Sorry about the crappy thread title; I had trouble formulating my question within the paramerters given.
I’m listening to a fun debate on the radio, where the host contends that if there was football, basketball, hockey and baseball in England, or Brazil, or insert soccer crazy country here, . . BEFORE soccer was widely introduced as a major league sport, then soccer would never take off, like it hasn’t in the U.S…
I was especially interested in British, European and Latin American posters if they agree with this opinion. Also, if you disagree, what is it about soccer that you like more than football, hockey etc etc. In other words, if the NFL had a franchise in your country, would you still follow soccer over football?
This is borderline a IMHO subject; I have a feeling a Great Debate is about to erupt!
;j
Soccer was invented first. And it has a few advantages over American sports.
A semi-contact sport (soccer) has obvious advantages over a contact sport (American football, rugby)
Baseball needs a lot of space
Ice hockey needs facilities
Field Hockey is backache + a stick in the eye scoket
Basketball players need to be freakishly tall
While soccer just requires a ball.
There is (was?) some kind of American Football league in Europe, but only a few weird America-worshippers paid any attention.
And soccer doesn’t need a lot of space? A soccer field is larger then a football field.
You DO NOT need to be freakishly tall to play basketball very well or even just to play it.
There is a “pro football league” in Europe–NFL Europe, which is run by the NFL. It serves as a farm system of sorts for the NFL. Used to be know as WLAF (World League of American Football) until they realized how stupid the acronym was.
**If my aunt had a dick, she’d be my uncle. **
This statement is a paradox. If your aunt had a dick in the first place, she would never have been an aunt. Unless you want to get into sexual assignments.
**Soccer was invented first. And it has a few advantages over American sports. **
When WAS soccer invented? And was it ever REALLY invented? I know baseball was DEVELOPED from an English game called rounders in the mid 19th century.
**A semi-contact sport (soccer) has obvious advantages over a contact sport (American football, rugby) **
As in?
**Baseball needs a lot of space[/b
By that definition, baseball, hockey, and football, requiring smaller areas, are superior to soccer.
Ice hockey needs facilities
One can argue that ice hockey is such a great game that special facilites must be built to accomodate it.
Basketball players need to be freakishly tall
This would be your definition make jockeys the greatest of all athletes.
**While soccer just requires a ball. **
AND stadiums, AND space, AND netting, AND lime lines, AND . . . There is (was?) some kind of American Football league in Europe, but only a few weird America-worshippers paid any attention.
It still is in Europe, and I dont know about this season, but reading this article might make the reader assume that someone IS PAYING attention:
Come on, let’s bring more to the table than THAT, soccer fans!
It seems the point of the first few random statements were that soccer is better because it is an easier pick up sport than the other sports. With the arguable exception of baseball that might be true. Then again, I enjoy playing videogames; that doesn’t mean anyone else wants to watch me do it!
Soccer could have been developed in many different geographical areas a long time ago. In pre-columbine times, different Amerindians (aztecs, mayans, taínos, etc.) practiced a similar game…tossing a sort of ball around without using their hands. In some cultures it had a more religious importance than in others.
Soccer is relatively less expensive to play with than other of the games mentioned, with the possible exception of basketball. If you are not playing in a league, just some friends, all you need is a ball and declare some zones to be the goal areas. Basketball only needs a ball and at least one sort of hoop. You can do that with football too, but you have more contact in that game, and more possibility of damage if not protected. Soccer needs a bigger area, and that is a disadvantage in some places.
From where I’m sitting, the 3 large Spanish-speaking island societies in the Caribbean (Cuba, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico) are NOT big on soccer, but have traditionally been huge, yea even wild, about baseball/basketball.
That could be claimed to be a historical offshoot of over a century of having the USA “in our face”, but then this has also been the case with Mexico and they ARE big on soccer. Maybe the Mexicans could explain it by reference to aztec/maya ballgames (“No, Xocoatl, you got it wrong, in THIS game you DON’T get to cut the losers’ hearts out…” )
Even if other sports were around earlier soccer would still probably be big in South America and Africa due to the fact that it’s cheap and these countries don’t have as much income to spend on kids sport. Kids can play anywhere, on grass or concrete or just about anything else and all they’ll need is a ball. Even if they can’t find a soccer ball I’ve seen kids play with tightly bound ball of rags. Compare this to ice hockey, which must be played on an ice rink and with heaps of protective equipment. Tackle football must be played on grass otherwise the risk of injury is too great. In the case of American football lots of protective equipment is also needed. Basketball needs a special court to play on, as well as a ball that can be bounced. Soccer is cheap and can be played anywhere.
