Car racing has been around as long as there have been cars, pretty much.
Soccer, not so much. I vaguely remember some mention of Pele in the 70s, but otherwise, I played in the first soccer game I ever saw live…and that was college intramurals in 1983. That’s only 25 years ago. Another 20-30 years, and you’ll have a much larger percentage of the adult population that have actually played the game at some level.
[quote=“YamatoTwinkie, post:3, topic:464219”]
Personal WAG: Minus the cultural tradition, soccer(football) isn’t really that great of a spectator sport.
???It isn’t?
Well colour me whatever colour you want, me and the millions who follow football
Exactly. Soccer has had much more time to catch on.
This is not really true. Maybe in countries that don’t attach much weight to soccer, but here in England, at least when I was a lad, to be a kid who sucked at football was to guarantee that you would hear plenty about it. Maybe Stateside there’s an attitude of “So what? It’s only soccer” but that doesn’t explain why “it’s only soccer”.
As to the lack of scoring, you guys prefer baseball to cricket even though in the latter game you’ll see about 500 balls bowled in a day and three hundred-odd runs scored.
Spectator sport? Over here, big games attract vociferous five-figure crowds - and in South America they take it even more seriously than we do AIUI.
In terms of soccer’s popularity amongst tweens and not as a college sport I can say that the best soccer players from my town all went to Ivy League and “Near-Ivy” schools. There are very few people who go into professional sports from top-tier colleges and universities.
When I was growing up, soccer and T-ball were the only organized sports that you could participate in, officially, at the age of 5. Everyone played soccer and most continued to play through elementary school. Once we got to junior high school, we split up into the people who planned on playing in high school and everyone else. I played soccer with the same team of guys from Travel soccer in elementary school through our Freshman soccer team. Nearly all of those guys went on to play Varsity and then college soccer but myself and a few others switched over to football.
Professional soccer viewership is already on the rise and I think that people are showing their age with some of the responses so far. At least 4 out of 5 of my friends will wake up at ridiculous hours to watch World Cup matches and the majority of them will also follow UEFA Cup and Champions League matches as well. It is easy to follow a sport that you have played and it is significantly easier to get excited about it as well. I think people forget that its easy to grow up watching baseball, football and basketball when our parents and grandparents played these sports. I expect that in 10-20 years you will see a big shift in the popularity of professional soccer in the U.S.
Here in England soccer is the most popular game because:
it’s easy to play in a local park (e.g. less equipment and space than cricket, far less impact than rugby)
there’a a long tradition (the league started in 1888), with 92 professional / semi-professional clubs spread around the country
it’s on TV and well-reported in the media
the players are well-paid (this has increased dramatically in recent decades - it wouldn’t have applied 50 years ago)
I must add that professional sport is superbly organised in the US.
Even with huge TV contracts and a few wealthy owners, soccer stadiums over here are largely old and decaying. The top few clubs get millions annually, the next 15 do OK and everyone else gets scraps.
I have watched the Las Vegas 51 team (Hi Kurilla! Hi tpkurilla! Hi sarahwilloughby!) and although they are Minor League, they have a clean modern stadium with good sightlines, ample parking, massive electronic scoreboard, comfy seating etc.
Yeah, there’s some circular reasoning going on in this thread. Soccer is unpopular because it’s too easy to play. It’s easy to play because no one cares how bad you are at it. No one cares because soccer is unpopular.
Soccer is only popular with younger people because “it is seen as a kid’s game”.
Diificult to fit TV commercials in? Tell that to the commercial broadasters over here who pay billions for soccer rights. Ditto “boring to watch”. And gambling? The amount of money gambled on soccer wordlwide must at least rival any other sport.
The thing is, soccer is perpetually “10-20 years away.” According to my site, soccer has been around in the US since the 19th century.
At this point it’s a safer bet to say it will never catch on than it will catch on in our lifetime.
League, ESPN advise patience on MLS ratings
At some point the only reasonable explanation will be that there is something inherent in the game that is unappealing to Americans.
