth participation. The successes of the World Cup teams, especially the champion women’s team, has had a lot to do with it. The presence of a prudently-managed (for the first time here) professional league, with mostly American players including the bulk of the best ones, is another, as is the presence of the only serious (and also prudently managed) professional women’s league.
I wish those still denigrating the sport’s acceptance in US sports fandom could have been with me at the last MLS Cup game (the US pro league’s championship) last summer. Even with pricey tickets, Gillette Stadium was sold out (60,000+), full of signs, the band every pro team needs, loud cheering, fans with faces painted and intently concentrating, and yes, almost all of the fans were Americans of all ages, and most of the star players were too. The score being 0-0 after 90+ minutes didn’t seem to detract from anyone’s enjoyment of the game, either.
Look at a suburban elementary school’s recess periods now - you’ll see all the kids who play in the town youth soccer leagues playing pickup games, and they’ll include boys and girls on an equal basis and numbers. That has to be a very good thing on any number of levels, wouldn’t you say?
You can argue if you like that fan support for soccer is a local phenomenon in a few pockets, but those pockets do exist and are growing. It may take another generation to fully mature, but to deny that soccer’s popularity in the US is growing steadily and strongly is silly.
Oh, yes, I’ll chime in with jeevmon that the television effect is more a problem than a solution. Enjoyment of the game does seem to involve being able to see the entire field, or at least the portion of it where the plays are being made. A TV closeup of an individual player can show his own skill, but without the context it’s hard to appreciate. When the view is pulled back far enough to cover the width of the field, it’s hard to see anything on a small screen. If your exposure to well-played soccer comes only from TV, you might well not think it worth watching.
Hockey and basketball do suffer similarly, though not to the same degree because their playing surfaces aren’t as wide.
This topic has come up several times before. I believe it basically boils down to tradition, or depth/lack thereof. Baseball has an enduring presence in American culture–even though the MLB is a joke, players are overpayed, etc., baseball has historically been an important sport to the American psyche, and probably always will be. The same goes for most other sports leagues, although there are often regional distinctions. In my part of Florida, for instance, college football has always been more popular than professional football, due in no small measure to a sense of local pride and identification with the local universities–even though many of these fans have never gone to college!
Association football (AKA soccer) has a similarly enduring presence in most European cultures. People follow a team because their city or community’s identity is wrapped up in it. Soccer (just like baseball, football, etc.) holds a deeper meaning than the game itself–it symbolizes the people who follow it.
I think Bill Shankley has already been quoted here (as he so often is) as saying “Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. . . I can assure you it is much, much more important than that.” Many people can identify with that sentiment, particularly when their SO is criticizing them for taking their team’s defeat in a major game (hell, even in a regular weekly league match) far too seriously.
But I digress.
My point is, even though soccer has been known in the U.S. for a while, it hasn’t set down the kind of roots that it has in Europe. The MLS teams haven’t been around long enough to become synonymous with their hometowns in the way that, say, the Cubs are for Chicago. For most Americans, soccer has no more historical importance than slamball or any other novelty sport has. As a great admirer of soccer, I wish this weren’t so, but unfortunately, it is.
Maybe it will catch on eventually. Maybe it won’t. But you’re not going to get Americans to become devout soccer fans overnight, in any case (nor by complaining about it on a message board).
I think the MLS/World Cup relationship is not as strong as most believe. We finished last in '98 and the MLS wasn’t really damaged all that much. Good international showings help, but not as much as everyone thinks.
The more soccer I watch, the less patience I have for (American) football. It’s even worse going to a game. All that time between plays starts annoy me.
Yeah, another problem with televised soccer: no natural breaks for commercials.
The clock was the one thing the MLS did right when it originally tinkered with the game (much to the outrage of purists). They’re now back to the traditional way, but the first few years they had a visible countdown clock. Having the official time out in the open helps prevent referee shenanigans.
What rjung said about crashes. Everybody loves crashes.
