The flip side of the publicity angle is that until recently the soccer executives were pretty bad at publicity and marketing. Rather than hustling and selling their product - and that’s all major league sports are, an entertainment product - they relied solely on that tired argument “It’s the most popular sport in the world”, as if that alone would convince the American sports fan to empty his wallet and come watch the game.
American sports consumers don’t give a darn about what sports the rest of the world likes, nor should they. Nobody in Berlin cares about who’s winning the American League East, so why should anyone in New York necessarily care about the World Cup? American sports fans are already highly entertained by the big 4, plus car racing, golf, boxing, tennis, bowling and horseracing, so after all that who has time or money left to spend on soccer?
I heard a little about soccer on NPR the other morning. They said that kids grew up with baseball and football, so they naturally prefer watching them as adults. With the millions of kids playing soccer in the U.S., it is likely (the story said) that when they grow up they will be more interested than their parents in watching professional soccer games.
FWIW, soccer was played in my jr. high school in the 70s. It was in the rotation with flag football, basketball, volleyball, softball, and handball.
I don’t think soccer is unpopular in the states because of low scoring games. Hockey is a low scoring game and it has really taken off throughout the United States in the past 12 years or so. Baseball isn’t exactly a high scoring game and it has been popular for more then a century.
I’d rather watch a good game then a high scoring game. Personally I find soccer to be a rather dull game to watch no matter what the score or who is playing. Of course I avoid watching baseball for the same reason.
They’re still making this argument? This is precisely the same argument that was made in the 70s (When the U.S.S.L. started up, then quickly folded) when I was one of the millions of kids playing soccier in the U.S. and was purportedly going to be more interested than my parents in watching professional soccer games.
I think there are two reasons why currently (I don’t know jack about the past) soccer remains outside the professional mainstream:
Too much competition. Right now, there are the Big 4 major league sports in the U.S. (baseball, football, basketball and hockey - though I think hockey is slipping out of the Big 4). These take up 90% of the coverage of sports in the US. They are too entrenched for a new sport to get much attention. The remaining 10% of coverage is split up among an increasing number of specialty sports - extreme sports, track and fields, etc. Professional soccer doesn’t enter mainstream consciousness, and therefore isn’t covered. And because it isn’t covered, it doesn’t enter the mainstream;
By American sensibilities, it’s boring. It may be crass, but US fans like offense. Most of us would rather watch a 10-9 baseball game than a 2-1 game, even though the pitching and fielding was spectacular in the 2-1 game. We prefer a 42-28 football game over a 7-0 game, even if the defenses put on a dominating show.
And soccer on a professional level is really more about displays of great defense than about offensive fireworks.
'Course, I like baseball and that’s about it. Can’t stand basketball. It’s like the repetition of soccer without the tedium of having to play on a large field, and without leg tackles. Though I’ll never understand how a smaller “goal” and multiple “goalies” (I mean, any opponent by the basket is a goalie, no?) means more points. You would think it would be harder. :shrug: How basketball can be popular and not soccer, though, could very well (in my mind) demonstrate a link between “high score” and “Americans like it on their television.” YMMV. SSFD.
No matter. I don’t care about the points myself, soccer just doesn’t interest me in the slightest. I played when I was younger, found it boring and hard on the shins, and went back to neighborhood football and home run derby. I’ve since lost any feelings for football other than intense disinterest, and only watch baseball when the television happens to be on when a game starts. A good sport, IMO, but I ain’t going to dedicate any time to it. It isn’t like the Red Sox represent me or anything. I didn’t vote for them. I don’t know half their names.
I loathe identification with sports and sports teams. Can’t we just enjoy them playing? But then how would we justify turning over cars and setting things on fire? If that’s what it means to like soccer than NIMBY, thanks.
I just want to chime in and say that the television doesn’t have all that much to do with soccer not catching on here. MLS games, women’s games, and the US national team are all televised. They are however, only televised on the cable networks ESPN 2, FSN, etc. I saw the US national team fall 2-0 to Holland this weekend on FSN, for example.
The reason for these games only being shown on the smaller cable channels is not budweiser and other corporations (which will advertise in the unbroken action of NASCAR quite readily), but rather the ratings of the telecasts are so low that the big broadcast networks such as CBS, NBC, ABC, and Fox won’t carry the telecasts. Not enough people watch the games. But if you like them, there is plenty of opportunity to catch them on a smaller network as the average American has 70 television channels.
To further illustrate, a quick an decidedly unscientific poll in the office reveals that not a single one of my coworkers has ever been to a Silverbacks game, even though they are the local MLS team. With such little fan support, the local staions are more likely to show reruns of “Andy Griffith” than a Silverbacks (men) or Beat (women) game, but you can catch the games on public access or the cable channels which offer sports exclusively.
I also want to disagree with the “Americans don’t like soccer because there isn’t enough scoring” thing. I don’t think that’s true. Americans don’t like soccer because it’s so repetitive. Mid-fielder passes to right forward, right forward passes to left forward, left forward passes to midfeilder, mid fielder passes to right forward… Pro basketball (which has a lot of scoring) has seriously waned in popularity in recent years for the same reason - It’s the same thing over and over (though in pro basketball it is the lack of players playing anything resembling defense that makes it so repetitive). We can handle 1-0 baseball games, 7-3 football games (which is only two scoring instances if you are unfamiliar with the game), and even “non-scoring” sports such as the aforementioned NASCAR (auto racing if you are unfamiliar). We are, however, bored stiff by 1-0 soccer games and 107-95 basketball games
So, in my not so humble opinion ([sub]I’m right dammit! ;)[/sub]), it’s not the scoring, it’s the repetitive nature of the action in the game itself.
Hmmm, after posting I see that erislover has already touched on the repetive thing, and even mentioned basketball. Don’t steal my thunder, Man! damn simulpost grumblegrumblegrumble
Playing with the idea of looking at soccer from a product marketing perspective:
[list=1]
[li]There’s a lack of significant “buy-in” among consumers–i.e., potential fans. You can understand soccer just by looking at it, and it’s very easy to play. American football, on the other hand, takes some “education” before one can really understand it, and one must be initated into a relatively arcane set of rules before picking up a ball and playing. Quick, how many downs are allotted to a team before it has to punt? What’s a touchback? What’s wrong with a forward pass? We have to invest a bit of time and effort to keep up with these issues.[/li]
[li]This lack of “buy-in” makes soccer easy for kids to play, well, as kids, but just as easy to shrug off in favor of games requiring more intensive “initiation”, such as American football and baseball. Since the sports viewer has a limited attention span and limited funds, he or she will place a higher priority on spending time and money on the sport into which he/she has invested more “buy-in”.[/li]
[li]There’s a lack of “network externalities”–the external things that lend indirect but critical support to the growth of a product. This might include stadiums outfitted according to soccer regulations as well as a fan base large enough to justify network coverage. [/li]
[li]As mentioned by other posters here, the only way soccer can succeed in the US is by stealing market share from the other big sports. Since the other sports have buy-in and network externalities, this poses a daunting task for soccer.[/li][/list=1]
BTW, in marketing, you’ll often find that the “superior” product–Netscape browsers, Betamax video tapes, Apple computers, Dvorak keyboards–are nearly or entirely wiped out by their supposedly inferior competitors, for reasons of buy-in, externalities, and other factors. So any arguments that soccer is somehow a superior sport do nothing at all to address why it has failed as a product in North America.
Isnt the “marketing” approach part of the problem?
Shouldnt US soccer try to build on the support for soccer among the groups that already like it (Mexico, etc.), rather than go after the mirage of a middle class white audience?
The defense currently being played in the NBA is probably the best defensive play in basketball history. Today’s NBA has lower scoring games than at any other point in the last 40 years. 30 years ago 140-120 games happened all the time; today that score would never, ever happen without about four overtimes.
Anyway, I think the discussion has missed THE key factor:
Soccer sucks on TV.
In North America, a major part of a sport’s popularity is its televisability. The National Football League was MADE by TV, folks. The NFL’s rise in popularity was caused primarily by Pete Rozelle’s vision of a sports league that is almost entirely structured for broadcasting. The sport is frankly easier to watch on TV than it is in person, where the stadiums aren’t conducive to being close to the action. The entire league has changed it sschedule and the timings of its games to meet the requirements of television. NFL football is a TV show more than it is a live sporting event.
Similarly, while baseball has not done a great job in this regard, its roots in broadcasting are very deep, and the game is very conducive to broadcast on TV and radio. Because of the sequential, station-to-station nature of the game, it’s very easy for a commentator to describe, and the game televises well because you can concentrate on the pitcher-batter matchup.
Soccer, on the other hand, sucks on the tube. Well, it doesn’t SUCK any more than it does in person, but it’s not a sport that’s really improved by having it on TV, and so far soccer organizers have never come up with a creative way of broadcasting the games so that it’s actually interesting to watch. Soccer is a game best watched live; the enthusiasm of the crowd is an important factor for enjoying a game that’s relatively event-free, and the game tends to flow over half the field all at once and you must see it to appreciate the flow of the game.
As Milossarian and others have pointed out, soccer is a very popular youth sport in this country. I just don’t see the point in worrying about it not being a big pro sport splashed all over TV and the sporting news.
I played soccer in grammar school and college and found it a lot of fun. To play, not to watch. I don’t follow pro soccer, even though there’s a team in my city. If Brazilians and Brits get a blast out of attending pro games and rocking back and forth in the stands rhythmically moaning, good for them. The fact that pro soccer is not a religion in the U.S. is way down my list of worries, just ahead of whether Rosie O’Donnell is feeling completely fulfilled in life.
Soccer is a big success in the U.S., especially if you overlook the gradual decline in I.Q. scores linked to repetitive heading.
