# Why do Americans (as a whole) dislike Soccer?



## jaywdetroit

It seems that there are many opinions out there on the merits of Soccer as a spectator sport. I have posted a thread lobbying D* to add Fox Soccer Channel to its regular lineup. I have a feeling people want to talk about whether or not soccer is worthy of this request. 

So I am providing a thread to do it.

Here are my 2 cents on the subject: I once talked to a National Sports Reporter from MSNBC. He had written a rather encouraging article about Soccer in the U.S. and painted it with a positive spin. I asked him about the article and complimented the fact that it wasn't about what a useless spectator sport soccer is. He replied that the National Media seems to have an agenda to keep the sport off the radar as Editors REFUSE to believe anyone wants to read about it. Therefore - no articles get written because the writers are not getting paid to write them. They write them out of their own interest only. 

That makes me wonder- Could it be that the powerful folks in this country want to suppress soccer to avoid even more competition for the NFL and MLB? Conspiracy yes, but plausible. 

Well at least 1 didn't want soccer suppressed - Lamar Hunt - virtual founder of the AFL, was also had a MAJOR interest in the MLS. He was visionary enough to see the Super Bowl, I wonder what he was thinking by sinking all this money into U.S. Soccer. 

I would love for D* to add FSC to its lineup if even to give some of the skeptics a chance to learn more about the game. Of course, for there to be any interest, the writers have to start reporting on it. 

Once you understand the flow of the game, its much more interesting than the 1 - nil scoreline suggests. If not for any other reason, that the pure implication of that first goal. 

It is truly - the beautiful game.


----------



## Capmeister

Those of us who didn't grow up playing it or watching it, just don't care.

It's a cultural thing.


----------



## sigma1914

First, I want to say I love all competitive sports, including a good 'footy match.' Interesting idea on a possible "conspiracy" by the media. I think it comes down to money...plain & simple economics. How do channels and televised sporting events make money? Advertising. We all know how big a role commercials play in the Superbowl. When soccer matches are televised, there is no commercial interuption. Ad space is often paid for & given to soccer related companies like Adidas for them to be mentioned X ammount of times in a 45 minute half. As dumb as it sounds, a commercial free 45 minute slot makes no sense to a money driven tv exec. So, now we have a weak financial program (a soccer match) to pitch to a big time tv station (Fox or CBS)...good luck. What's the next option? Pitch it to 2nd rate stations and get crappy time slots. Basically, due to there being no financial benefit in broadcasting soccer in the U.S. like other major sports, the lack of exposure leads to lack of interest by Americans.


----------



## saltrek

Very true about the ad time. But, just about all of the breaks during football and hockey (and probably basketball too - do you really need 10 time-outs a game?)are created solely for TV and are not a natural part of the game.

If Soccer makes it, they will have to create 2 minute stoppages at various points during the halves. Then how will the ones who really love the game feel about their sport?


----------



## jaywdetroit

saltrek said:


> Very true about the ad time. But, just about all of the breaks during football and hockey (and probably basketball too - do you really need 10 time-outs a game?)are created solely for TV and are not a natural part of the game.
> 
> If Soccer makes it, they will have to create 2 minute stoppages at various points during the halves. Then how will the ones who really love the game feel about their sport?


I agree with your points on advertising - but I think that some of the solutions (much as the nauseate me) are just as good as commercial breaks. IF NOT better in the emerging DVR world.

We've seen brand names in the corner of the screen for X amount of time or on the score box, or like you say, product placement into the broadcast. Not to mention the prominence of the Ads they can place along the sidelines. Do I really need 30 seconds for you to explain to me what Coca Cola is? Just making me look at it every time the Goalie handles the ball is sufficient for a companies like Coke/Adidas/Budweiser etc.


----------



## FTA Michael

IMHO, there's just not enough scoring. Here are some wild estimates and observations:

In soccer, there are about 2-3 scoring plays per average game. Think 2-1. Lots of small victories and impressive ball movement, a fair number of close calls, but rarely more than three goals in a game.

In the NFL, there are about 5-7 scoring plays per game. Think 24-17. Based on its popularity, this seems about "right" to US fans.

In MLB, there are about 5-7 scoring plays per game. Think 5-3, with some of those runs coming on 2- or 3-run events. There are the same slow build-ups that soccer gets, but there are more scoring breakthroughs.

In the NHL, we're getting back up to 4-6 scoring plays per game. Think 3-2. One of the reasons the fans came back pretty strong after the full-season lockout was the rule changes to bring scoring up from its 3-5 plays level.

In basketball, there are dozens of scoring plays per game. In arena football, looks like about 15 or so. Both seem to be doing well.

A secondary flaw is timekeeping. Would it really hurt the game for the time to be kept on the scoreboard clock, with the referees stopping it for injuries and such? Americans want to know to the tenth of a second how much time is left in hockey and basketball. The notion of playing a vague amount of time until the referee blows the whistle runs counter to that.

But IMHO, the huge problem is scoring. If the MLS starts putting up NHL scores, it'll help keep us ignorant Americans from nodding off in the stands.


----------



## jaywdetroit

I lost the battle to keep my original thread on the FSC topic. It has morphed to a discussion about soccer -

FTA - a previous post of mine in that thread would be my answer to yours here.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=853765&postcount=33


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I think there are several things going on... some I understand, some I don't.

I don't understand, for instance... there are bunches of kids, boys and girls, playing soccer. There are soccer fields around where I live where for hours on those days traffic is almost deadlocked with people going in and out... so I know kids are playing, and it would seem even in the heart of ACC basketball country, more young kids are playing soccer than basketball or football!

But... something happens, those kids grow up... and not only stop playing soccer but don't want to watch others play either! That seems a little odd to me, that there is so much interest, then a few years later none.

Then again... I'm not sure how many gymnasts, track/field, ice skating, etc etc participants as kids grow up to watch the sport either... so some sports just have a natural (apparently) disconnect even from those who grow up with it.

I agree about the low-scoring... Soccer is much like hockey to me (I don't like hockey either) in that you can go a very long time before something happens, then a score and it is all over in seconds. There may be no more than 1-2 scores in an average game too.

Even with the NFL... most folks hate seeing a 6-3 defensive/field goal struggle these days... Most folks want to see lots of up and down the field with results from those trips by scoring points.

To be fair, some of the NFL is also smoke & mirrors... because they get 6 points for a TD and 3 for a field goal... If only 2 points were awarded for a TD and 1 for a field goal (and no extra point or 2-point conversions)... then average games might be more like 6-4 or something similar... and I think that would turn folks off.

Think about pro tennis, and the strange scoring there... there are 4 pts in an average game (15, 30, 40, win) though sometimes they go to deuce or advantage in "ties"... but really we are talking about 4 points, yet it sounds different being 30 or 40 to "love" (zero) than 3 nothing!

There is some psychology... and also some truth to whatever is already popular having a leg up.

Nascar is popular (I don't like it though)... and there is no scoring at all during a race. Points are awarded after the race ends... and points are totalled for all races to the end of the season before you find out who won the season... but there is a lot of fast action during a race... so apparently scoring a lot of points during a game is not necessary for popularity.

And to be completely fair... In many countries soccer is about the only national sport. A few countries play baseball very seriously... and some are starting to have more basketball as evident from recent Olympic results... Here in the USA we have lots and lots of sports options to divide the attention of fans.

It is entirely possible that as the rest of the world adopts a variety of sports in their locales... they too many lose interest in soccer in favor of other sports. Unless and until that happens, we really don't know.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan

HDME - you're right as far as playing soccer when we're kids and then we don't. I think perhaps its because at 5, 6, 7, 8 years old, you can play soccer and have alot of fun. Baseball is rough at that age when nobody can catch and you can hardly hit the ball and so on. Anybody can run around and kick the ball, even though at that young age its like a pack of bumblebees chasing the ball, it's fun.

At some point, they get more coordinated and more athletic, and for whatever reason, we switch our kids over to baseball, football, etc.

I think the scoring aspect probably has something to do with that. Once kids start getting older, and soccer starts getting more structured, it's not the same amount of action that a 9 or 10 year old wants. They can switch to baseball and football where everything is moving all the time... Check out a little league game sometime - 15-14, 12-9.... the scores are way up there and to a kid, that's "fun"....

And I think as Cap pointed out, it's a cultural thing. Why it started, who knows, but American kids play soccer when they're little and then switch to other sports as they get older. At some point, we as a society decided soccer wasn't the "in" thing and it gets shoved to the back burner. Throw on top of it the fact that it doesn't play well on TV for advertising, etc.

Also, I think there's a bit of cyclical dynamics going on here. Because soccer isn't that popular, there aren't that many well known american soccer players. Because there aren't that many well known soccer players, kids don't grow up idolizing them.... IN short, soccer isn't followed real close because it's not widely popular...


----------



## jpl

Figured I should move my comments over to this thread. I do have a theory as to why soccer is not as popular here as it is everywhere else. I've heard all sorts of excuses, like:

1) It's low-scoring - well, so is baseball
2) It's hard to follow the rules - come on... that one just makes me laugh - it's one of the simplest sports on the planet
3) It's like watching paint dry -- all I can say to this one is: to each his own. there have been soccer games that are dry as toast, but then again, I've seen football games that can be described that way as well... and baseball... and so on. But like there are exciting football games, there are also exciting soccer matches.
4) I've even heard people go off on the "tyranny of the ref" - that one guy has too much power on the field, and it's too subjective
5) There are already too many sports out there - please... new sports are added all the time! tell me why, then, we have things like the X-games show up all of a sudden... and why sports like NASCAR just take off all of a sudden, from a small following to one of the fastest growing sports in the country.

All of these are just justifications for why some folks don't like the sport. If they don't - then that's their perogative. As for why it never caught on here like it has elsewhere - I think that's more cultural than anything else. There's a definite American attitude (this is a good thing, btw) that says "we don't follow - we lead - we do things OUR way - the fact that everyone else does it, doesn't mean we will... in fact that just means that we probably won't"). To give an example of what I'm talking about - look at horse racing. Which way do horse-races run? Answer - counter-clockwise. Ever wonder why? Because horse racing came here as a result of the English settlers - it was a big sport in England. During the Revolutionary War times, though, we decided to counter all things English, but we didn't want to give up the races. So we reversed them - the English run clockwise - we run counter-clockwise.

I really think it's just that simple - it's not an elite thing... it's actually kind of an anti-elite thing. It's not that we didn't invent the sport (there are lots of sports that we adopt that weren't invented here) - and it's not just the popularity everywhere else. It's more that we're almost EXPECTED to adopt it BECAUSE everyone else has. I really think that sticks in the craw of many Americans. Personally, I don't think there's a better sport to watch. On TV it's fantastic - live it's even better. And when I had the chance to go to some of the World Cup matches here in 94... That Italy/Ireland game opening the ceremony at the Meadowlands in NJ was something I'll never forget (especially since there were, surprisingly, only about, oh, I would say 3 of us in the entire stadium - or so it seemed - rooting for Italy - EVERYONE was in green - just made me ill  - and especially since Italy lost) - even though it was like 140 degrees in the stadium that day.


----------



## jaywdetroit

I was at all the Silverdome games in '94 - it was surreal. There is nothing like it. The Brazalian fans were the most memorable. 

I really think soccer is suppressed by the media. Kids who played don't watch because its not on. Its as simple as that.

And I am not sure that kids switch in droves over to baseball, football, and basketball. At least they don't in my community. In fact I switched when I was 11 or 12 from those other sports to soccer.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan

jaywdetroit said:


> I was at all the Silverdome games in '94 - it was surreal. There is nothing like it. The Brazalian fans were the most memorable.
> 
> I really think soccer is suppressed by the media. Kids who played don't watch because its not on. Its as simple as that.
> 
> And I am not sure that kids switch in droves over to baseball, football, and basketball. At least they don't in my community. In fact I switched when I was 11 or 12 from those other sports to soccer.


I can't speak for any locale other than my own, but I know here we have alot of young kids switching away from soccer. In this area, they switch because there is a really large hispanic population that grows up breathing soccer.... If you're an average player, you're going to have a hard time making a team in this area because there are alot of young hispanic kids who have had a soccerball at their feet.... In our area it boils down to a cultural thing. The hispanic culture, soccer is their big pastime. The "american" kids aren't necessarily in love with soccer, and so if the going gets tough, they switch to a new sport...


----------



## jaywdetroit

Sharkie_Fan said:


> I can't speak for any locale other than my own, but I know here we have alot of young kids switching away from soccer. In this area, they switch because there is a really large hispanic population that grows up breathing soccer.... If you're an average player, you're going to have a hard time making a team in this area because there are alot of young Hispanic kids who have had a soccerball at their feet.... In our area it boils down to a cultural thing. The hispanic culture, soccer is their big pastime. The "american" kids aren't necessarily in love with soccer, and so if the going gets tough, they switch to a new sport...