Soccer is also much safer than tackle footballs and ice hockey. Even with all the protective equipment injuries are far more common and more serious than in soccer. Lets take for example rugby league because that’s what is shown most on TV here. I have yet to see a game this season where a player hasn’t been taken off the field for the entire game due to injury. During this soccer world cup however I have only seen one game where a player has been taken off the field for the rest of the game due to injury. Soccer is a much safer sport than tackle football or ice hockey.
Soccer has very simple rules – Don’t touch the ball with your hands and you score if the ball goes into the goal. This means it’s easy to play a game of soccer with a referee. Many other sports have more complex rules that are harder for the players to enforce themselves. Is it a strike or a ball? Was it a tackle or not? Did it go out? And many more. It is possible to play other sports without a referee but it often leads to many arguments.
Everyone can play soccer. Being big doesn’t give you a large advantage, so kids of all ages and sizes can play together. The eight year old from next door isn’t going to get drilled by the twelve year old with facial hair from down the road. Also, everyone takes part in soccer all the time. Everyone can get passed the ball or everyone can tackle someone unlike in baseball where one team is left sitting on the sidelines for half the game.
Soccer would probably be popular in South America and Africa even if other sports were around before it. It’s cheap, can be played everywhere, it’s simple, it’s safe and everyone can participate.
The situation in Europe and other richer countries is different however. People can more easily afford protective equipment. There are more sports fields around. Parents can afford to put their children in proper teams with coaches and referees making sure the rules are followed and the game is played safely.
Lets look at the history of football in Britain. All this information comes from the documentary series “The History of Football”, and I’m just going on my memory of the show, which has been showing recently. In the 1800’s public schools in Britain began playing football during the winter. Each school had different rules, some could handle the ball, others couldn’t, some could tackle other’s could etc. Around the 1860’s ex-students of these schools decided they would like to keep playing football. They got together and formed the Football Association. A dispute quickly arose over what rules football should have. Some people preferred no tackling and no handling the ball. Others wanted handling of the ball and tackling. Eventually those who wanted tackling and handling the ball left to form their own sport, called rugby, after the school where it was first played. Both codes went their separate ways. Football (or soccer) went on to become huge all over the world, while rugby is only played in a few places. So soccer has already beaten out another type of football, and I believe that American football is similar enough to rugby that it too would have failed against soccer. (I know American football and rugby are very different, but they have a similar style in my opinion).
Would other sports have been more popular than soccer if they were invented around the same time? Probably not, although they would probably have more of a following than they do now.
My lovely American cousins, as an Aussie looking in, I’ve often pondered this same question myself too.
Indeed, believe it or not, the main historical reason for Soccer’s acceptance the world over (in the context of adhereing to the English Football Association Rules of Football) is actually a social class issue.
In short, in English colonies the world over, the upper classes far preferred cricket and rugby. These were seen by the gentrified classes as sports worth pursuing. Accordingly, in the English colonies which were perceived as ‘jewells’ in the crown, cricket and rugby were firmly established as the prevailing sporting codes. Historically speaking, the Americas were also subjected to this influence, and most historians readily concede the evolution of baseball from cricket, and American Football from Rugby. Indeed, in some ‘old school private schools’ in the U.S. and Canada, rugby is still quite a cherished sport.
Here in Australia, soccer is 4th rung on the ladder. Cricket, Rugby, and Australian Football far outweigh soccer’s popularity. This is concordant in the other 8 Cricket playing nations too. The same ‘upper class’ influence took place there as well.
Soccer, conversely, was perceived very mcuh as the working man’s game and was actively dissuaded under such circumstances - but it took off like wild fire around the rest of the world where British values were not so influential.
And yet the ultimate irony is that The English FA Rules of Football were what was adopted as the world standard in soccer’s rules - even the Britain’s upper classes had nothing but disdain for the game!
