Might be the case that the media made the trend, American football was available and widely hyped on TV, world soccer games had many fans listening to the radio, even short wave, which makes it hard to be a fan. It is now easier to follow world soccer teams than it used to be.
it’s hard to go up against entrenched sports like FB , baseball, etc. It’s like a new type of cola against coke and pepsi.
I suppose it depends on your definition of “mainstream” America.
The soccer team withthe most fans in the US is the Mexican National Team. The Mexican soccer league, Liga MX, is the most-watched soccer league in the US, regularly getting higher ratings than MLS, the Premier League, or the Champions League. This in spite of viewership still being concentrated among Mexican-Americans. It is still a question how much room LigaMX has to grow in the US - though the quality of play is significantly higher than in the MLS and LigaMX has a lot of history, they still don’t market as much to non-Spanish speakers. Americans with no connection to Mexico and willing to be fans of a foreign team tend to look at the world’s best leagues in Europe.
Meanwhile, as the first link discusses, there is a youth soccer culture in the US with idols and kids who want to play soccer more than anything. It’s just that at the moment, those idols are Mexican players like Chicharito.
MLS and US National Team fans shouldn’t despair, though. MLS is getting more popular. I do also see more and more Latinos supporting their local MLS teams. After two or three generations, I feel like Latinos who grow up with soccer are more likely to support the US Team than to abandon soccer for an “American” sport. So soccer fandom should continue to spread in some form or another.
I suspect the way to increase the popularity of soccer in the US would be a tiny rule change: prevent the goal keeper from using his hands to catch/hold the ball, only deflect it. That would raise the scoring a tad, which is probably what Americans want.
Why is an increase in scoring optimal? Lots of baseball games end with only 3 or 4 runs scored. Lots of hockey games end with 2 or 3 goals. That’s about how often you score in soccer too.
Also, it’s the world’s most popular sport. Why change it for Americans?
When MLS started they tried implementing some of these types of changes to Americanize the sport. They changed them all back.
The top soccer leagues average about 3 goals per game, while hockey is up around 5 and MLB is over 8. There’s no comparison.
We’ve been down this path myriad times before.
The number of goals has no bearing on the popularity of the sport. The most popular sport on the planet is (association) football, it is inherently low-scoring at a professional level. It is not a design flaw, it is a feature.
I find basketball insufferably dull in spite of the high scoring, how nonsensical would it be to suggest making it far harder in order to reduce the baskets per game? What I really want is a different sport entirely…which I already have access to.
And that’s a legitimate argument to make. But you can’t argue that the amount of scoring in soccer is comparable to that in the NHL or MLB.
As I think already has been said, the MLS fills its stadiums, at least in some markets. So it’s already successful by any reasonable measure. It will never be as big as the NFL.
Soccer /FB fans love to proclaim it’s the most popular game in the world . And I guess that’s the reason why they would rather drive dull rusty nails into their eyeballs than make any changes.
On the other hand, in the US the NFL is the most popular sport ,at least now. But they have no problem at all making changes. (they probably make too many changes) They change things just about every single year. Last season they make the extra point harder , but it’s still converted over 90% so that change was rather dumb.
So I guess it’s just a matter of people who hate changes and people who embrace change. NHL has made big changes lately too, mostly in the overtime period moving to 3v3 instead of 4v4.
I’m all for them never changing a single thing about soccer. That way is will stay off my radar, off my TV and I’ll never have to care about it at all.
“It’s the most popular sport in the world” doesn’t matter a whit to me.
You care about it so little you hop into what percentage of soccer threads to talk shit about it?
it helps that soccer is cheap for kids to play. Cleats and shinguards are about all that’s needed. Granted baseball and hoops are low cost too . FB and hockey are not low cost.
It would be helpful (he says wistfully) if we could agree that liking soccer or not liking soccer is a matter of preference and not a moral issue.
Like the OP, I remember the Chicago Sting, went to see them a few times, enjoyed it. My father, asked once if he wanted to come with, rolled his eyes, described soccer as a “futile game” and called it a “commie pinko sport.” He was half kidding. I guess.