That's interesting to learn. We don't have a very large Hispanic culture in Michigan. So there isn't that competition. I'm pretty red blooded, but my 1 year old is already kicking the ball around. Hopefully he'll be able to compete - (assuming he even likes the sport).


----------



## FTA Michael

(shrug) You know, I never said that soccer is bad. I was just responding to the title with my best guesses.

Some folks love good footwork, some love a perfectly executed sacrifice bunt. There's nothing wrong with any of that. But my guess as to why "Americans dislike soccer" is that there's not enough scoring. I'm not saying that *I* dislike soccer.

If you want to say that the people who don't watch soccer because there isn't enough scoring are wrong, well, as Yogi Berra once put it, "If the fans don't come out to the ball park, you can't stop them." I hear that Ghost Rider outgrossed the Shakespeare festival too.


----------



## jaywdetroit

FTA Michael said:


> (shrug) You know, I never said that soccer is bad. I was just responding to the title with my best guesses.
> 
> Some folks love good footwork, some love a perfectly executed sacrifice bunt. There's nothing wrong with any of that. But my guess as to why "Americans dislike soccer" is that there's not enough scoring. I'm not saying that *I* dislike soccer.
> 
> If you want to say that the people who don't watch soccer because there isn't enough scoring are wrong, well, as Yogi Berra once put it, "If the fans don't come out to the ball park, you can't stop them." I hear that Ghost Rider outgrossed the Shakespeare festival too.


An excellent observation. Good call on the Yogi Berra quote too.


----------



## Lord Vader

Why do so many Americans dislike soccer? Simple: IT'S *BORING*.

I can think of better things to do than to watch guys run all over the place trying to kick a ball into a net once a game (twice if they're lucky).

Watching paint dry excites me more than does soccer.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan

jaywdetroit said:


> That's interesting to learn. We don't have a very large Hispanic culture in Michigan. So there isn't that competition. I'm pretty red blooded, but my 1 year old is already kicking the ball around. Hopefully he'll be able to compete - (assuming he even likes the sport).


That's pretty good that your 1 year old is already kicking the ball. My 3 year old doesn't have the attention span for that! He'll kick the ball, but there's no way he's waiting around for someone to kick it back to him. Playing catch with him consists of him throwing the ball to you, then running up and arriving at almost the same time as the ball, so he can grab it, run back to his previous spot, then throw it again!

We're doing his birthday party tomorrow and he's having a pinata, so we'll see if he's any better with a baseball bat in his hand than he is with a soccer ball. 

We're a farming community here and have a large permanant hispanic population that is supplemented during growing season by a migrant population that spends half the year here and half the year in Mexico. My parents neighbors have a bunch of fields and grow strawberries for Driscolls. They're up before the sun and get home after the sun has gone to bed during growing season. The rest of the time, they're out in the back yard playing soccer... Their kids are my age and we played baseball together as well growing up, but soccer was their first love and they were damn good at it. We consistently have teams in this area competing on the state and national level and doing very, very well.


----------



## Steve Mehs

Never been into soccer, maybe it’s because we don’t have a MLS team here, we did have the Buffalo Blizzards minor league team which drew fans, but not enough to keep the team alive. I tried watching some games a few years ago during the free preview of MLS Direct Kick and found it boring. It’s not fully the lack scoring for me, it’s the lack of scoring opportunities. 

I’m a long time NFL fan, on again off again NHL fan, new MLB fan, former long time NASCAR fan. I love sports, but basketball and soccer never did anything for me. I’ll catch 5-10 minutes of an NBA game if it’s in high def though.


----------



## Steve Mehs

Because of this thread I gave soccer another chance, I flipped to Fox Soccer Channel during the first intermission of the Sabres game tonight. Even though I had no idea who the teams or players were, or what country it was from, I did get interested and if it wasn’t for the ending of the half I probably would have missed the first few minutes of the second period of the Sabres.

Question, how is time dealt with in soccer? I noticed the clock progresses, instead of the typical countdown. Also halftime came at 46:15 into the game, kind of odd that it isn’t an even 45 or 50 minutes. If it matters this was the Barkley’s Premier League. 

I’m not exactly saying I’ll be catching every game I can, but it grabbed my attention enough to make me watch again, As far as the MLS, I take it the NY/NJ Stars are now the NY Red Bulls?


----------



## BJM

There may be "injury time" added to the end of each half at the discretion of the referee, to make up for long interruptions during that half due to injury. The official end of the half (or game) is when the referee blows his whistle (twice at the end of the game). The game clock is running time, as you noticed from 0:00 up to 45:00 (or beyond for injury time) in the first half, then 45:00 to 90:00 (or beyond for injury time) in the second half.

Yes, the NY MLS team is the Red Bulls.


----------



## Chandu

Steve Mehs said:


> Question, how is time dealt with in soccer?


The referee keeps track of time. During the course of the match, referee keeps track of time being spent on injuries, player substitution, time wasted when players are arguing with referees, any other interruption.

During the 45th minute for 1st half, and 90th minute in 2nd half, referee notifies the 4th official amount of time accumulation they've kept track of like this. It is called stoppage time. The 4th official displays such time on a physical display board to the entire stadium as well as TV cameras. This typically happens in 45th and 90th minutes or somewhere thereabout.

As an aside, "injury time" is an unofficial term for this time, but it is not technically correct. FIFA official language calls it "stoppage time". Technically not a single injury may have occurred in the half, so it may not make any sense to call it "injury time". So it's not really correct.

Some American commentators also refer to it as extra time, and that is clearly, clearly wrong. Extra time is for elimination matches when a winner must be decided, and if a match is tied after full-time, the additional 30 minutes that must be played to decide a winner. It's equivalent to what is called overtime in American speak. Stoppage time has absolutely nothing to do with extra time. Of course, there would be stoppage time during extra time as well. But don't want to confuse you too much. :lol:

Now, it is possible that some more time maybe wasted during stoppage time itself. For example, a long injury may occur during stoppage time. The referee continues to keep track of this "stoppage during stoppage time", but it is not communicated to the audience or TV.

Also, the referee is not necessarily obligated to honor all of declared stoppage time and may use common sense judgment. For example, if a team is losing by 4 goals, stoppage time is declared to be 2 minutes and no goal gets scored during 90 seconds of stoppage time, the referee may blow the whistle and put the suffering team out of its misery.

For some ill-tempered, poorly disciplined matches, the referee may use caution and end the matters early, just so trouble doesn't erupt. This typically happens for derby matches between most heated rivals across city boundaries, where no love is lost after 100+ years of rivalry. This very rarely happens if a team is behind by only a single goal, but may happen more for tied matches or 2+ goal leads. Of course, tempers may flare further just based on the fact that the referee blew whistle early. Talk show sports radio hosts may chew fat for a week after the match, just to complain about referee blowing whistle early, or justify it. But such is life.

BTW, do you remember what Red Bull match were you watching? MLS is certainly not in season right now. So probably it was re-run from last season, or some other worthless pre-season match.

Houston and DC United had pretty good CONCACAF Champions Cup matches last week against clubs from Honduras and Costa Rica respectively, and both have moved onto semi-finals. Both of them will meet high profile clubs from Mexico. This is the first time ever, both semi-finals are featuring US - Mexico club matchups, and that's the way it should be. USA and Mexico are top 1st and 2nd ranked countries in CONCACAF, so it's justice served when both semi-finals feature US and Mexican clubs.

Now, let's just hope that both American clubs win in semi-finals to setup all US, all MLS final. How incredible would that be, as that has never happened. MLS clubs are still technically in their pre-season while Mexican are in the middle of their season. And the 2 Mexican clubs are big-money giants, not some pushover mickeys.

CONCACAF Champions Cup is North America's equivalent of UEFA Champions League, the biggest money club competition in the world. Obviously, compared with UEFA Champions League, CONCACAF Champions Cup is nowhere as big in prestige or TV revenue. But the prize for its winner would be entry in the annual FIFA World Club Championship held in Japan and sponsored by Toyota. That's where they would get to play against UEFA Champions League winner, winner of Copa Libertadores from South America, Asian champion club and so on. Just for entering into this competition, there is big money award. So, let's really hope that an American club makes it there.

EDIT: Opps, sorry. Misread your post to mean that you watched a Red Bull match. It was English Premiership, and obviously it makes sense as their season is winding down. This is their absolute crunch, rock and roll time.


----------



## Chandu

HDMe said:


> And to be completely fair... In many countries soccer is about the only national sport. A few countries play baseball very seriously... and some are starting to have more basketball as evident from recent Olympic results... Here in the USA we have lots and lots of sports options to divide the attention of fans.
> 
> It is entirely possible that as the rest of the world adopts a variety of sports in their locales... they too many lose interest in soccer in favor of other sports. Unless and until that happens, we really don't know.


One of the biggest misconception spread around in USA, bordering on level of ignorance. And that's not meant as a knock on you personally, rather on the media types who spread this false propaganda.

The rest of the world is not one-dimensional as American media would like you to believe. And it hasn't been for a long, long time.

*SHORT VERSION:*

Please stop repeating this false statement with very little to back it up.

*LONG VERSION:*

Formula-1 has been historically huge in Brasil, arguably one of the best soccer countries for a long time, with superstars like Ayrton Senna, Rubens Barrichello, and now the new kid Felipa Massa being in constant media limelight.

Argentina has huge basketball following, being World Champions and all. And I don't believe huge Rugby Union resurgence in Argentina is shocking news. I believe they beat England and almost came close to scaring powerhouse France in Autumn tours. A lot is expected of Argentina in upcoming Rugby Union World Cup.

In South Africa, Rugby Union and cricket rule, and with the World Cups of both sports coming up later this year, they could technically win both championships. South Africa claim honour to have played in one of the most historic ODI cricket match in the history of mankind. This was in Johannesburg in 2006 when they beat no. 1 team Australia against all odds, chasing the biggest ever run total, which Australia had posted as a world record earlier in the day. What happened in that match was beyond incredible, when world records were beaten twice in the same match. South Africa were given absolutely no chance facing a formidable mountain, but shocked the world. I don't believe South Africa have any other team to fear in the World Cup which starts in 1 week.

France is a top-notch Rugby Union powerhouse. They won the Six Nations last year, and being hosts of Rugby World Cup are only lesser than New Zealand. 3 weeks ago, Ireland vs. France Six Nations test match from Croke Park in Dublin drew record TV ratings in France, because the match was so freaking exciting, going down to the wire all the way to last minute. Stade de France in Paris and all other stadiums around France are jam packed for every single France Rugby Union international.

I know the French hated Lance Armstrong. But cycling and France are inseparable. Bastille Day in France, with the annual tradition of glittery Tour de France coverage on TV goes back many, many years. TV and newspapers are overflowing with cycling coverage during Tour de France. Same is true in Belgium, and actually cycling is a big deal in Spain, Germany, Italy too.

Italy shocked everyone beating Scotland last week in Six Nations Rugby. But more important than that, Formula-1 is absolute king in Italy, what with being home of Ferrari and 2 Grand Prix - San Marino and Imola. The attendances at both of these races keep setting records after records.

In Spain, Formula-1 and tennis mania has never been hotter, with 2 young superstars setting the media alight - Fernando Alonso and Rafa Nadal respectively. The number of youngers kids taking up tennis due to Nadal mania is at its peak. Last year's Formula-1 Grand Prix in Barcelona called "Grand Prix de Catalunya" drew attendance of 100,000+ due to the Fernando Alonso hype. And this while La Liga football matches for last week were still being played concurrently.

In Germany, Sweden, Ukraine and Czech Republic, all powerhouse soccer countries, ice hockey rules supreme. When Sweden won the Olympic Gold Medal, 60,000+ wild revelers stormed in dark, cold downtown Stockholm. I think the big deal about ice hockey in Czech Republic is a bit well known in this country, them being holders of World Cup and all.

And should I even go into the Formula-1 mania in Germany all these years due to Michael Schumacher? Even though he has now retired, with both the German and European GP, they have plenty to look forward to - both in drivers and constructors like BMW / Mercedes.

Even in the Arab countries and Iran which are mad like crazy about soccer, they have enough to keep them interested with wrestling mania. Wrestling matches in countries like Iran, Egypt etc. draw very large attendances.

In Netherlands, Germany and Argentina, the other hockey, yes field hockey is a big freaking deal. And no, I'm not talking about women's sport. These countries are near top of this sport which has been represented in Olympics for a long time and has its own World Championship. Field hockey matches draw big attendances in Germany and Netherlands.

In Ireland, the whole Gaelic sport culture is an animal by itself. Gaelic Football and hurling are like Irish religion, Croke Park in Dublin being its spiritual home. The All Ireland Gaelic Football final every year is like a national heritage in Ireland. It's not just about sport, it's about the very existence of Gaelic culture and how it distinguishes itself from British culture.