*Originally posted by Vinnie Virginslayer *
A semi-contact sport (soccer) has obvious advantages over a contact sport (American football, rugby)
As in?
As in the advantage of not getting hurt so much playing it and physical size being less of an advantage, so all can play.
Baseball needs a lot of space
By that definition, baseball, hockey, and football, requiring smaller areas, are superior to soccer.
I suspect you meant basketball not baseball in your response, but you’ve overlooked the fact that you can play a perfectly adequate modified form of soccer without a full size field, and you don’t need any field markings at all. Most soccer is played spontaneously in the street or on any area of flattish ground from a Sao Paulo favella to a French beach.
Ice hockey needs facilities
One can argue that ice hockey is such a great game that special facilites must be built to accomodate it.
In that case your argument would fail IMHO. But in any case, how would you know how good a game it was until you already had the rink and sticks? For most of the world it is impossible to play hockey using “found” conditions, whereas soccer can be played practically anywhere.
Basketball players need to be freakishly tall
This would be your definition make jockeys the greatest of all athletes.
Maybe nicky doesn’t understand basketball as well as you do, but your reply about jockeys is specious - clearly he meant that any sport where an extreme body shape is an advantage tends to limit its broad appeal.
While soccer just requires a ball.
AND stadiums, AND space, AND netting, AND lime lines, AND . . .
Simply not true. See previous comment.
It seems the point of the first few random statements were that soccer is better because it is an easier pick up sport than the other sports. With the arguable exception of baseball that might be true. Then again, I enjoy playing videogames; that doesn’t mean anyone else wants to watch me do it!
Maybe video games will be a big spectator sport one day? Lots of other novelty sports and games seem to attract a crowd in the USA and are even played professionally. Of course you still need the games and console to play them, and would need a lot of extra equipment to make them convenient for a crowd to watch. I think widespread convenience is the killer USP for soccer, and I think you’re underestimating just how convenient a game it is.
[quote]
A semi-contact sport (soccer) has obvious advantages over a contact sport (American football, rugby)
As in?
As in the advantage of not getting hurt so much playing it and physical size being less of an advantage, so all can play.
[quote]
Never stopped us when we were kids. I was a small fry (still am an inch or so shorter than average, and I loved neighborhood football when I played. In reality, physical size is less important than speed, balance, and smarts. It helps mid you, but more when you play it organized, in which case there is a larger pool of players to choose from.
You can easily reduce the size for all those games. Do you think most tykes lay on full-size fields? Its not even an issue to be discussed. I’ve played baseball in the streets. Heck, that is fact is where it developed - in the middle of New York City.
Thats why it developed in Northern areas where ice and snow isn’t and issue half the hyear. 8)
There is so much speciousness here its not funny. Tall kids might be attracted to the sport, but on a low levels its not a problem .Heck, the best basketball players I know are (or were) extremely short. On a national scale (which I point out evolves because of local interest) there are comensurately more players to choose from. In any event, how does having players with certain body types limit appeal? Peaople in America don’t disregard football players because we aren’t all 6’6" and weigh 300+ lbs. [Thats a lot weight to you evil metric folk out there :evil )
…And all you need for baseball is a sturdy stick and a cloth ball. Everton, your using a bait and switch and not realizing it. Your implying that “American” sports require all the things they are played with on a pro level, while arguing that soccer doesn’t have to have them. This is true, but has no bearing on the case. In any event, a ball doesn’t cost that much whether its a baseball or a occer ball and a bat is hardly any more.
You can play football with some goal marks (i.e: The Anderson’s yard is your side and Billy’s tree is ours) and a flat surface. Sound familier, soccer fan?
When I watch soccer, I think “hockey witout the sticks.”
When I watch rugby, I think “American football without the helmets.”
The similarities between American football and rugby are striking and obvious. About the only similarity between American football and soccer is that both of them have “goals” that a ball can be kicked through. How on Earth could American football have descended from soccer?!
If I recall correctly, American Football evolved from Rugby Union, which evolved from Soccer. Australian Rules Football also evolved from Rugby Union, but is now very similar to Gaelic Football, which evolved independently. Rugby League evolved from Rugby Union.
: