Why soccer won't catch on in the United States

Post by **Zaia** » 2004-08-04 05:37pm

I for one enjoy watching soccer very much. Sometimes one of the local public channels broadcasts the European games and they're great fun to watch. Trouble with soccer and the rest of those kickass games we usually don't get on TV like rugby and Aussie Rules football is that they are fast-paced games and don't have enough convenient spots to shove commercials to make it worthwhile.

There's a guy who owns a TV station out in Frederick, Maryland who prides himself on his indepedent programming--he runs Aussie Rules games on Monday nights (doesn't compete with Monday Night Football because of the season difference). He has a few footy commercials that he runs during the week in primetime, which say that he got some local companies to donate money to show the AR games so the plays don't get interrupted.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-04 05:44pm

Plays in soccer build too slowly. Americans like to see Shock and Awe in their sports.

Look at the most popular sports:

Baseball: nothing happens most of the time, thus allowing generous time for commercials and pointless commentary. But when something does happen, CRACK! A game, a series, or a season can turn on one swing of the bat. There's your shock and awe: a sudden, dramatic reversal.

Football: games are sometimes decided by slow grinding matches up and down the field, but that's not why people watch. They watch for the shock and awe: the dramatic turnaround. The bullet pass through heavy traffic to a wide receiver crossing the field, who turns downfield and COULD ... GO ... ALL ... THE ... WAY!!!! Or even better, the interception which is returned for a touchdown.

Basketball: it doesn't have the kind of split-second turnarouns you find in baseball or football, but it makes up for it with near-constant action.

Even hockey, which lags behind these 3 sports in popularity, still has dramatic high-speed breakaways. You still have the power-play followed by the stunning two-on-one breakout rushing down the ice toward the other team's goalie.

But in soccer, every play seems to take forever to materialize. It just takes them too long to move up and down the field, because the field is too big.

Post by **Zaia** » 2004-08-04 05:52pm

I agree with most of what you said, D.W., but I personally think soccer is a lot more exciting than baseball. The sudden *crack whoosh YAY!* thing doesn't happen often enough to make watching it anything other than dull as hell. With soccer (and maybe I've had the fortune to have only seen really good games?), yeah, it takes a bit of set-up to get from one side of the field to the other, but that's at least an interesting progression (their footwork is sweet) and the goal set-ups and kicks are usually pretty damn cool.

Maybe that's just me, though--I'm pretty much un-American to the core.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-08-04 07:05pm

Bob the Gunslinger wrote:
Soontir C'boath wrote:Well, we do have women's soccer here, so we can't actually say it hasn't caught on...just perhaps not with men.
That's true. For some reason, America loves women's soccer, but couldn't give a rat's ass about mens soccer. And having been to an American pro soccer match (LA Galaxy vs Kansas Wizards--are they KKK or something?), I can tell you that a full dental checkup is a better way to kill 2 hours...

The women's professional league folded last year despite having first rate talent and doing everything right you could ask a league to do.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-08-04 07:12pm

Darth Wong wrote:Plays in soccer build too slowly. Americans like to see Shock and Awe in their sports.

Look at the most popular sports:

Baseball: nothing happens most of the time, thus allowing generous time for commercials and pointless commentary. But when something does happen, CRACK! A game, a series, or a season can turn on one swing of the bat. There's your shock and awe: a sudden, dramatic reversal.

The thrill of baseball comes from anticipating those moments more from the moments themselves, I think. Diehard baseball fans live for the strategy that goes into setting up those moments (and foiling the other team's attempt to do the same).

Football: games are sometimes decided by slow grinding matches up and down the field, but that's not why people watch. They watch for the shock and awe: the dramatic turnaround. The bullet pass through heavy traffic to a wide receiver crossing the field, who turns downfield and COULD ... GO ... ALL ... THE ... WAY!!!! Or even better, the interception which is returned for a touchdown.

My personal favorite is the bone crunching sack, fumble, and touchdown return. But I'm a defensive minded guy.

Jalinth · Post by **Jalinth** » 2004-08-04 07:51pm

Zaia wrote:I agree with most of what you said, D.W., but I personally think soccer is a lot more exciting than baseball. The sudden *crack whoosh YAY!* thing doesn't happen often enough to make watching it anything other than dull as hell. With soccer (and maybe I've had the fortune to have only seen really good games?), yeah, it takes a bit of set-up to get from one side of the field to the other, but that's at least an interesting progression (their footwork is sweet) and the goal set-ups and kicks are usually pretty damn cool.

Maybe that's just me, though--I'm pretty much un-American to the core.

Love soccer - ref it, play it (a bit), watch it.

One problem with American football is that is basically a game made by lawyers played by thugs (ever see the football rulebooks.?) The number of exceptions to the exceptions to the previous exceptions are insane. I can see why most NFL officials have grey hair - they spent 15 years just learning the rules.

Also, it is 30 seconds (max) of action followed by a bunch of time standing around.
Last thing I don't really like is that the coaches are too important.

If you want cultural sports issues, look at cricket. Incomprehensible to most of the world but has a massive following where it is played.

SWPIGWANG · Post by **SWPIGWANG** » 2004-08-04 08:00pm

Why people watch sports when they are not cripped and unable to play them is beyond me.....

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2004-08-04 08:06pm

Why people watch sports, period

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-08-04 08:50pm

SWPIGWANG wrote:Why people watch sports when they are not cripped and unable to play them is beyond me.....

Because some people think they're entertaining to watch? Think that might be it?

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-08-05 06:29am

fgalkin wrote:Not to mention a sport that doesn't consist of oh, 30 seconds of activly doing something, followed by 10 minutes of standing and grunting.

P.S. All hail Russia, the true champion of Europe!

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Well that's gratitude for you. We give them an alphabet and religion and they want to take all our glory! Humph!

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-08-05 06:31am

Slartibartfast wrote:Another reason "soccer" doesn't catch in the US, is that it's an international game, loved everywhere, and the US has always preferred to be more isolationist. So there.

Who would have thought that the US were French!

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2004-08-05 01:49pm

Darth Wong wrote:Plays in soccer build too slowly. Americans like to see Shock and Awe in their sports.

Look at the most popular sports:

Baseball: nothing happens most of the time, thus allowing generous time for commercials and pointless commentary. But when something does happen, CRACK! A game, a series, or a season can turn on one swing of the bat. There's your shock and awe: a sudden, dramatic reversal.

But in soccer, every play seems to take forever to materialize. It just takes them too long to move up and down the field, because the field is too big.

I don't think so.

For one, a soccer match can very easily turn in 2 minutes. For example, there was a Man U match 1 year back, where Man U turned the tide from 1 goal down, back up to 3-1 in the last ten minutes of play. Similarly in tournmant matches, teams that have relaxed their guard in the last minute has been shocked before. I can't recall the match, but the scoreline was frustrating as the opposing team scored during extra time, TWICE, to win the match.

Similarly, the Brazil vs Germany World Cup match was a wonder to behold, as Ronaldo, Rivaldo and the remainding Rs constantly tested Khan defences, letting rip powerful shots at Khan. Furthermore, the slower fluidity of soccer actually leads to more excitement, as fans can watch the play build up, and the tension rise. This is as opposed to basketball, where good play is measured in seconds, to be rewatched on replays.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-05 02:00pm

PainRack wrote:I don't think so.

For one, a soccer match can very easily turn in 2 minutes.

First of all, it is rare for much scoring to occur in soccer at all. Second, a play which takes a minute or more to crystallize is extremely slow relative to the speed of a typical play in hockey, baseball, football, or basketball, so the point remains.

Hades · Post by **Hades** » 2004-08-05 02:02pm

The reason why football (ie:soccer) wont catch on in the US is because no one is willing to invest in it. If big companies decided to invist in it the way they do baseball or basketball or american football (that really should be called american rugby) and they had the funding to buy decent players, promote the sport well then it could catch on.

plus theres always the fact that as long as americans dont watch it they have an exscuse for coming last in the world cup.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-08-05 02:06pm

Darth Wong wrote: Look at the most popular sports:

Baseball: nothing happens most of the time, thus allowing generous time for commercials and pointless commentary. But when something does happen, CRACK! A game, a series, or a season can turn on one swing of the bat. There's your shock and awe: a sudden, dramatic reversal.

Football: games are sometimes decided by slow grinding matches up and down the field, but that's not why people watch. They watch for the shock and awe: the dramatic turnaround. The bullet pass through heavy traffic to a wide receiver crossing the field, who turns downfield and COULD ... GO ... ALL ... THE ... WAY!!!! Or even better, the interception which is returned for a touchdown.

Basketball: it doesn't have the kind of split-second turnarouns you find in baseball or football, but it makes up for it with near-constant action.

You forgot to mention Pro Wrestling, a spectacle which can be described as "intentionally unintentionally funny".

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-08-05 03:10pm

Peregrin Toker wrote:
You forgot to mention Pro Wrestling, a spectacle which can be described as "intentionally unintentionally funny".

pro wrestling isn't a sport, its sports entertainment. the WWE producers made this distinction for a reason.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-08-05 04:16pm

Slartibartfast wrote:Another reason "soccer" doesn't catch in the US, is that it's an international game, loved everywhere, and the US has always preferred to be more isolationist. So there.

Have you ever heard of tennis, assclown?

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2004-08-05 05:21pm

Darth Wong wrote:<Football, sorry, Soccer doesn't have "Shock and Awe">

Soccer does have "shock and awe" moments, such as when teams make a sudden break away counter attack and the momentum of the match flips on it's head. There are players (for eg. Michael Owen) who are known for their ability to pull this off, normally because of their blistering pace and ball control.

A well struck free kick can also have the same effect (such as Roberto Carlos' 40 yard screamer in '98, or a David Beckham special)

And if the game goes to a penalty shoot out you can cut the tension with a knife. Careers have been made and lost due to them, and players that miss can often be expected to be savaged by their home media (and fans).

And personally i find watching a well crafted team goal enjoyable. Even if it's a tap in at the end, i think watching a team surgically take the defence apart with pin-point passing and some individual brilliance satisfying.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-08-05 06:14pm

Hades wrote:The reason why football (ie:soccer) wont catch on in the US is because no one is willing to invest in it. If big companies decided to invist in it the way they do baseball or basketball or american football (that really should be called american rugby) and they had the funding to buy decent players, promote the sport well then it could catch on.

Nobody's willing to invest in it because nobody here cares about it. It's not like a by-the-numbers blockbuster where if you hype it hard enough you can make a bunch of money even if it's crap. If there's no interest, you're just pouring your money down a rat hole. American popular culture is littered with the bones of heavily hyped alternative sports and leagues which flopped.

plus theres always the fact that as long as americans dont watch it they have an exscuse for coming last in the world cup.

If we actually gave a shit about soccer, the rest of the world would be bitching about how Americans all the fucking time same as they do with everything else. That's not jingoism, that's simply the fact we have a huge population, a ton of money, and a system that identifies the most talented athletes and starts training them before they even start school. If we developed physicists the way we developed athletes, I'd probably be writing this from my place on Alpha Centauri.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2004-08-06 12:03am

Joe wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:Another reason "soccer" doesn't catch in the US, is that it's an international game, loved everywhere, and the US has always preferred to be more isolationist. So there.
Have you ever heard of tennis, assclown?

Is it played with the ass?

Falkenhayn · Post by **Falkenhayn** » 2004-08-06 12:30am

RedImperator wrote:

Nobody's willing to invest in it because nobody here cares about it. It's not like a by-the-numbers blockbuster where if you hype it hard enough you can make a bunch of money even if it's crap. If there's no interest, you're just pouring your money down a rat hole. American popular culture is littered with the bones of heavily hyped alternative sports and leagues which flopped.

I was reading an article not too long ago that said Soccer started to take root stateside in the 50's and 60's. Full stadiums, dedicated fans, all the trappings of a real professional sport in the works. The league ended up folding in the 70's due to talent polarisation. The richest franchises were winning games by double diget margins, the fan bases were turned off, and soccer died until MLS was formed.

RedImperator wrote:
If we actually gave a shit about soccer, the rest of the world would be bitching about how Americans all the fucking time same as they do with everything else. That's not jingoism, that's simply the fact we have a huge population, a ton of money, and a system that identifies the most talented athletes and starts training them before they even start school. If we developed physicists the way we developed athletes, I'd probably be writing this from my place on Alpha Centauri.

The thing is, we are good at it. That zealous minority that follows soccer produces first class players.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-08-06 12:31am

Darth_Zod wrote:
Peregrin Toker wrote:
You forgot to mention Pro Wrestling, a spectacle which can be described as "intentionally unintentionally funny".
pro wrestling isn't a sport, its sports entertainment. the WWE producers made this distinction for a reason.

I never said it wasn't. And isn't pro wrestling still regarded as a serious sport in Mexico?