But guess what? It gets complicated. The other code of football, yes Rugby Union has been a huge deal in Ireland for many years too. Landsdowne Road in Dublin used to be their home. But for the first time ever, this year they opened their other national stadium Croke Park to be the home of Irish rugby too. For many diehard Gaelic Football supporters, this has been almost a sacrilegious crime. But it doesn't matter. 2 test matches in a row, record crowds have seen Ireland fight out against France and England respectively. Last week's match in which they destroyed England was literally a party time. Nothing could be sweeter to an Irish than beating England at Croke Park.

About England, honestly do I really need to say a whole lot? I mean, this is a country where Association Football (that's soccer in American speak), Rugby Union and cricket (and even lesser Rugby League) originated and have had glued literally billions of people through out the world. Even throw out soccer out of that mix, and it's still billions by virtue of cricket alone.

I honestly do not have time to talk about the legacy of Rugby Union and cricket to English culture. The Ashes rivalry in cricket against Australia is a formidable sports institution by itself going back so many years. In Rugby Union they're still the World Cup holders, although that may not last for long, as they're very poor right now. Still, the newly reconstructed home of Rugby Union, Twickenham in London drew record crowds of 82000+ when England hosted New Zealand last November. Obviously, that is thickly in the middle of the other football season. Even a lesser sport like Rugby League, which is hardly followed as widely as the other rugby is a big freaking deal in Northwest England. Bradford, Manchester, Leeds, Wigan, in all of these towns, during the Super League season every year Rugby League is huge. The annual Super League final at Old Trafford, Manchester (the home of Manchester United, the other football giant in town) is a sell out every single year.

Oh wait? Did I forget to talk about Formula-1 hype in England and Britain in general? I mean, are you kidding me? Silverstone may not host a race sometime in the near future. But Formula-1 will always remain a big deal in British culture. I mean, we're going back so many years and Formula-1 and British culture have always been intertwined.

I can go on and on talking about more countries. But I'll stop, not because there aren't other countries with more examples. It's because I haven't got the time, and I've said enough to make the point.

So you know what? Unlike the myth propagated, the rest of the world is not dull and out of ideas with only one sport to support. It's not about attendances only. Even in TV media and sport newspapers, all these other sports get very respectable coverage in the respective countries.

And these are not some new-found fads I'm talking about. Most of them are old, steeped institutions. I mean, you can find black and white footages from 1950s of France vs. Wales Rugby Union test matches. (Only exceptions being newcomers such as resurgence of basketball in Argentina, Rugby Union in Italy, Argentina etc.)

But in spite of all these greatly supported options, soccer still rules as the no.1 sport in almost all of these countries listed above.

Probably the only countries where your "myth" holds may be majority of West African countries - Nigeria, Ghana, Congo, Senegal, Ivory Coast etc. And I suppose that may be subject to change in future, with both IRB and ICC (international bodies of Rugby Union and cricket respectively) trying to target athletes of different physiques. This is especially true in Nigeria and Ghana.


----------



## Chandu

BTW, the title of this thread is utterly, totally incorrect.

A correctly worded title should be:

Why are Americans (as a whole) indifferent to soccer?

Americans as whole are too busy to "dislike" soccer specifically. They just couldn't be bothered.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Chandu,

Since you quoted me... I think you misinterpreted my point. I did not mean to imply the rest of the world was "boring" nor to say they had no diversity at all. But consider something that I don't think you considered.

In the USA we have virtually every sport imaginable. I don't think there is much in the way of Cricket or Rugby here, but by and large we have folks trying just about any sport that comes up.

Other countries are not as diverse in sports/entertainment as we are here. That is just a fact.

Now, diversity in entertainment options means there are more winners and more losers... here in the US we have NFL, NBA, Nascar, MLB, NHL as the top sports (not necessarily in that order)... but a lot of other sports, including soccer, are popular at the college level or as amateur sports for kids/teens.

In our worls, lots and lots of kids play soccer as kids/teens... then move to something else for whatever reason. In other countries where a kid grows up with a soccer ball or cricket bat or whatever at a young age, he tends to stick with that and excel at it as an adult.

A kid growing up in France can dream perhaps of the Tour de France and FIFA... but does he realistically dream of American football, NBA, MLB, and so forth as something to seriously pursue?

That was my point... we have lots of choices here... the rest of the world seems to have less choices. Now some parts of the world are slowly diversifying, this is true... The USA has been trying to export things like the NFL and NBA too... but right now as it stands, Soccer is much bigger in most countries in the rest of the world than it is here and it is going to take a while before other sports take a similar foothold.

And for the record... even if there was an entire country that just had one "national passtime"... I wouldn't consider that boring, as long as they really enjoyed it. I get in my own grooves, and don't vary my routine when I find something I enjoy doing.


----------



## Steve Mehs

Thanks very much for the info guys, I appreciate it. Now with a bettr understanding of the game If MLB Extra Innings does go to DirecTV exclusively, maybe I’ll order MLS Direct Kick this season.


----------



## liverpool

superbowl = 100 million viewers

world cup = 1 billion viewers

say no more


----------



## jaywdetroit

Steve Mehs said:


> Thanks very much for the info guys, I appreciate it. Now with a bettr understanding of the game If MLB Extra Innings does go to DirecTV exclusively, maybe I'll order MLS Direct Kick this season.


1 down - 299,999,999 to go.


----------



## Chandu

HDMe said:


> In the USA we have virtually every sport imaginable.


And so does the rest of the world.



> I don't think there is much in the way of Cricket or Rugby here, but by and large we have folks trying just about any sport that comes up.


I can list tons of sports which have practically no following in USA, but have very healthy following somewhere else in the world (almost to the point of being no. 1 sport in some countries):

Cricket
Rugby Union
Australian Football
Gaelic Football
Curling
Formula-1
Rugby League
Cycling
Field Hockey
Sailing
Wrestling
Hurling

etc. etc. etc.

Now, I could make an intentionally false statement based on this fact, that there is not much in terms of diversity of sports in USA. Or, I could cover my eyes, cover my ears when any mention of baseball, basketball, American Football comes up and make a knowingly ignorant statement that USA has very little in terms of choices for its sport.

Now, reverse the equation.



> Other countries are not as diverse in sports/entertainment as we are here. That is just a fact.


Prove it. Since you're making a statement which is inherently wrong, the onus is on you to prove it. I've already done my part to smash such "facts" to pieces.

It is obviously clear that the message from "long version" of my earlier post didn't get across, or you wouldn't make such a statement.

I intentionally didn't bother talking about Australia, New Zealand and Canada in my earlier post. That's because soccer is not no. 1 sport in those countries. But those countries are incredibly diverse in terms of their sports.

Take Canada and everyone South of the border think NHL / ice hockey. It's not so simple one dimensional like that. I'm not even considering satellite NBA or MLB teams. I'm thinking about deep rooted Canadian institutions like curling. "The Brier" in Canada is a curling institution which has been held every single year in 1927, and has a huge following. It gets prime-time coverage on TSN, where each Canadian province gets to represent itself. (Ontario gets double representation because it's the biggest province by population). Do the Canadians think or even care that people in USA don't have diversity of sports, because Americans are ignorant about the Brier? They couldn't care less. I can add bunch of other winter sports like luge, bobsled which don't register at all in USA, but are a big deal in Canada. The point being, Canadians have their own sport diversity, thank you very much.

I do not have enough time to write about Australia, because it's such a classic example. If Americans think they've got diversity of sport, in terms of diverse sport participation per capita, Australia would put USA in a corner. For a country with population much smaller than USA, they sure know their sport.

Cricket, Rugby Union, Australian Football, Rugby League, tennis, Formula-1, field hockey, cycling, sailing, the list goes on and on and on.

Australia has already been at no. 1 in cricket for a long time. They also won the Rugby Union World Cup at least twice, and hosted it once. And now to top it off, soccer has already joined the list of "madly followed" already. If you watched the Australia vs. Uruguay World Cup qualifier playoff from Telstra Stadium in Sydney, and the mayhem that followed after they won it, it would be clear what soccer and sport in general means to Australia. Even during the World Cup, Socceroos were followed like crazy by the entire nation, being at the top of every single sports news telecast in mainstream media. And the 2 year old Hyundai A-League already has something over our 11 year old MLS. If you watched the A-League Grand Final from Telstra Dome in Melbourne, they set a new attendance record for a domestic soccer match in Australia. More important than that, just the passion, craziness with which supporters were behind their teams for such a young league, it clearly was one-up over MLS. And not to be outdone, the Australian Prime Minister John Howard (personally as much as I dislike him, but that's irrelevant) was on hand to distribute winner's medals and trophy after the final. The Prime Minister of the country himself for trophy ceremony for a sport which is not even the no. 1 sport in that country?!?!?!? They sure know how to take their sport seriously.

And a general Australian wouldn't give a rat's behind to follow MLB or NBA or NFL, and definitely not NHL or NASCAR. So does that make them less diverse in terms of sport than USA, simply because they couldn't be bothered with American variant of sport?

And lastly, we come to New Zealand. The Rugby Union culture of this country is something else. To simply experience the All Blacks Haka, the pride that is associated with putting on the All Blacks shirt, that's something else. If Brasil think they're kings in soccer, New Zealand All Blacks are head and shoulders above everyone else in the world in Rugby Union. Brasil domination in soccer doesn't even compare. But cricket and sailing is such a huge deal in this small country. In Auckland, New Zealand, there are more sailboats per capita than anywhere else in the world. It is said that a baby in Auckland may first learn how to operate a sailboat before he learns how to walk. Just as cycling to French and Gaelic Football to Irish, sailing to New Zealander is like ingrained in their blood. The previous Louis Vuitton and America's Cup in 2003 in New Zealand were incredible in terms of crowd participation, TV viewership, merchandising. Even though Team New Zealand lost in America's Cup to Switzerland based Alinghi, the whole America's Cup event was like a long prime-time party. The entire country was literally glued to TV during all of America's Cup.

So, there are 3 more examples of countries where soccer isn't even no. 1 sport, but they're just fine with their own sports diversity without having to bother with American sport.



> In other countries where a kid grows up with a soccer ball or cricket bat or whatever at a young age, he tends to stick with that and excel at it as an adult.


What a crock of over-simplification rooted in ignorance! It sounds like condescending, almost patronizing towards the rest of the world. Do you have any idea of the preposterousness of that statement?

Let's give some concrete examples:

Germany: Formula-1 legend Michael Schumacher and tennis legend Boris Becker were good soccer players. Both had great dreams of making it big as soccer players as young boys. Incidentally both of them supported Bayern Muenchen as kids, and dreamed of playing for that club. What happened afterwards is history.

Spain: Tennis superstar Rafa Nadal is the nephew of Miguel Nadal, a defender who played for the biggest football club in the world - Barcelona FC. Needless to say, uncle was grooming his sport talented nephew to become a footballer, but tennis won over.

Italy/Australia: Italian born Chistian Vieri grew up in Australia and was a very good cricket player and dreamed of representing Australian national cricket team. His publicly stated sports hero forever was Allan Border, then captain of Australia. But when he moved back to Italy and went on to become a soccer superstar, of course all cricket dreams were unfulfilled. At some later event, when Vieri won a Serie A Championship, his lifelong dream of personally meeting and getting an autograph from Allan Border was fulfilled.

Australia: Shane Warne, one of the greatest ever leg-spinning cricket bowler in history was in fact practicing as an Australian Footballer during his childhood. He really, really wanted to play in the AFL. Except that his physique and lazy lifestyle wasn't really suited for it. And he did just fine as a cricketer.

Australia: Brothers Greg Chapell and Ian Chapell were in fact very good baseball players in their own right. But the world of course knows them because of their greatness in cricket. Ian Chapell in fact wanted to represent Australia in baseball as well at some point, but it wasn't possible due to more important cricket commitments.

Trinidad: One of the best known soccer star from this small country Dwight Yorke was in fact a very good cricket player as youngster. In fact, him and Brian Lara, the best batsman to have ever played cricket were childhood friends. Yorke ended up as a great footballer, but to this day he is constantly in touch with Brian Lara.

England: I can go all the way back to 1870s when Alfred Lyttelton represented England in both football and cricket. The English sports history is rife with a number of players who did very well in multiple sports, some combination of cricket, Rugby Union and soccer. I won't bother listing, because the cases of crossover in English sports are too many.

Even today, there are way too many choices for kids growing up elsewhere in the world. They could ask their dad to take them go-karting, which could be prelude to open wheel motorsport. Or they could take up tennis, or Rugby Union or cricket or soccer or cycling or .....



> A kid growing up in France can dream perhaps of the Tour de France and FIFA...


Because Formula-1, tennis, Rugby Union would be off-limits to him?



> but does he realistically dream of American football, NBA, MLB, and so forth as something to seriously pursue?


Why would he care to?

Or rather, why should he care to?

So, unless the names of choices are like MLB, NFL they're not choices?



> That was my point... we have lots of choices here... the rest of the world seems to have less choices.


A completely false point, based more in mainstream American media brainwashed propaganda than any facts.



> Now some parts of the world are slowly diversifying, this is true...


Yeah, such as how the Ashes cricket rivalry originated in 1882 and is slowly diversifying away from soccer.

Or how Rugby Union and Rugby League took birth in 1845 and 1895 respectively and have been slowly diversifying. Or how the Rugby Union World Cup which originated in 1987 has been spreading like wildfire, taking along new nations such as Argentina, Romania, Uruguay, Namibia, Botswana, Spain along its craze. Or cue those 1950s test match references between many top Rugby Union nations.

Or how tennis has been a big deal in most of the world since, well, since 19th century.

Or how Formula-1 has been an international institution worldwide since late 1940s.

Or how cycling has been an international sport since 1868 and an institution in most of Western Europe and beyond.

Should I go on? I mean, seriously your statements display rather your lack of willingness to know, more than any actual facts.



> The USA has been trying to export things like the NFL ... too...


Intentionally removed NBA part, because to give credit where credit is due, NBA has been bit more successful among all American sports in marketing its brand worldwide.

Yeah, and they will keep trying. Because frankly, nobody in the world gives a hoot about NFL.

Exhibit A : World League of American Football

Exhibit B: NFL Europe, NFL Europa and its dying variants.

Frankly, other than bunch of American military personnel based in Germany, not a single guy on the street in Europe gives a damn about NFL Europe. NFL Europe has been such a joke, they've been forced to evacuate one by one from England, Scotland, Spain, Netherlands. I believe they're only based in Germany right now, and might as well call them NFL American Military Personnel League in Germany. The "league" such as it is has been artificially kept on life support by parent NFL. A number of NFL owners have been angry about this money drain, waste of resources and have been threatening to kill it off any time. I won't be surprised if NFL Europe is dead in few years.

Also, the latest NFL gimmick of hosting regular season games in Mexico City, London is exactly that, gimmick. The moment at which a business starts messing with its core product this way, you have to question its wiseness. Until it was pre-season games or NFL Europe variants elsewhere, it was OK. Do you think the season ticket holders of those teams would be thrilled if their teams play "home" games in random locations like that? It would be as absurd as Barcelona and Arsenal flying over to Los Angeles to play a real Champions League match.

I honestly don't see such desperate moves of "exporting" by NFL to be paying off in the long run.



> but right now as it stands, Soccer is much bigger in most countries in the rest of the world than it is here and it is going to take a while before other sports take a similar foothold.


As it stands right now, way too many Americans care about soccer, than people outside of USA caring about American specific sport variants like NFL.

2006 FIFA World Cup Final in USA got TV ratings better than one of the NBA finals game (I forget specifically which one), or World Series in general.

Year after year since 2003, a number of big European clubs have been coming to USA for pre-season preparations. And every single year, the matches are instant sellouts. Manchester United vs. Celtic in Seattle in 2003, or Chelsea vs. AC Milan in Chicago in 2004, or Barcelona vs. Club America in Houston in 2006, or AC Milan vs. Manchester United in New Jersey in 2004, every single one of them. Or how about the Manchester United vs. Barcelona in Philadelphia in 2003, in which the match sold out within 20 minutes of tickets being publicly available?

I would be interested in knowing if such hype is caused if NFL starts making random pre-season schedules year after year in places all over Europe, Asia, Australia or elsewhere.

Fact of the matter is, far more people in USA know well about who Ronaldinho is, than people outside USA caring about who Peyton Manning is. That's just a plain, cut-and-dry fact.


----------



## purtman

Chandu said:


> And so does the rest of the world.
> 
> I can list tons of sports which have practically no following in USA, but have very healthy following somewhere else in the world (almost to the point of being no. 1 sport in some countries):
> 
> Cricket
> Rugby Union
> Australian Football
> Gaelic Football
> Curling
> Formula-1
> Rugby League
> Cycling
> Field Hockey
> Sailing
> Wrestling
> Hurling
> 
> etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Now, I could make an intentionally false statement based on this fact, that there is not much in terms of diversity of sports in USA. Or, I could cover my eyes, cover my ears when any mention of baseball, basketball, American Football comes up and make a knowingly ignorant statement that USA has very little in terms of choices for its sport.
> 
> Now, reverse the equation.
> 
> Prove it. Since you're making a statement which is inherently wrong, the onus is on you to prove it. I've already done my part to smash such "facts" to pieces.
> 
> It is obviously clear that the message from "long version" of my earlier post didn't get across, or you wouldn't make such a statement.
> 
> I intentionally didn't bother talking about Australia, New Zealand and Canada in my earlier post. That's because soccer is not no. 1 sport in those countries. But those countries are incredibly diverse in terms of their sports.
> 
> Take Canada and everyone South of the border think NHL / ice hockey. It's not so simple one dimensional like that. I'm not even considering satellite NBA or MLB teams. I'm thinking about deep rooted Canadian institutions like curling. "The Brier" in Canada is a curling institution which has been held every single year in 1927, and has a huge following. It gets prime-time coverage on TSN, where each Canadian province gets to represent itself. (Ontario gets double representation because it's the biggest province by population). Do the Canadians think or even care that people in USA don't have diversity of sports, because Americans are ignorant about the Brier? They couldn't care less. I can add bunch of other winter sports like luge, bobsled which don't register at all in USA, but are a big deal in Canada. The point being, Canadians have their own sport diversity, thank you very much.
> 
> I do not have enough time to write about Australia, because it's such a classic example. If Americans think they've got diversity of sport, in terms of diverse sport participation per capita, Australia would put USA in a corner. For a country with population much smaller than USA, they sure know their sport.
> 
> Cricket, Rugby Union, Australian Football, Rugby League, tennis, Formula-1, field hockey, cycling, sailing, the list goes on and on and on.
> 
> Australia has already been at no. 1 in cricket for a long time. They also won the Rugby Union World Cup at least twice, and hosted it once. And now to top it off, soccer has already joined the list of "madly followed" already. If you watched the Australia vs. Uruguay World Cup qualifier playoff from Telstra Stadium in Sydney, and the mayhem that followed after they won it, it would be clear what soccer and sport in general means to Australia. Even during the World Cup, Socceroos were followed like crazy by the entire nation, being at the top of every single sports news telecast in mainstream media. And the 2 year old Hyundai A-League already has something over our 11 year old MLS. If you watched the A-League Grand Final from Telstra Dome in Melbourne, they set a new attendance record for a domestic soccer match in Australia. More important than that, just the passion, craziness with which supporters were behind their teams for such a young league, it clearly was one-up over MLS. And not to be outdone, the Australian Prime Minister John Howard (personally as much as I dislike him, but that's irrelevant) was on hand to distribute winner's medals and trophy after the final. The Prime Minister of the country himself for trophy ceremony for a sport which is not even the no. 1 sport in that country?!?!?!? They sure know how to take their sport seriously.
> 
> And a general Australian wouldn't give a rat's behind to follow MLB or NBA or NFL, and definitely not NHL or NASCAR. So does that make them less diverse in terms of sport than USA, simply because they couldn't be bothered with American variant of sport?
> 
> And lastly, we come to New Zealand. The Rugby Union culture of this country is something else. To simply experience the All Blacks Haka, the pride that is associated with putting on the All Blacks shirt, that's something else. If Brasil think they're kings in soccer, New Zealand All Blacks are head and shoulders above everyone else in the world in Rugby Union. Brasil domination in soccer doesn't even compare. But cricket and sailing is such a huge deal in this small country. In Auckland, New Zealand, there are more sailboats per capita than anywhere else in the world. It is said that a baby in Auckland may first learn how to operate a sailboat before he learns how to walk. Just as cycling to French and Gaelic Football to Irish, sailing to New Zealander is like ingrained in their blood. The previous Louis Vuitton and America's Cup in 2003 in New Zealand were incredible in terms of crowd participation, TV viewership, merchandising. Even though Team New Zealand lost in America's Cup to Switzerland based Alinghi, the whole America's Cup event was like a long prime-time party. The entire country was literally glued to TV during all of America's Cup.
> 
> So, there are 3 more examples of countries where soccer isn't even no. 1 sport, but they're just fine with their own sports diversity without having to bother with American sport.
> 
> What a crock of over-simplification rooted in ignorance! It sounds like condescending, almost patronizing towards the rest of the world. Do you have any idea of the preposterousness of that statement?
> 
> Let's give some concrete examples:
> 
> Germany: Formula-1 legend Michael Schumacher and tennis legend Boris Becker were good soccer players. Both had great dreams of making it big as soccer players as young boys. Incidentally both of them supported Bayern Muenchen as kids, and dreamed of playing for that club. What happened afterwards is history.
> 
> Spain: Tennis superstar Rafa Nadal is the nephew of Miguel Nadal, a defender who played for the biggest football club in the world - Barcelona FC. Needless to say, uncle was grooming his sport talented nephew to become a footballer, but tennis won over.
> 
> Italy/Australia: Italian born Chistian Vieri grew up in Australia and was a very good cricket player and dreamed of representing Australian national cricket team. His publicly stated sports hero forever was Allan Border, then captain of Australia. But when he moved back to Italy and went on to become a soccer superstar, of course all cricket dreams were unfulfilled. At some later event, when Vieri won a Serie A Championship, his lifelong dream of personally meeting and getting an autograph from Allan Border was fulfilled.
> 
> Australia: Shane Warne, one of the greatest ever leg-spinning cricket bowler in history was in fact practicing as an Australian Footballer during his childhood. He really, really wanted to play in the AFL. Except that his physique and lazy lifestyle wasn't really suited for it. And he did just fine as a cricketer.
> 
> Australia: Brothers Greg Chapell and Ian Chapell were in fact very good baseball players in their own right. But the world of course knows them because of their greatness in cricket. Ian Chapell in fact wanted to represent Australia in baseball as well at some point, but it wasn't possible due to more important cricket commitments.
> 
> Trinidad: One of the best known soccer star from this small country Dwight Yorke was in fact a very good cricket player as youngster. In fact, him and Brian Lara, the best batsman to have ever played cricket were childhood friends. Yorke ended up as a great footballer, but to this day he is constantly in touch with Brian Lara.
> 
> England: I can go all the way back to 1870s when Alfred Lyttelton represented England in both football and cricket. The English sports history is rife with a number of players who did very well in multiple sports, some combination of cricket, Rugby Union and soccer. I won't bother listing, because the cases of crossover in English sports are too many.
> 
> Even today, there are way too many choices for kids growing up elsewhere in the world. They could ask their dad to take them go-karting, which could be prelude to open wheel motorsport. Or they could take up tennis, or Rugby Union or cricket or soccer or cycling or .....
> 
> Because Formula-1, tennis, Rugby Union would be off-limits to him?
> 
> Why would he care to?
> 
> Or rather, why should he care to?
> 
> So, unless the names of choices are like MLB, NFL they're not choices?
> 
> A completely false point, based more in mainstream American media brainwashed propaganda than any facts.
> 
> Yeah, such as how the Ashes cricket rivalry originated in 1882 and is slowly diversifying away from soccer.
> 
> Or how Rugby Union and Rugby League took birth in 1845 and 1895 respectively and have been slowly diversifying. Or how the Rugby Union World Cup which originated in 1987 has been spreading like wildfire, taking along new nations such as Argentina, Romania, Uruguay, Namibia, Botswana, Spain along its craze. Or cue those 1950s test match references between many top Rugby Union nations.
> 
> Or how tennis has been a big deal in most of the world since, well, since 19th century.
> 
> Or how Formula-1 has been an international institution worldwide since late 1940s.
> 
> Or how cycling has been an international sport since 1868 and an institution in most of Western Europe and beyond.
> 
> Should I go on? I mean, seriously your statements display rather your lack of willingness to know, more than any actual facts.
> 
> Intentionally removed NBA part, because to give credit where credit is due, NBA has been bit more successful among all American sports in marketing its brand worldwide.
> 
> Yeah, and they will keep trying. Because frankly, nobody in the world gives a hoot about NFL.
> 
> Exhibit A : World League of American Football
> 
> Exhibit B: NFL Europe, NFL Europa and its dying variants.
> 
> Frankly, other than bunch of American military personnel based in Germany, not a single guy on the street in Europe gives a damn about NFL Europe. NFL Europe has been such a joke, they've been forced to evacuate one by one from England, Scotland, Spain, Netherlands. I believe they're only based in Germany right now, and might as well call them NFL American Military Personnel League in Germany. The "league" such as it is has been artificially kept on life support by parent NFL. A number of NFL owners have been angry about this money drain, waste of resources and have been threatening to kill it off any time. I won't be surprised if NFL Europe is dead in few years.
> 
> Also, the latest NFL gimmick of hosting regular season games in Mexico City, London is exactly that, gimmick. The moment at which a business starts messing with its core product this way, you have to question its wiseness. Until it was pre-season games or NFL Europe variants elsewhere, it was OK. Do you think the season ticket holders of those teams would be thrilled if their teams play "home" games in random locations like that? It would be as absurd as Barcelona and Arsenal flying over to Los Angeles to play a real Champions League match.
> 
> I honestly don't see such desperate moves of "exporting" by NFL to be paying off in the long run.
> 
> As it stands right now, way too many Americans care about soccer, than people outside of USA caring about American specific sport variants like NFL.
> 
> 2006 FIFA World Cup Final in USA got TV ratings better than one of the NBA finals game (I forget specifically which one), or World Series in general.
> 
> Year after year since 2003, a number of big European clubs have been coming to USA for pre-season preparations. And every single year, the matches are instant sellouts. Manchester United vs. Celtic in Seattle in 2003, or Chelsea vs. AC Milan in Chicago in 2004, or Barcelona vs. Club America in Houston in 2006, or AC Milan vs. Manchester United in New Jersey in 2004, every single one of them. Or how about the Manchester United vs. Barcelona in Philadelphia in 2003, in which the match sold out within 20 minutes of tickets being publicly available?
> 
> I would be interested in knowing if such hype is caused if NFL starts making random pre-season schedules year after year in places all over Europe, Asia, Australia or elsewhere.
> 
> Fact of the matter is, far more people in USA know well about who Ronaldinho is, than people outside USA caring about who Peyton Manning is. That's just a plain, cut-and-dry fact.


I'm not sure where you're located, but your "facts" are off in a lot of areas. I'm not sure how you could call countries such as Canada pretty diverse when the U.S. isn't.

A couple of things here ... wrestling is pretty big in the U.S. It's very big in the northeast and throughout the midwest, but it doesn't get the same coverage as the Big Four. The same with field hockey, but only on the women's side. It's not popular at all with the men.

Sailing is very big in certain parts of the country, but losing the America's Cup probably turned things down a little.

There are lots of rugby clubs around the U.S. Because of my job, I've lived in seven different states since 1996. There were some pretty good rugby clubs in each area where I lived, except for Mississippi.

Tennis? Yes, that is also pretty big in the U.S. Like some of the others, it's not in the Big Four, but it's in the top six.

Because of our diverse climate, many of the sports are big in various areas. 
You don't find curling in Arizona, but I've seen a bunch of different people curling up north. There are also a lot of people who are into the winter sports -- skiing, luge, bobsledding, etc. But they live in the areas where that is possible. I grew up in New England and could skate all winter on ponds. I live in the midwest where that just doesn't happen.

Also, even without Lance Armstrong, there are a lot of cycling races around the country.

If you wonder where I got my info, I have about 15-20 years of sports media experience. You find out a lot by working in a sports department by the number of calls you get.

Hurling? Very popular at about 2 a.m. after a night of binge drinking.

Just because certain sports don't have TV contracts doesn't make them popular.

I certainly wouldn't compare a FIFA match to an NBA final. That's not much of a challenge. The NBA has lost a lot of its appeal since it got away from being basketball.

Soccer isn't that popular a spectator sport for a lot of people (I personally enjoy watching it), but it's more of an action sport here. Remember, that soccer really didn't take off until the late 70s here when the NASL brought in many of the world stars such as Beckenbauer and Pele.

I certainly wouldn't call it an unpopular sport, but it's just not one of the top five in the U.S. (baseball, basketball, football, golf, hockey -- not in that order).


----------



## Chandu

purtman said:


> I'm not sure where you're located...


Right now in California for the last 16 years. Have lived in New England for close to 7 years before that, although there was a period of overlap when I was commuting between New England and California. Although, unsure why that's relevant to this thread.



> I'm not sure how you could call countries such as Canada pretty diverse when the U.S. isn't.


I never said USA is not diverse in sports. Note that I used "intentionally false" in my statement when making this inverse logic.

USA is incredibly diverse in sports. Fact.

I think HDMe's original point was (and I'm hoping I'm rephrasing it correctly) - "Because rest of the world doesn't have many choices of American sports, they have no sports diversity". I was inverting that argument by listing many sports not followed in US to show logical flaw in his statement.



> wrestling is pretty big in the U.S. It's very big in the northeast and throughout the midwest, but it doesn't get the same coverage as the Big Four.


With all due respect, it cannot compare to the madness with which it is followed in Arab countries, Turkey, Iran, central Asian countries such as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan etc. What you're quoting is more of amateur stuff. Over there, it is professional stuff with much higher stakes.



> The same with field hockey, but only on the women's side. It's not popular at all with the men.


I know that, and I referred to it in an earlier post. I've intentionally omitted talking about women's sport, as that is a totally different animal from sports business and sports media perspective. Apart from sports like tennis, ice skating, gymnastics etc., women's professional sports just don't register with as much impact worldwide. That's just the way things are, and we've to accept it for that.

What I was referring to was how much of big deal (men's - implicitly assumed) field hockey is in other parts of the world, originating in England, but now bigger in Netherlands, Germany, Australia, India, Pakistan, Australia, South Korea, Argentina etc.



> Sailing is very big in certain parts of the country, but losing the America's Cup probably turned things down a little.


Yes, that's true in California (Bay Area as well as Southern), Hawaii, Carolinas, Florida etc. However it is a blip on the radar compared to the madness with which it is followed in New Zealand, Australia, Mediterranean coasts of Spain, France, Italy, Greece, and now even South Africa.



> There are lots of rugby clubs around the U.S. Because of my job, I've lived in seven different states since 1996. There were some pretty good rugby clubs in each area where I lived, except for Mississippi.


With all due respect, my friend, if you're using that to compare popularity of Rugby Union worldwide, you've got to be joking. The madness with which Rugby Union (and I'm intentionally leaving out Rugby League, since it doesn't have as big following worldwide) is followed in New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Polynesia (Fiji, Tonga, Samoa etc.), Uruguay, Scotland, Wales, England, Ireland, France, Italy etc., you can no way compare some amateur American clubs to that.

Would I personally like it to be comparable? Yes. But leaving my personal subjectivity aside, are they on a comparable scale? No.

Your comparison would be similar to presence of some American Football clubs in random locations in Australia. I'm sure they're out there somewhere. Does it mean they are more than minor blips on the radar? Absolutely not.



> Tennis? Yes, that is also pretty big in the U.S. Like some of the others, it's not in the Big Four, but it's in the top six.


Agreed. I think following would be an accurate statement:

Popularity of tennis in USA right now is at an all time low, compared with its popularity in rest of the world.



> You don't find curling in Arizona






> but I've seen a bunch of different people curling up north. There are also a lot of people who are into the winter sports -- skiing, luge, bobsledding, etc. But they live in the areas where that is possible. I grew up in New England and could skate all winter on ponds. I live in the midwest where that just doesn't happen.


Are those interests in curling, bobsled, luge etc. as big as they're in Canada? I honestly don't know the answer to that. My hunch was per capita interest in curling in Canada was more than in USA, obviously climate being the factor.



> Also, even without Lance Armstrong, there are a lot of cycling races around the country.


Yeah, the newly launched Tour of California is helping. But the madness levels are not at the levels of what you see in Belgium, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, even Australia. It is a lot bigger than 10 years ago for sure.



> If you wonder where I got my info, I have about 15-20 years of sports media experience. You find out a lot by working in a sports department by the number of calls you get.


Due respect noted.



> Hurling? Very popular at about 2 a.m. after a night of binge drinking.


Is that a comic relief comment? :grin: No, but seriously, hurling in Ireland is an extremely popular sport.



> Just because certain sports don't have TV contracts doesn't make them popular.


Did you instead mean to say - "Just because certain sports don't have TV contracts doesn't make them unpopular." Because the way you worded it, I can't follow it.

Assuming that's what you meant: Well, unfortunately in the world with finite resources, that's how it works. If you can't see it, if you can't read about it, it doesn't exist.

That's why for majority of American population those hugely followed soccer and Rugby Union contests elsewhere in the world just aren't happening.

And by the same token, for a lot of the world outside, those NFL matches just aren't taking place.



> I certainly wouldn't call it (soccer) an unpopular sport, but it's just not one of the top five in the U.S. (baseball, basketball, football, golf, hockey -- not in that order).


Exactly.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Chandu,

I think you are missing what I am saying, and twisting other parts of my message.

I am not trying to imply the US is "better" in any way than the rest of the world. The US is just different. There is a lot of diversity here in sport... but more importantly there is a lot of diversity at the money-making professional level of sport.

For all the sports in all the other countries you name... how many of those countries have the amount of professional athletes proportionally as we do in the US? There are lots of professional athletes in lots of sports in the US... not just counting the "top" ones in this country.

In the rest of the world I do not think sport is thought of with the same level of importance as it is here in the US... and frankly I think that is to the benefit of those other countries! Here in the US, our celebrities more often than not are actors or athletes... I daresay that if/when someone cures cancer that person will never have as much fame/fortune as an NBA player does... and that is not a good thing either.

My point was that priorities are different... In most of the rest of the world, while they may have exposure to lots of sports and play lots of sports... I do not believe there are as many professional athletes outside of the soccer leagues as there are in all the other US sports.

That's where I'm going with all this... In the US, we have lots of athletes in lots of sports. In the rest of the world, there is less diversity in professional athletes. Certain countries tend to focus on 1 or 2 major sports and have athletes that excel in those... but not so much in others.

This is NOT an insult to them or a compliment to the US.

Also, I think if you made a list of all sports that exist anywhere in the world... I think you would find most of them present in some form or another within the US, even at a small amateur level. I do not expect you could take that same expansive list and match that up to any other country and find the same level of diversity. Again, not an insult or complement.

When people say "why do so many in the US hate/dislike soccer" I think it is not the right question. I think a lot of people here do like soccer... but like other things too, and to the extent that there are so many choices, soccer loses out when compared to many other US sports. Whereas clearly in the rest of the world there is evidence that a whole lot of people there prefer soccer in comparison to other available sports. If this were not true, then I would expect to be hearing about how the rest of the world has other big-time sports tournaments with ratings like they say soccer gets.


----------



## Chandu

HDMe:

OK, got it. It's possible about the lack of professional emphasis on multiple sports in some parts of the world being true. I think that's very true for West African countries, Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries, maybe some other corners in the world. It wouldn't be true in Central America and parts of Latin America due to multiple choices such as soccer, boxing, baseball etc.

It's just that the example of country France you used was a pretty poor one. (Australia would have been one of the worst examples. Not saying you even referred to Australia. Just emphasizing a counter-example. :lol Iran would have probably made a much better example for your argument in that case.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Chandu said:


> HDMe:
> 
> OK, got it. It's possible about the lack of professional emphasis on multiple sports in some parts of the world being true. I think that's very true for West African countries, Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries, maybe some other corners in the world. It wouldn't be true in Central America and parts of Latin America due to multiple choices such as soccer, boxing, baseball etc.
> 
> It's just that the example of country France you used was a pretty poor one. (Australia would have been one of the worst examples. Not saying you even referred to Australia. Just emphasizing a counter-example. :lol Iran would have probably made a much better example for your argument in that case.


True... France was a bad example to pick, but it was the first one that popped into my head for some reason. I even watch Tennis, for instance, but forgot to mention Tennis as a sport of great interest in France.

Another aspect of this argument that I never mentioned... some sports are more fun to plan than to watch others play. I played some basketball but still like to watch others play. I never played football but like to watch that. I actually played soccer as a kid, but don't like to watch it. I never liked playing baseball and watching it is even worse to me.

I like to watch Tennis, tried to play but was so horribly bad that I didn't keep trying. I don't like to watch golf, but think I would like to play maybe.

Some of that kind of thing may be happening in the US with soccer... lots of kids enjoy playing, and parents enjoy watching their kids play... but once the kids stop playing neither they nor the parents continue to watch others because their interest was just while they were participating.


----------



## Chandu

HDMe said:


> Some of that kind of thing may be happening in the US with soccer... lots of kids enjoy playing, and parents enjoy watching their kids play... but once the kids stop playing neither they nor the parents continue to watch others because their interest was just while they were participating.


I think it's more of not knowing what to watch and when to watch.

How does the USA vs. Mexico match relate to MLS season of DC United again, and wasn't Beckham captain for England in the World Cup, so why is he playing for Real Madrid in Spain, or I thought Arsenal were knocked out of the FA Cup, how come they're still in the running for English Championship? And so on and so on and so on.

Let me put it with brutal honesty. And that's not meant as a knock or "better or worse" comment on mainstream American sport culture. Compared to following worldwide soccer (and yes, USA national team, MLS they're all subset of worldwide too), following mainstream American sports culture is too simple minded. It's almost like a comparison between advanced graduate degree to kindergarten.

The number of leagues and incredible fragmentation of audience caused by it, the various networks of competitions and interrelationship between them, the qualification and further qualification process which follows them, playoffs not to decide championship, but promotion/relegation, the international player transfers, and the killer confuser among all - the club vs. country part. I'm sure I'm forgetting some more. I could write an essay or a book on this topic. It is a labyrinthine jungle.

There is absolutely nothing that comes even close in mainstream American sport as following international soccer. And I mean, truly international soccer. If someone wants, they could only concentrate on supporting Chicago Fire and/or USA national team and shut their senses to other things soccer. But then they won't be able to see the entire picture, and may not even understand why some of the things are happening. By that, I don't mean on the field things, but a lot of off the field stuff which a fan needs to understand. I would even go on and a make statement that "it takes more time for following international soccer, and by that I mean really being on top of it, than following all of MLB+NFL+NBA combined together". It may seem like a preposterous statement, but it really isn't.

See, unless you're brought up in a culture like that, there is a huge inertia to enter such a domain, and I don't begrudge that. It's almost like entering an alternate/parallel universe where a lot of the stuff you learned before is irrelevant. Personally, the rewards after entering such a universe are plenty and once you're in, you can never leave!!  But I can understand if others cannot find such a venture enticing. It's also a huge time consuming affair. Since it's a worldwide sport, the sport never sleeps. It's truly a round-the-clock, worldwide sport. It is true that individual leagues have off-seasons, but the sport by itself never, ever is in off-season. It is a 365 day (366 for leap years) sport.

Add to that the fact that a lot of big-money tournaments such as UEFA Champions League are being played on weekdays during working day hours for North American time zone! No matter how others may put it, keeping track of televised soccer in USA is still a bit like being a part of secret Dead Poets Society. Compared to 10 years ago, there is tons and tons of diverse soccer content on TV. The amount of televised soccer has never been this great, it's almost like a golden age! But it is still not mainstream, and one needs to be an expert to be aware of mechanisms of all these telecasts. And of course they aren't dirty cheap other, but majority of rational American soccer fans are aware of that, and willing to live with it. I mean, nobody held a gun to their head and forced them to take interest in Bayern Muenchen vs. Real Madrid or Coca Cola Championship promotion playoff. If they wanted things easy, they could've focussed on following Phoenix Suns and Dallas Cowboys, and life would be simple for them. Given the inertia, where is the incentive for a mainstream American fan to enter such a universe?

Honestly, do you expect a 11 year old kid who's just done finishing AYSO to even grasp the complexity of something like that, if he isn't immersed in it by virtue of his dad's interest? I mean, it is even juvenile to compare that youth participation in AYSO to anything about televised/professional sport. There is very little connection between the 2. There indeed is connection, but I find it too often over-extrapolated to try to explain a complex domain. It is in fact an over-simplification. Do you think such an 11 year old kid is even aware of an FA Cup semi-final or USA national team Copa America participation taking place at the time he's playing, the way a little league baseballer might be aware of some Chicago Cubs playoff? With all due respect, I suggest we stop reciting this overly repeated "youth participation, never watch soccer on TV, drop off interest" mantra.

Anyway, I'm sure I would probably have something more to say if I had the time and I wasn't in a hurry. Maybe I'll come back to this topic to add some more input in the near future.


----------



## jaywdetroit

HDMe said:


> Some of that kind of thing may be happening in the US with soccer... lots of kids enjoy playing, and parents enjoy watching their kids play... but once the kids stop playing neither they nor the parents continue to watch others because their interest was just while they were participating.


This is where the cultural stuff and media coverage really comes into play. (I believe our culture is largely shaped by the media - so if the media 'wants' the culture to change - it will change.)

To make my point allow me to use the Detroit Tigers. I have been a loyal fan of the Tigers since I was born. I continued watching frequently and going to games through all those horrible years. During those years, few people could tell you the name of more than 1 player on the team. These are the people I would classify as non-baseball fans. They could care less about the sport. If they cared, they would have at least continued to follow the local team. (Local being the key word)

Now after their incredible start last year, everyone jumps on the bandwagon, there is a ton of media coverage, and people who don't know a double play from a sacrifice bunt jump on the bandwagon and become "baseball fans".

If soccer got the kind of media attention the other sports do, you would see a much larger following. Look at the support the World Cup got in '94. Why did so many americans come out of the wood work and support it? MEDIA COVERAGE.

If the guys on Sports Center came out NIGHT after NIGHT and started talking about the MLS, "I went to a game - it was pretty cool" "Do you see that header the other night?" yada yada yada - then my bet is that after 6 months you would have TWICE as many soccer fans as you do now.

It's all part of the mindset of the culture, and our culture is largely shaped by the media. Those with the keys to the camera, drive.

Does anyone really believe that millions of americans just all of a sudden decided that hey - NASCAR is pretty cool.

It's marketing/media coverage. For whatever reason - the media doesn't want anything to do with soccer.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Also being fair.... many, perhaps most, sports fans in the USA only care about international sports if the US wins. Soccer experienced an increase in popularity when the women's national team won... and again when the men's team was advancing... but when we lose, the interest goes away.

Tour de France had much bigger interest in the US while Lance Armstrong was winning... notso much before or since... even though the rest of the world still cares about it.

Happens in Tennis too... we care when American players are winning, but less when we are not.

This is not how I approach sports... I like good Tennis no matter who is playing. Yes, I'll probably root for a good American player over a good player from another country... but I'd rather see a good match no matter who wins. I am not sure my following of sports reflects the rest of mainstream America though.

And on that note... soccer fans (since this is what started the thread) in other countries seem to be soccer fans all the time... even if their team loses. Like an NBA or NFL fan here roots for their team even if they lose... Whereas in the US, we seem to only care if our team is winning internationally.

When the American's won the "American Cup" in sailing... we cared... when we lost again, then we didn't care so much.

In Olympics... if the US has the most gold medals, we say "the US has the most gold!!" but if we don't have the most gold, then we total all medals and say "the US has the most total medals" and shift the focus. Also in Olympics, we don't really care about events our country doesn't have a chance at winning... and stop caring once we are out of the running.

I'm disinterested in most of the Olympics, but not because of winning/losing... just because I'm disinterested in most of the Olympic sports. I'm pretty consistent, and if I like the sport then I like a good game, even if my team loses.

We call our NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB teams "world champions" even though we do not play against the rest of the world (with a couple of exceptions of Canadian teams for NHL, MLB, and NBA)... which again indicates our self-interest as opposed to general interest in sports.


----------



## bronsonlewis

I don't think soccer is doing that badly actually. Media may be playing a part of it.

Soccer leagues around the world usually play fall to spring, but the MLS plays spring to fall. I think the founding fathers of the MLS intentionally scheduled it that way so that the MLS doesn't play their season in the middle of football and basketball, leaving only MLB to compete with. (Though I wish they wouldn't do it this way, so that the US teams might be able to enter "Champions League" type of competitions.

Also, I don't think that the teams are losing money, I think the fans are actually going to games. More and More Soccer Specific Stadiums are being built around the country, True they are only 20,000 to 40,000 seat stadiums, but it still says that the league and the teams in their respective cities are getting respect and following.

I think there is a lack of a true "superstar," and with the help of the "Beckham Rule" we will be able to recruit higher level players. Everyone knows Beckham, nobody outside of soccer has heard of Donovan, I think that getting well known player to the US will create more Media attention.

Maybe a reason that kids are growing up playing soccer, then leaving it or losing the will to play is because there is nothing in it for them in the future. Many Division I NCAA schools do not have a Soccer Program. Title IX won't let them. Until the ratio of female to male student athletes averages out, colleges aren't allowed a Male Soccer Program. Football teams with 65 players doesn't help. (J/k Football fans  ) Until NCAA allows Male Soccer Programs, the talent pool for the MLS will just be the schools on the east coast that already have those programs. Most kids won't have the oportunity to play at a higher level than high school, and why would they want to? MLS are among the lowest paid professional athletes next to WNBA.

For those of you that don't like soccer, or those that find it boring... that's your right, and more power to you.

For me, it's one of the most beautiful games on the planet. There's nothing like all the anticipation and build up of the game, just to have your favorite club go one up in the 91st minute. Brilliant


----------



## purtman

liverpool said:


> superbowl = 100 million viewers
> 
> world cup = 1 billion viewers
> 
> say no more


Didn't Princess Di's wedding to Prince Charles garner more viewers than that? Say no more.
:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Chandu

bronsonlewis said:


> More and More Soccer Specific Stadiums are being built around the country, True they are only 20,000 to 40,000 seat stadiums, but it still says that the league and the teams in their respective cities are getting respect and following.


Those attendance numbers are perfectly fine, nothing wrong with them. (If they manage to fill all of those attendance levels, that is.) I wonder if unconsciously American mentality is to compare attendance levels of outdoor sport events with NFL and draw judgment on whether they're low or high. But it makes no sense to make NFL comparisons. Because if you look at it, even the biggest soccer leagues in the world don't average NFL numbers. NFL happens to be an aberration in terms of attendance levels in the world, simply because they play very small number of games in a season. All of the biggest top flight soccer leagues in the world have way too many fixtures compared to NFL. So it's impossible to maintain NFL like average.

Bundesliga has the highest average attendance levels of any domestic league in the world, I believe. But outside of Bayern Muenchen, I doubt teams like Hertha Berlin or Bayer Leverkusen ever post massive attendance numbers approaching anything like NFL. Even in the English Premiership, outside of Chelsea, Manchester Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool, I do not believe teams like Bolton, Aston Villa have massive numbers. But that's fine. They're still top level, respectable clubs.

Let me put it this way : If MLS could get levels of attendance and respectability even with lower rung leagues such as Dutch Eredivisie or Portuguese SuperLiga, that would be a very good achievement. Nothing says it needs to achieve the levels of top flight leagues in Germany, Spain, England (and grudgingly I must add Italy, although Italy is on a downward free-fall due to their own undoing). And definitely, nothing says it needs to achieve anything approaching levels of NFL. I think those stadiums will allow them to reach such levels of respectability.


----------



## Chandu

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2007/03/05/daily11.html?t=printable

Dave Checketts is buying 80% of GolTV for $200 million, which means GolTV is now valued at staggering $250 million!!!!!

This is massive, absolutely massive news for progress of soccer in the US. Such transactions would have been unthinkable 10 years ago. World Cup qualifiers between countries in South American federation (CONMEBOL) will now be easily seen in USA. Before, it was always, always on PPV. Now both the Argentina vs. Brasil matchups, as well as old rivalries like Argentina vs. Uruguay and big matchups like Brasil vs. Equador/Colombia etc. will be easily seen in USA.

Considering the investment being made, it is quite likely we'll see HD on GolTV very soon. I can only drool with the prospects of Bundesliga in HD or more of La Liga in HD than what World Sport HD shows.

Americans (as a whole) give a big, freaking deal about soccer!!!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I'm not sure just how much long-term effect Beckham will have on American interest in soccer.

Even though I don't watch soccer... when I was little, and before I ever played soccer in school... I knew who Pele was... and he didn't have a major longterm effect on US soccer at the time.

I think most of the world knew who Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson was years ago... but that didn't necessarily translate into a major jolt for basketball in those countries. I think countries where basketball has caught on now is independent of celebrity influence.

I could be wrong about that, though... but I still don't think Beckham will have a major impact on popularity of soccer in the US.

Ultimately what US soccer probably needs are several big-name talented players on several different teams, so rivalries and competitive games can develop... then the media has to get onboard and promote it, and have games televised for fans at home at a time and channel where they can sit and watch.

I live in Raleigh, NC.... and Chapel Hill is home to the UNC women's soccer team that has won practically every NCAA tournament during my lifetime! And yet that doesn't translate into filling the stadium for their home games all the time... or translate to the women's professional league, where we had a local team until that league folded.

I can't get on the bandwagon, since I am not interested in soccer myself... but it would not hurt my feelings at all if it became more popular and rose in the ranks here in the US.


----------



## Chandu

HDMe said:


> I knew who Pele was... and he didn't have a major longterm effect on US soccer at the time.


The combination of words "longterm" and "at the time" create an oxymoron effect. Taking out the words "at the time" from your statement, I respectfully disagree.

If there was no Pele (and tons of other NASL superstars: George Best, Beckenbauer, Johann Crujff, Chinaglia, Johan Neeskens, Carlos Alberto and more) and associated NASL presence, there was no way in hell World Cup 1994 would take place on US soil. Without that World Cup, there was no way hell there would be MLS. Without MLS, there was no way in hell USA could qualify for 5 FIFA World Cups in a row, and lie within very respectable FIFA rankings for a long time.

It would be one of the biggest lies if one cannot see the astronomical progress US soccer has made since the time NASL folded, around 1986 or so. To deny otherwise, one would either need to be intentionally lying or blind and deaf or ignorant (intentionally or otherwise).



> ...the media has to get onboard and promote it, and have games televised for fans at home at a time and channel where they can sit and watch.


Done.