Anyway, I think lots of people are circling around what IMHO is a big issue: AFAIK, soccer lacks sophisticated yet recognizably standardized personal statistics. Goals, assists, I assume save percentage for the keepers, but I don’t think those things mean anything to the general populace.
American sports fans are very stats-driven, especially in the past two decades with the emergence of fantasy/mirror sports. This is most true with baseball (the great baseball writer Bill James once wrote an essay on how a simple line of made-up career statistics can tell a fully-developed story of what that player’s career was like—whether he was fast or slow, if/when he got hurt, what position he likely played, etc.) . Football and basketball are less so, but not by much.
You create some personal statistics that have meaning to the average American sports fan, and you’ll have a lot more American fans of professional/international soccer.
[As an aside, I think hockey’s in sort of a mid-level on this scale of meaningful statistics. And NASCAR, for its part, keeps very specific record-keeping, not only of the points leaders—but of its components, i.e., how much a pole is worth, how much an illegal restrictor plate is worth, how much total laps led are worth, etc.).
Q: Why do so many people play soccer?
A: So they don’t have to watch it.
That, I think, is the real problem…it’s just not that exciting to watch. There are entire halves where nothing of consequence happens. Compare that to, say, auto racing, where even when everyone’s playing follow-the-leaders, a spectacular pass, a brush with the wall, or massive wreck can happen at any time.
I also think Americans don’t care for sports where strong offensive efforts are not rewarded. How many times have you seen a ferocious attack around the net end in a goal kick or the GK casually picking up the ball? If the St. Louis Rams have first and goal on the 5 and don’t get a touchdown, the crowd goes absolutely wild (one way or the other, depending on the field). In soccer, the ball gets within feet of the goal line without going in, and it’s like…eh, been there, done that. The problem with scoring isn’t just that it’s so hard to score, but that it’s so easy to prevent scoring.
Re. US in World Cup - While I was thrilled with our team’s performance in '02, let’s have a little perspective here. They were in a vastly easier bracket than in '98 and some of the major teams weren’t quite up to it. And let’s not forget the officiating, which was an unmitigated travesty. Never worse than in the Korea - Italy game, where the Koreans got about 500,000,000 favorable bad calls, including two goals against them taken back. IIRC, at least one other team (Poland?) got shafted like this. Of course Brazil won…they were the only quality team that didn’t get railroaded. Oh, you know the cause of this? “Home field advantage”. Jesus H Christ in a wheelchair.
So while the progress Team USA has made is remarkable, let’s not make too much of this ABSOLUTE JOKE of a World Cup. I want to see how they do against a full lineup and with COMPETENT officiating.
Oh yeah, random unrelated quote: “When they cry, you just hit 'em harder.” - Butterbean
Just a further comment on the “low-scoring” and “boring” nature of soccer.
First, the low-scoring aspect: OK, this is often true. Many of the games that Americans are exposed to are World Cup matches and other big tournament finals (Champions League matches are also shown on ESPN2). In many of these games, the pressure is to avoid conceding goals more than it is on scoring goals–the players don’t want to feck up on a stage as big as a final. So they will often tend to be more defensive-minded. These kind of matches may have reinforced many Americans’ impression that soccer games usually end in 0-0 draws.
Now, there are some higher-scoring matches, but, to be honest, you’re rarely going to see more than three or four goals scored in total during most matches (no matter the context). For me, this makes every goal that much more precious and, yes, exciting. The anticipation that can build up, especially with near-misses and hitting the woodwork, makes the goal (when it comes) that much more appreciated.
Personally, I find the constant scoring in basketball to become a bit monotonous (I’m only surprised when somebody misses the net). But I’m not a big basketball fan, and I’m sure someone who likes basketball would show me the error of my ways.
Now for the “boring” aspect: this is probably the weakest argument against soccer, because you could make it about almost any sport that you don’t like.