I like the comments about buy-in. I think you can have that kind of buy-in in soccer (I am certainly afflicted by it), but we don’t really present it that way.
If all you focus on in soccer is the scoring, then it will be boring. But that is kind of analogous to focusing in baseball on the run from third base to home plate. With the exception of the occasional confrontation with the catcher, that is usually not a very thrilling moment. If that was all I understood about baseball, I would be bored stiff.
But the fascinating part is “How did the guy get to third base?” and similarly “How did he get the ball in scoring position?” in soccer.
At first glance, whacking a baseball with a stick seems like a simple job. But, because we have tried it, we know better and enjoy watching an expert do it. I have a similar feeling when I watch a soccer player pluck a ball out the air with his foot, have it land cleanly in front of him and then make a pinpoint pass.
It doesn’t take arcane rules to achieve “buy-in”, but it does take an understanding of the little moments of the game that might otherwise slip by unnoticed. I cheer an important tackle like I would cheer a shortstop making a diving stop on a ground ball. I cheer a nice string of passes that puts the ball into a dangerous position like I cheer a guy stealing second base.
This is not to disparage anyone who doesn’t have the same “buy-in”. I don’t have it with some sports, like car racing, where the only time I understand what’s going on is when there is a wreck. That doesn’t make soccer better or worse objectively, it just makes it better for me.
Had we had stellar radio announcers of the sport in the twenties like baseball did, maybe soccer would be have generations of “buy-in”. How do we get it now? I had to watch some high quality games live to start getting it. I think my kids will pick it up by watching when I get excited during broadcasts. Other than that? I don’t know.
Hmm, all this “soccer is just boring” talk should be prefaced by “in my opinon” - shouldn’t it? Come on - a soccer game is 90 minutes of action, not 4 hours of stop and start plays. Soccer on TV is huge business in Europe - and doesn’t the world cup pull in more viewers than the olympics?
I think some of the main reasons have been covered (although this discussion has jumped to the present day rather than historically - as in the OP). Lack of sponsorship time, compettition from the established leagues, lack of in depth knowledge about the game, lack of home grown talent.
Let me add this as well - the US sucks at soccer! If they were at all decent on a national level, they’d get far better viewing figures (at least the national team) - this would then trickle down to MLS. The best MLS teams should also play the best euro and south american teams in the supercup.
The US came last in France 98 - they even lost to Iran. Tell me that didn’t lower interest. The US does not like to lose.
OK, I’ll tell you: that didn’t lower interest, because it’s hard to lower something that’s barely there to begin with. IIRC, two years earlier (1996) the US hosted the World Cup and hardly any Americans were aware of it.
BTW, didn’t the Toronto Blue Jays win the World Series a few years ago? I don’t think that constituted a body blow to the popularity of baseball in the US.
On the other hand, I seem to recall the U.S. women’s team having had some success recently. That hasn’t translated to a big push for women’s pro soccer.
I thought that US 94 was pretty succesful - it led to the formation of MLS. Question, why was short track speed skating so popular a couple of months ago (and skeleton, and womens bobsled)?
Come on - the US needs to get to the second round - the equivalent of a baseball team with a .500 record or better. Not be great, or even good, just mediocre.
I think the US will have to get further than that to really capture attention here. Getting to the second round will get them mentioned on Sportscenter and get a few more curious people to watch the second round game. But, if they lose that one, all those people will walk away claiming it was a fluke. They are going have to WIN a game that the country recognizes as important and is watching, and that probably means making the semis.
Is that fair? Hell, no. Frankly, just making the second round requires more than mediocrity. To switch sport analogies, we are going into the NCAA tourney from a mid-major conference (say Xavier) and we have to play Duke, Georgia Tech and Gonzaga (at Gonzaga). Portugal is one of the best in the world, right now (aka Duke), Poland is solid team who has been tested in a big conference (GT) and South Korea is a small, scrappy team playing in front of their home fans (Gonzaga). But nobody ever said sports fans were fair.
We do have to reach the second round to have ANY positive effect on fan interest. But, like Xavier a few years ago in the tourney, just getting this far is still a success story and we can use it improve the program even if we crash out in the first round.
The US did reach the 2nd round in the '94 World Cup, IIRC. We squeaked in, finishing third in our group*, but we got in. Tied w/ Switzerland, beat Colombia 2-1 with the help of an own-goal, and lost to Romania.
We were there matched up against the eventual champion, Brazil, and got dominated, 1-0. It sounds close, but as I recall it really wasn’t. The American strategy, I believe, was to load up on defense and hope for a 0-0 tie, do the same through the overtimes, and take our chances in the PK shootout. Once the Brazilians managed to poke one goal in, our fate was pretty much sealed.
Not the kind of performances that inspires legends.
I believe '94 was the last year in which a team could finish third in its first-round group and still advance. There were only 24 teams in the Cup, divvied up into six groups. All first- and second-place finishers advanced, as well as four third-place finishers. Starting with France '98, 32 teams made up 8 groups.