Yes, soccer was the wave of the future when I was a kid playing (and occasionally watching) soccer in the late sixties and the seventies. Yes, we’re still waiting. My kids, grown now, both played soccer; they and their teammates enjoyed it, learned a lot about the game, but their focus on soccer did not translate to any interest in the pros. Any pro sports-related conversation at halftime etc. was about major league baseball, the NFL, maybe the basketball playoffs. I don’t remember anyone ever saying anything about a pro soccer player, certainly not a pro league.
–My kids didn’t play travel; that might’ve been different. The elementary kids I teach part-time do sometimes have “Fly Emirates” shirts and the like; I know a couple of these kids are pretty serious players. Still, there’s tons more baseball and football gear than there is soccer gear floating around my school and my neighborhood.
Part of it is that we already have a bunch of team sports. Is there room for another one? For me, there isn’t. I follow baseball very closely. I follow hockey and basketball only a little bit these days, and football hardly at all, but just by osmosis I know something about these sports. I know the storylines, I know some of the really good players and some of the controversies. All of that gives me awareness of a sort, and even some rooting preferences. I want the Thunder to beat the Warriors and I was pleased that the Broncos won the Super Bowl. I always liked Tim Duncan and Aaron Rodgers. I kind of like the Penguins and the Red Wings, though I’m not sure I could tell you why.
–OTOH I’m not sure I could name a single MLS player, or team (the Seattle Sounders?–were they NASL back in the day?). I’m not sure I know when the season begins or ends. I know I don’t know the champion. MLS doesn’t ping my radar. I don’t have time or energy for it. My sports box is full.
The other thing is the level of play. The US doesn’t by any means produce all of the great baseball players: the Dominican Republic produces a ton of 'em, then there’s Venezuela, Japan, South Korea, Aruba, Australia… But they all come to the US (plus Toronto) to play. MLB is by far the best baseball league on the planet. The NHL has stars from Sweden, Finland, Russia, the Czech Republic in addition to Canada and the US: but the NHL is the best hockey league there is. The NBA is increasingly international (it wasn’t when I used to follow the Bulls back in the seventies); but the best come to North America. We in the US and Canada are used to the very best athletes playing here. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the MLS is not close to being the best league on the planet–even the best North American players seek their fortunes in Germany, or Italy, or England.
Could things change? Sure. Am I waiting up nights for pro soccer to reach parity on the local sports radio station, on the ESPN wrap-up show, in the hearts of the kids I teach? Nah.
ESPN does a lot more soccer coverage now than 5 years ago. They run the scores and highlights from Euro leagues. I guess they must have research that led them to increase their coverage. They show MLS games too but lost the world cup rights to Fox.
Could easily be more than it once was, but it certainly isn’t up there with baseball or the NFL.
Edited to add that I do find the world cup of interest, and that it seems to attract attention that goes beyond the usual folks who follow soccer around here.
nor would I try to, it is irrelevant. The scoring in either of those games is an order of magnitude less than basketball and several less than cricket.
The argument that others make is that the low scoring of football is evidence that it is dull. That is clearly not the case and it is also not the case that high-scoring is a necessarily desirable trait.
One man’s change is another man’s meddling for no good reason. As your example shows.
If you knew anything about the sport you’d know that people are clamouring for changes all the time. It just happens that the scoring rate is not one of the reasons for those changes.
You don’t even need those. By “cleats” I’m assuming you mean football boots with studs and if so the majority of my football has been played without studded boots or shinpads. All you really need is a ball and that is it. Goals can be fashioned out of any object and the rules are infinitely adjustable to allow for any surface, any amount of space and any number of players. You don’t even need goals to be honest.
Have you got a vaguely spherical object? have you got a few friends? if so you are good to go, and that is why it the most widely played sport in the world.
This is just not true. There have been lots of changes over the years. Substitutions. Offside. Passback.
Here’s an article about rule changes for the new season: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/jan/08/kickoffs-backwards-rule-changes