I will admit that not every game is exciting throughout the full ninety minutes (anybody here catch this year’s Champions League final?), and there are often lulls in the action…but this could be said about other sports. There are many innings in baseball that drag on without any significant events, but I don’t consider baseball boring.
Imagine the classic exciting moment in baseball: bottom of the ninth: the home team is down by three runs. Two outs. Bases loaded. The count is 3 and 2. The pitcher winds up, pitches the ball, the batter swings…!
Now, how is this that different from this situation? The match is already into stoppage time, but your side still needs a goal to win. Your players are pushing forward, passing the ball around, but fully aware that the referee could blow the whistle AT ANY MOMENT to end the game. But then, one of your forwards receives a pass from midfield, and, suddenly, he’s broken through the opponent’s defense! He’s bearing down on goal, with only the keeper in his way. He shoots…
Admittedly speaking as a baseball fan, I’d say a pretty big distinction is that the end of the soccer game, from the fan’s perspective, can seem awfully arbitrary. In baseball, there is a clock; it’s the 27 outs in a regulation game that both teams are afforded. Anything beyond that, and it’s still 3 outs an inning.
Because you know that if the batter misses, the game is over, and you don’t know the same in soccer. The result and reward in baseball is instantaneous. In soccer, even if the score is made, there may still be time for the other team to score. You don’t know that the game is over, you don’t know when it might be over, all you know is that at some point, the ref might declare it over. This is why I think a countdown clock would help make the game more palatable in the U.S. Every other sport uses it, and the lack of it makes the end of games seem entirely arbitrary.
I also come back to scoring opportunities. In football or basketball, every play offers the possibility of a score. Every swing of the bat in baseball offers the possibility of a score. They may not convert every time, but the possibility is there. The same can’t be said of soccer.
Tied in with that are matters of physical possibility. If the quarterback takes the snap with three seconds left, or the basketball is passed in with three seconds left, we know that this snap or this shot is the one that will end the game, because it is physically possible to score in that situation. That chance excites us. Baseball has it slightly well off, but we know that one swing of the bat could be the one that ends the game.
In the scenario you describe, we don’t know that the score is the one that will end the game because we don’t know when the game will end. But even if this problem were fixed, we know, if there are three seconds left and the ball is only at midfield, there is no possibility of a score.
So **jeevmon, ** are you saying that guys are only interested in scoring? And if the possibility isn’t there, they basically check out?
This is a bit ridiculous anyway - there are few “plays” in soccer - it’s a more fluid game. Surely every cross, corner, free kick or posession in the oponents half could result in a goal as well.
If you go to a high level professional match you’ll see everyone stand up anytime the ball is in the opponents half and the home team has the ball - there is the expectation that something could happen, at least if you’re interested in the game in the first place.
Hockey and basketball may have more scoring, but they’re closer to 5 a side soccer - the small teams and small area of play encourage scoring and more obvious action.
If you’re a hockey fan just imagine a hockey rink the same size as a soccer field with 11 players on each side. Sure goals will develop slower but they will also have a whole different, possibly deeper, tactical approach behind them.
I watched the World cup last year and found it quite enjoyable at times. However, I get sick of the insinuation that somehow the US is “inferior” in a sports sense just because we are not big soccer fans. Why is it necessary for us to be soccer fans just because most other countries like soccer? I also get tired of hearing about all the “nuances” of the game and how we don’t appreciate the game. Every game, at the pro level, has plenty of nuances that you can study for hours on end and really learn to love and enjoy if you completely immerse yourself in the sport and the culture of that sport. That doesn’t in and of itself make any game somehow better than any other, though.
Further, I find it completely laughable and somewhat amazing at the same time that people on here really and truly believe that the US is basically the only country that plays basketball and baseball. These are extremely popular sports all over the world. As popular as soccer? No, probably not, but they are still widely played throughout many countries of the world. Where do you think all the hispanic and foreign baseball players are coming from if baseball is only popular in America? And obviously many of you did not pay attention to this year's NBA draft beyond the Lebron James story or else you would realize that a large percentage of the first round involved players from Europe. The NBA and basketball is popular around the world. To suggest otherwise is, very simply, incorrect.