As far as the domestic product is concerned - MLS and USA National team - they already do that, and have been doing it for a while now. Coming soon in 2007 MLS season, even better marketable kickoff times, and kickass wall-to-wall HD coverage.



> I live in Raleigh, NC.... and Chapel Hill is home to the UNC women's soccer team that has won practically every NCAA tournament during my lifetime! And yet that doesn't translate into filling the stadium for their home games all the time... or translate to the women's professional league, where we had a local team until that league folded.


Women's sport works completely differently, especially women's "team" sports. Outside of women's tennis, ice skating, gymnastics, golf and few other events, worldwide it is very difficult to sell women's team sports as spectator sport. Even women don't really watch that much of women's team sports on a week to week basis. They would get behind a big tournament such as World Cup or Olympics when USA national team is involved. But on a week to week basis for a prolonged season, especially for a team sport and not individual sport? Forget about it. Name me one professional team sports league which has been financially successful, selling women's sport anywhere in the world, anytime in the history of mankind. WNBA has been artificially kept alive by NBA for many years, and large number of people in attendance at WNBA games have free giveaway tickets. Without NBA support, WNBA would have been dead years ago.

Please note that I have no sexist attitude when I make those statements. I'm telling things as they are. I would read absolutely nothing based on the women's team support you quote.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Chandu said:


> The combination of words "longterm" and "at the time" create an oxymoron effect. Taking out the words "at the time" from your statement, I respectfully disagree.


You probably know more about soccer history than I do... but I did chose that oxymoron on purpose. I'm not sure how to measure longterm effects of something like that when they don't materialize for many years and the sport is not that popular here anyway.

To use a bad example... I can do a 2-yard dash with the fastest runners in the world and beat them sometimes if I get a good start! But a 40-yard dash and they would leave me in the wind... so the effect of my participating and winning the very short race means very little to nothing in the long run.

I know folks like Pele brought attention and popularity at first... but I suspect it was largely just for Pele, and went away when he went away... and I suspect interest settled back to about where it was before he and others came back then... so I'm not sure the otherwise advancement in popularity in the longterm had anything to do with Pele or others.

I hope that made sense. It was harder to type than it sounded in my brain 



Chandu said:


> Women's sport works completely differently, especially women's "team" sports. Outside of women's tennis, ice skating, gymnastics, golf and few other events, worldwide it is very difficult to sell women's team sports as spectator sport.


Agreed, which is why I didn't compare women's soccer to men's soccer. I was just pointing out that even in an area where we have fans for women's soccer, and UNC has a winning team every year... that didn't translate to a pro women's soccer league even within the same fan-base.


----------



## Chandu

HDMe said:


> I know folks like Pele brought attention and popularity at first... but I suspect it was largely just for Pele, and went away when he went away... and I suspect interest settled back to about where it was before he and others came back then...


No, it didn't. Comparing the interest levels today with what the situation prior to Pele's arrival would be like day and night. Don't want to bore with too many details, but construction of multiple stadiums, actual money generating TV rights deals, multiple 24 hour channels on various nationwide platforms specifically dedicated for this sport and so on and so on. I would have been called a lunatic if I had predicted something like that about the state of this sport in USA back in 1986. That was the darkest period for it in this country.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Chandu said:


> No, it didn't. Comparing the interest levels today with what the situation prior to Pele's arrival would be like day and night. Don't want to bore with too many details, but construction of multiple stadiums, actual money generating TV rights deals, multiple 24 hour channels on various nationwide platforms specifically dedicated for this sport and so on and so on. I would have been called a lunatic if I had predicted something like that about the state of this sport in USA back in 1986. That was the darkest period for it in this country.


I know soccer is more popular today than back then... but that is not a fair comparison.

I'm talking about comparing soccer popularity 5 years prior to Pele, during Pele, and then 5 years after Pele. I would be surprised to find 5 years after PEle if popularity was not about the same as it was prior to Pele.

Lots of things have influenced increased popularity today... but I think celebrity influence like from Pele or other international stars was a minor effect.


----------



## Chandu

HDMe said:


> I know soccer is more popular today than back then... but that is not a fair comparison.


Why is it not a fair comparison? To ignore that comparison would be to ignore the big picture.



> I'm talking about comparing soccer popularity 5 years prior to Pele, during Pele, and then 5 years after Pele. I would be surprised to find 5 years after PEle if popularity was not about the same as it was prior to Pele.
> 
> Lots of things have influenced increased popularity today... but I think celebrity influence like from Pele or other international stars was a minor effect.


The question you're interested in - "Whether Pele or some other celebrity was a catalyst for popularity over a period of 10 years" is personally not a very interesting question for me. Note the "personally" part. It may be of more interest to some other American soccer fans, and I respect that.

It's probably a reasonable question to ask, but it's not as relevant to the big picture. Whether it was Pele or Donovan or Beckham or Adu or BigFoot, I personally don't care about it. For me, what is more interesting is the bigger picture. It doesn't really matter to me that there might have been a dip in soccer popularity around 1986, which was probably 5 years after Pele's retirement. (I may be off by a year here and there, but it doesn't matter.)

It's sort of like the stock market. If someone invested in stock market in 1980, and there was a relatively huge stock market crash in 1987 called "Black Tuesday" or something like that. If they could afford to stick with the market through that crash and made good returns by 2007, would it matter to them so much that they had become a lot poorer sometime in 1987?

I'm not necessarily saying the slope of soccer popularity between 1986/87 - 2007 may be anything approaching stock market gains during the same period. But you get the point. I can take a pragmatic approach and accept that there will be setbacks along the way. That's part of life. There are setbacks even in hugely popular domains. I mean who knows, even the NFL or English Premiership may run into some problems related to TV deals or something else in the future. It's not totally out of question. Right now both of those entities are 600 pound gorillas who think they have license to print money, but it may not last forever. So in comparison, for soccer in USA to have setbacks would be part of life.

What matters more to me is, as long as it 2 or more steps up and 1 step down, and not 1 step up and 2 or more steps down, things are moving in the right direction. After having followed this sport very well for the last 21 years in this country, nothing suggests me that it is a downward trend. That's all I personally care about.


----------



## jaywdetroit

HDMe said:


> I know soccer is more popular today than back then... but that is not a fair comparison.
> 
> I'm talking about comparing soccer popularity 5 years prior to Pele, during Pele, and then 5 years after Pele. I would be surprised to find 5 years after PEle if popularity was not about the same as it was prior to Pele.
> 
> Lots of things have influenced increased popularity today... but I think celebrity influence like from Pele or other international stars was a minor effect.


There are a generation of kids that started playing soccer after Pele came on the scene. I started playing in the early 80s and can remember going to my first Detroit Express game (but I can't remember who they played - I think it was Chicago).

I think Pele had a big impact - maybe not so much on the spectator sport, but on planting the roots. I was too young to watch Pele play in any games, but I got into soccer shortly after he left the NASL. I remember watching video tapes about him that just blew my mind at the time. Watching him on those tapes made me love soccer all the more.

Soccer starting gaining popularity as a sport for kids in the 80s.

Its 'kids like me' that played in the 'dark years' of the 80s that were at the 94 World Cup games, and are now (well some of us) forking out cash to watch these 24 hour soccer channels. We are playing in adult leagues and teaching our children the sport.

When I was learning soccer - my parents were absolutely clueless about it. And so was I until I found some good coaching - which was very rare back then. And I still wouldn't put my knowledge of the sport up against any die hard European/South American player. They just know the sport- better than we do. (And before I get jumped for saying 'we' just leave it as most of us.)

But that is changing...

Now I watch the high school kids play just a generation later, and its like night and day. These kids are good! They have good coaching - they move the ball into open space. They pace themselves more than we did and use the whole field more effectively.

Pele 'got the ball rolling'...


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I guess what I'm trying to say... and this is not a knock on Pele or Beckham or anyone skilled and well-known in the sport... but, I don't think one or two or five or a dozen of those guys coming onto the scene for a couple of years makes a big deal in the scheme of things.

I know people went to see Pele who had never gone before... and maybe a handful of those fans stuck around after Pele... Some more will come to see Beckham, and maybe some of them will stay too...

But history is filled (not just with sports... the stock market, and many other people-popularity driven things too) with big names causing a momentary stir, then things settle back to normalcy when its all over.

I might like to see Pele or Beckham myself... but once he was gone, I would be gone again. I think I'm more similar to average American fans towards soccer in that regard. I'd have my interest piqued by a celebrity or a particularly good performance, but since I don't care for the sport otherwise, I'd be gone again later.

That's what I'm trying to say in regards to celebrity influence. Someone like Freddy (sp?) Adu could have been a local celebrity, but as I understand it he barely got to play for his MLS team for whatever reason. There was a chance to bring up a young hot talent and popularize and grow the fanbase... but I think MLS missed it on that one.

I don't believe soccer needs to bring in "hired guns" from international celebrity athletes, as I don't think that will make the sport more popular for long. I think the answer has to be hyping the sport and teams and players we have, and showcasing talent when we have it.

The Peles and Beckhams of the world will come and go... and I suspect in the long run have very little effect on US soccer.

Think about other sports in this country... part of the attachment is the ability to find athletes with local roots who you've watched grow/improve for years... Even home-grown wiz-kids who are in the spotlight a couple of years then go away don't do much in the way of popularizing... It is the history and transitioning from old talent to new talent and improving skills and media hyping that keeps most of the US sports going.


----------



## Chandu

HDMe said:


> I might like to see Pele or Beckham myself... but once he was gone, I would be gone again. I think I'm more similar to average American fans towards soccer in that regard. I'd have my interest piqued by a celebrity or a particularly good performance, but since I don't care for the sport otherwise, I'd be gone again later.


It just so happens that the powers that be at MLS and USSF are not actively after potential customers like you. After spending a lot of time trying to get this right and making some mistakes along the way, they've finally figured out that it is a loss proposition trying to market to people like you. Meaning, the amount of money required to spend for marketing, and the diminishing returns, it's just not worth it. And I commend them for finally understanding it.

What they've figured out is that instead of going after your demographic, they want to focus on soccer fans in USA who have shown no interest in MLS or USA national team in the past. And there is an incredible number of them out there. As the big TV ratings for World Cup showed, and as the extremely high popularity for those summer friendlies 4 years in a row showed (involving ManUtd, Chelsea, Celtic, AC Milan, Juventus, Liverpool, Bayern Muenchen, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Club America etc.), there are tons and tons and tons of soccer fans in this country, who have never got behind MLS or USA national team.

MLS is right now interested in getting all soccer fans in USA on board, who currently are not MLS fans. They are not actively spending resources on trying to get general sports fans who are not soccer fans on board. Maybe they'll get to the second category if and when they declare victory on the first category. Even if they're successful with the first category, it will be a very good achievement, and they'll do just fine in the long run with a customer base like that. And the signs are showing that they've started to make progress on this front.

Of course, this never means people in your demographic are not welcome as new customers. If you show up, you'll be welcomed with open arms. But it is understood that customer retention with your demographic is questionable to begin with, compared with high retention for that other demographic. So there will be no tears shed if you don't feel like coming back.


----------



## jaywdetroit

HDMe said:


> But history is filled (not just with sports... the stock market, and many other people-popularity driven things too) with big names causing a momentary stir, then things settle back to normalcy when its all over.
> .....
> 
> I don't believe soccer needs to bring in "hired guns" from international celebrity athletes, as I don't think that will make the sport more popular for long. I think the answer has to be hyping the sport and teams and players we have, and showcasing talent when we have it.
> 
> .....


A couple of points on this. I completely see your point. But the importance of getting Beckham isn't just how many spectators he will bring. His signing ups the legitimacy of the MLS and will make other "world class" players look twice at the MLS. We may still get the guys out of their prime for now, but the fact they are willing to look here says the MLS has come a long way.

Same thing happened in Detroit baseball. When Pudge signed with the Tigers, it brought some respectability back to Detroit. It opened the door for other All star caliber players to consider the team where they would have never considered it in the past. Which has brought the sport back from the dead in Michigan.

My second point - don't underestimate the value of the young kid that is staring up at that screen with stars in his eyes. That makes love of the sport grow (oh so slowly).


----------



## rictorg

To bring this post back to its original premise, I believe the sports media is opening up a lot more to soccer. The before mentioned Fox Soccer Channel (available on E* by the way), the mentioned GolTV demonstrate the growth of Soccer since the '94 World Cup. ESPN runs a segment during their nightly SportsCenter with Deportees anchor Michelle LaFountain running two minutes of soccer highlights. That is often more exposure then the NHL gets on a SportsCenter program.

Soccer came up recently with some friends of mine, and we were talking about how it doesn't appeal to as many American sports fans as it does to international sports fans. In our jest, we started proposing rules changes that would answer some of the things we don't like about soccer. Sample changes would be running a countdown timer and stopping it like they do in other sports, using a penalty box in lieu of yellow and red cards, forcing two players to always remain on the opposite side of midfield (significantly opening up the offensive portion of the game, and forcing 11 vs 9 action for the offense, allowing more physical play (the ticky tack fouls in the World Cup really turned us off), and so on.