I’m in my mid-20s and I know a few people like this. It’s a niche, and not a big one. And those fans are more interested in the European teams than MLS by far, because satellite TV gives them the option to watch either one and the European teams offer a higher level of play.
It’s possible, but I’m 47, and have been hearing since I was a little kid how soccer was just about to become the biggest spectator sport in the U.S., and yet here were are having the same arguments.
To use a cliche, her in the U.S., soccer is the sport of the future… and it always will be.
Really? It was pretty damn popular when I was growing up. I don’t recall anyone having to be pushed into it by their parents.
what do I know though, I grew up playing hockey and lacrosse too, so maybe I just had a weird fixation on launching things at nets.
This is utterly ridiculous. Simply because you are acclimatized to not enjoying a sport where there is not scoring every moment doesn’t mean the definition of a great spectator sport is one with constant scoring.
Some of the best football games I have ever seen have been 0-0 or 1-0. Some of the best baseball games I have ever seen have been pitchers’ duels. Of course this is my opinion. But I am not turning around and saying that per se basketball is a better spectator sport than football because people score more often. I do love both NBA and college hoops, but that sure as hell isn’t the reason. They also killed much of my interest in the NHL when they decided it had to be high scoring to please those with the attention span of a goldfish.
Likewise here if you suck at baseball. But from what I’ve seen of youth soccer leagues, I can’t imagine an American kid getting too much grief for sucking at soccer. I’m not sure most of the parents or the other kids would even recognize suckitude if they saw it. It’s easy to hide.
I agree; that doesn’t explain how soccer got that way in the US, but it does explain why the large number of soccer moms doesn’t translate into adult spectator interest.
Has there ever been any kind of popular sentiment in any of the football-centric nations to do away with draws? We used to allow them in Pro Hockey and eventually pressure to conform to the will of the masses made them go to a shootout to settle it (except in the playoffs). I never really had a problem with them to begin with, but apparently it bothered some people.
Draws have been pretty much eliminated in the knock out competitions in England. In the past, you could have repeat replays of a game. I have a vague memory of a Liverpool vs Arsenal semi-final of the FA Cup going to 3 replays.
Nowadays, games go to extra time, then penalties, except for the FA Cup which I believe still allows one replay before this happens.
There wasn’t a feeling against draws as much as problem with fixtures building up, and in particular I remember the police getting stroppy about having to provide coverage for extra games.
There are still draws in the league competition, though, and no general feeling of getting rid of them. What they did do was shift the points for a win from 2 to 3, witha raw staying at 1, so the advantages of playing for the win increased.
There is a huge sentiment that soccer is for foreigners. I think this was especially prevalent after WWII and that sort of destroyed all the soccer culture there might have been. The US didn’t make a World Cup from 1950 to 1990. The NASL wasn’t about developing American soccer, it was about buying foreign stars and having a circus.
I don’t think you can in any way say the past failure of soccer will relate to its future in the country. MLS averages ~15k a game, and while their sponsor ship money, ticket prices, etc. isn’t anything compared to the NBA or NHL, they attract similar amounts of people to live events.
Yes, one replay, except for the semifinals and final. There’s also increased use of two-leg matches in European competitions, with the away-goals rule allowing many draws to still have a winner.
Draws are an integral part of league competition, and not accepting that this is the case suggests that somebody hasn’t understood just how much of an importance single points can be across a forty-something match season.
The NHL found a fun way to make a mockery of that system. It used to be 2 pts for a win, 1 pt for a draw. simple enough. When they eliminated draws though, they kept it at 2 pts for a regulation or overtime/shootout win, plus 1 pt for an overtime/shootout loss, with of course no pts for a regulation loss.
And, a reason we don’t have as many people pursuing it into college: it’s a whole lot of running back and forth. As one of my favorite writers put it, “little kids run everywhere and think nothing of it.”
Plus, there’s that whole, sissy “don’t touch the ball with your hands” thing.
Uh… the NBA?
Explain how that’s a sissy thing.