The NFL, yes, pretty much American. Baseball and basketball, though, are very much international.
Soccer is far from the most popular game among our youth, despite what you hear. Sure, in organized leagues it is, but that means very little. On playgorunds, I'm sure it is far from the most popular sport.
It is also not the fifth most popular pro sport in this country, as someone suggested. I would put it seventh, behind the big four plus Golf, since Tiger came along, and even behind NASCAR. And thats if you don't include NCAA football and basketball. Throw those in and it drops to ninth.
Soccer is a fine sport. Its a fun sport to watch at times. I think to dismiss at as "boring" is probably not doing it justice. However, I feel no guilt about its lack of popularity in the US and fail to see the reason why this should change simply because "everyone else plays it." This is not a good enough reason for me. It will climb in popularity when one of two things happens : 1. There is a huge US star or 2. The US wins, or goes to the finals, in the World Cup. Thats what it took for hockey to finally break through in the last 20 years : Wayne Gretzky and a USA Gold medal.One other thought…take it for what its worth. I live in Indiana and attended Indiana University. The soccer program at IU is definetly one of the top five in the country and in fact may historically may be the best program in the country…but I am not here to debate that. In fact, the soccer program is more successful recently than the basketball program, which is also one of the top ten programs in the country historically. If you ask the average kid growing up in Indiana, though, whether they would rather play for an NCAA championsip basketball or soccer team, I bet over 95% would pick basketball. Why is this so? Answer that question and you have the answer as to why soccer is not as popular in this country as the other major sports.
These sort of fans bug the shit out of me and they aren’t helping soccer at all in this country. The idea that soccer is somehow morally superior isn’t rare among soccer fans in this country. I can understand how they get this way though. When you’re endlessly bombarded by anti-soccer cheap shots from people who are ignorant of the sport, it’s probably human nature to want to feel superior. But you’d think that people who’ve endured the ignorant attacks on the sport they love would know better than to ignorantly attack the sports they don’t.
Why? Are they being forced to participate?
Remember the name Freddy Adu. Maybe.
Interestingly they do play that here, it is called Bandy.
Here’s an overview of the rules:
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Track/2049/English/Rules.html
The scores from the last world cup show that there are still more goals than the average association football game:
Having said that, it is a vastly different game to ice hockey in the way that keithnmick described.
Me? Association Football/Football/Soccer will always be my favourite but I choose not to look down on other sports. As someone else has pointed out, criticisms of a sport being “boring” can be made at any sport you don’t understand or care about. Also, saying that Association Football doesn’t have the amount of scoring opportunities as the likes of American Football or Baseball shows such a deeply routed lack of understanding of the sport that it isn’t really worth replying to.
Finally, what I gather from this discussion is that for a sport to be popular in the US it needs three things:
If so, why isn’t cricket more popular in the US? Surely they’d lap that up (and the new 20-over games surely must last at most the same length of time as a baseball game).
Also, if you are interested in what Bandy looks like when played, they have some pictures (not particularly good ones, but at least they exist) at this site:
IUHomer baseball isn’t that popular outside of the US, only in a few isolated pockets like Japan (where it has now been superceded by football). Basketball on the other hand is probably the worlds most popular indoor sport and whereas a major league baseball player would have trouble getting arreasted outside of the US, basketball players past and present such as Kobe Bryant, Shaq O’Neal, Micheal Jordan and Magic Johnson are worldwide stars (indeed MC, being 6’3" tal,l was a fair basketball player at school).
Actually baseball is very popular in much of Latin America (more popular than football in Cuba, Venezuela, and Panama, possibly a few others), and do you have a cite for the claim that football has superseded it in Japan?