I am not suggesting these "rule changes" would be viable, but they help to explain the elements of soccer that seems to be out of step with the more popular American sports (namely scoring, contact, and last second heroics).

That said, America's Hispanic population is rapidly growing, and soccer is very popular in that demographic. I think that MLS and international soccer in the US has a very bright future.


----------



## djlong

As much as I really don't like watching soccer, I can't help but to think that HD will be another tool in helping soccer grow in popularity. 

I know one of *my* complaints was trying to make out what was going on with those wide shots that tried to show plays developing. Just too much field to cover on a small screen.

Now - widen that screen, make it bigger and show more detail and maybe the casual fan starts getting more of the game strategy.

I noticed this effect the first time I saw a hockey game in HD. Having been to hockey games I knew there was much more going on than what you could typically see on a SD picture. The HD shots *really* showed off the capabilities. Likewise you get 'more' football (even though SD can show you most of what's happening in most plays) when you widen that screen and double the lines of resolution.


----------



## Chandu

rictorg said:


> Soccer came up recently with some friends of mine, and we were talking about how it doesn't appeal to as many American sports fans as it does to international sports fans.


Yeah, as I said in an earlier post MLS people figured this out around 2001. They decided it was not their business to create a "new" sport for an apathetic audience and try to sell the losing proposition, instead of selling a very well known, well established sport to an interested audience. The audience may not have been interested in their version of the league, but has been interested in the sport by itself for a long, long time, many of them spanning generations, all of them on US soil. (And now coming to a home near you, a lot of them on Canadian soil.)



> In our jest, we started proposing rules changes that would answer some of the things we don't like about soccer. Sample changes would be running a countdown timer and stopping it like they do in other sports, using a penalty box in lieu of yellow and red cards, forcing two players to always remain on the opposite side of midfield (significantly opening up the offensive portion of the game, and forcing 11 vs 9 action for the offense, allowing more physical play (the ticky tack fouls in the World Cup really turned us off), and so on.


Yeah, in their confusion of whom to target and what to target, MLS attempted such freak-shows between 1996 to 2001. I'm not saying they attempted all of abominable experiments you've listed above, but they tried some subset of it, and something else along the lines. I won't bother mentioning exactly what they were, simply because I don't want to relive the nightmare. They realized the core customer base they should've been building was leaving as a result of this sillyness and put an immediate stop to it.

Good riddance.


----------



## KurtV

One thing I like that MLS does differently than the rest of the world, is keeping statistics on assists. Good passing, especially when it leads directly to a goal, is, to me, the most interesting part of games like soccer, hockey, and basketball. Why soccer has traditionally not recognized what's arguably the most important aspect of the game is beyond me; I'm glad that MLS rectified that in this country.

I think soccer will catch on in this country just because of the sheer number of kids playing it and the huge number of Latin American immigrants we get. We'll eventually reach a critical mass of knowledgable, passionate fans and explosive growth will follow. We may have already.


----------



## Chandu

KurtV said:


> One thing I like that MLS does differently than the rest of the world, is keeping statistics on assists. Good passing, especially when it leads directly to a goal, is, to me, the most interesting part of games like soccer, hockey, and basketball. Why soccer has traditionally not recognized what's arguably the most important aspect of the game is beyond me; I'm glad that MLS rectified that in this country.


It does get reflected in some of the biggest awards. For example, the reason Zinedine Zidane was so highly regarded was due to his out-of-the-world passing skills and creativity. By himself he didn't score many goals compared to how many he created. This was reflected in all those FIFA and European Player of the Year awards he got. Same goes with Ronaldinho's skill today.

Agreed, this isn't accounted as an official statistic anywhere else outside of MLS. But sometimes with these assist statistics, it is ambiguous how and whom to credit most. For example, a goal may have initiated on an incredible long pass from the opposite side of the field (either on counter-attack or otherwise), splitting the defence open. It may not directly lead to a goal. It may need a simple toe-poke from a midfielder to pass the ball to a forward, who goes on to complete the job of scoring actual goal.

Now, how to account for reward for assist in this example? Will only the midfielder who made an easy toe-poke pass get an assist? Or will only the guy on the other side of the field who made a difficult and creative pass get it? Or will both of the players making passes get it? Can multiple players get an assist for a single goal?

I'm not pretending that I know the answer for how MLS does it. It's just that in my mind it can be a bit ambiguous how this gets accounted.


----------



## colavsfaninnwia

liverpool said:


> superbowl = 100 million viewers
> 
> world cup = 1 billion viewers
> 
> say no more


World Cup soccer is about the only soccer I watch for one reason. Everyone around the globe is watching it (even to the point of calling in "sick from work"). So I figure if everyone else is watching it, I probably should too. And last year when I did watch it, I put it on the break-room T.V. and got some other people interested in it also, for the very same reason. To me, its a slow version of a hockey game (which I love with a passion).


----------



## mnbulldog

Cost of 30 second ad during World Cup (in US) - $375,000
Cost of 30 second ad during Super Bowl - $2.6 million

Nuff Said.

It is a boring sport. The only reason it is so popular worldwide is because they don't have the NFL or equivalent - if they had (for years) soccer would be about as popular as synchronized swimming.

It is just boring. Need to increase scoring. Need to get a real time clock (what is up with the ref just making up time that no one knows about at will).


----------



## Art

mnbulldog said:


> It is a boring sport. The only reason it is so popular worldwide is because they don't have the NFL or equivalent - if they had (for years) soccer would be about as popular as synchronized swimming.
> 
> It is just boring. Need to increase scoring. Need to get a real time clock (what is up with the ref just making up time that no one knows about at will).


would you consider the Rugby Union as an equivalent to NFL? Yet it is soccer in all of those countries that is being worshipped as #1 sport. Perhaps there's a chance it's not THAT boring after all?

PS. Do you like ballet as it is? Or you feel that it also needs to increase scoring?


----------



## Teststation5

I think a sport that ignores and in fact prohibits the use of the human's primary physical advantage over the animal kingdom is a little too barbaric for Americans. But, as pointed out earlier in the thread, it does make the sport playable by young children.


----------



## djlong

It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that, in countries where people are living on $1/day or worse, a sport where all you need is a ball is going to have a lot greater chance of success than a sport that requires hundres of dollars of equipment PER PLAYER.

Let's not forget that basketball had an urban renaissance in the 1980s for exactly that reason. You needed a ball and a hoop and could make up sides for as many players as you had (down to 1-on-1). Baseball needs a team, football needs equipment, hockey needs ice and more.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

djlong said:


> It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that, in countries where people are living on $1/day or worse, a sport where all you need is a ball is going to have a lot greater chance of success than a sport that requires hundres of dollars of equipment PER PLAYER.
> 
> Let's not forget that basketball had an urban renaissance in the 1980s for exactly that reason. You needed a ball and a hoop and could make up sides for as many players as you had (down to 1-on-1). Baseball needs a team, football needs equipment, hockey needs ice and more.


Those are very good points that I never really considered before. I still say also that (for better or worse) most countries do not have the variety of sport choices that we have in the USA. The more choices you have, the more the fans get divided. That is neither good nor bad, it just is.

If you go to a small town here in the USA, you sometimes find that most everyone does the same "activity" in the town because that is all there is to do... but go to other larger towns and find more variety but roughly the same amount of people doing each one as in the small town.


----------



## Chandu

mnbulldog said:


> The only reason it is so popular worldwide is because they don't have the NFL or equivalent...


The only reason it is so popular is because the rest of the world has been exposed to NFL already, and has discarded it for what it is: a rubbish freak-show, almost like a gladiatorial circus.

That includes not only the pretentious World Football League, NFL Europe or other failed variants, but actually the base NFL itself. Outside of few American military bases in Germany, nobody gives 2 bits about NFL Europe and they had to fold their bases in Spain, England, Scotland, elsewhere in desperation. Let's not even go back to the failed experiments in Japan and other countries.

Talking about NFL exposure (not NFL Europe) in rest of the world, they have been exposed to NFL regular season telecasts on cheap cable for ages, more than a decade. This includes 2 of the most populous countries in the world, India and China. Yet, in these 2 nations you would have tough time finding people giving any hoot about it. I have personally spoken with hundreds of people in India, who think American Football is a bizarre variation of kabaddi. That's an ancient team sport resembling wrestling, not worth huge amount of time or resources.

China or Japan don't have any monopoly either on soccer participation or American Football. Both of them have reasonably good national soccer teams, but nothing on the level tearing FIFA rankings apart. (Actually Japan has a very decent J-League for more than a decade now, with extremely crazy and rabid support for teams like Kashima Antlers, Urawa Reds etc. But let's be honest, the league itself is nowhere close to quality of La Liga or English Premiership.) They have tons of exposure to both sports being televised from foreign lands. Yet, they have drooling levels of adulations for star names like Ronaldinho, Lionel Messi, Michael Ballack, Cristiano Ronaldo, David Beckham, Wayne Rooney etc. Mention names like Michael Vick, Peyton Manning and you'll get blank stares or yawns.

In Australia, NFL has a very niche presence known as gridiron. That's because Australians are just sports crazy people and will take to any sport activity like mad. But it would be laughable to suggest that it would ever get any kind of interest that Australian Football and Rugby League get, either combined together or individually. Even though football community in Australia is fiercely divided between these 2 football codes, both of them are very healthy and prospering and never going away. (BTW, I'm not letting my personal bias about Rugby League get in the way in this statement. I find it to be a dull sport and failed variation of real rugby [union], definitely not worth my personal time.) I didn't even throw in the other football code into equation - Rugby Union. Do they have no shortage of football codes or what? Even though Wallabies have been sucking for last few years, Rugby Union is Australia is far from dead and buried. With the new introduction of a Super 14 team in Perth, Western Force who are playing very good quality football lately, they've been getting extremely good crowd support. They have had average attendance approaching 28,000. While it won't be as good as the 2 Australian Football (AFL) teams in the region, Fremantle Dockers and West Coast Eagles, it is an extremely respectable number.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Australian_football_code_crowds

The statement that actually puts all of this debate to rest (as already stated in a post above) is: Far too many people on US soil care about soccer very passionately compared with the number of people on non-American soil caring about American Football passionately. This statement is true for both aggregate number of people, as well as taken as percentage. There is tons and tons of evidence to support it already.


----------



## Chandu

djlong said:


> It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that, in countries where people are living on $1/day or worse, a sport where all you need is a ball is going to have a lot greater chance of success than a sport that requires hundres of dollars of equipment PER PLAYER.


Right.

Because those poor kids in England, Ireland, Spain, France, Italy, Japan - they all must be dying of starvation in between keeping them entertained with a bouncing soccer ball on their heads.

Before you start giving popular sound-bites talking about how/why soccer has already spread like wildfire in Africa and poorer sections of South America, first try to answer the following question: Why is it that American Football has been exposed to rich, developed nations mentioned in first paragraph (through over-saturated media covering NFL, as well as leagues like NFL Europe, World Football League), yet has no chance of ever becoming popular anywhere close to soccer or Rugby Union. That's taking either of those sports individually, not even combined together.


----------



## Chandu

HDMe said:


> I still say also that (for better or worse) most countries do not have the variety of sport choices that we have in the USA.


You can say whatever you want to say. Just because you're stuck to a belief doggedly/steadfastly, doesn't mean it will become a fact.

BTW, I also know of few people who are members of the "Flat Earth Society", as well as people who believe man never walked on the moon, instead it was some staged/filmed experiment carried out in a desert in Nevada. I won't even bother mentioning tons of other popular conspiracy theories about other matters which have been floating around for long times.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Chandu,

So why do you think soccer is not popular in the USA like the rest of the world? If all the other sports are inferior and have been rejected by the rest of the world... how can a minority of the population worldwide ignore the most popular sport in the world in favor of so many other obviously inferior sports?

I have nothing against soccer... I don't understand why it hasn't become more popular either... but you can't just shoot down every theory and not offer up something.


----------



## liverpool

To have a 1 hour American Football game take 3 to 4 hours to play is crazy and boring. It is all about making money from advertising. The game is just a means to an end.


----------



## Chandu

HDMe said:


> Chandu,
> 
> So why do you think soccer is not popular in the USA like the rest of the world? If all the other sports are inferior and have been rejected by the rest of the world... how can a minority of the population worldwide ignore the most popular sport in the world in favor of so many other obviously inferior sports?


It really isn't anything about inferior or superior. None of the sports by themselves are inferior/superior to begin with. (Well, except I'll say Rugby League.  But that's my personal bias speaking due to my interest in Rugby Union and how that other code split away from real rugby with a bitter divorce.)

What it is, is about the way these various sports evolved over periods of time in their own space, their media coverage in those regions being a very important factor. For example, NFL has ended up as a mutated caricature of original American Football, which had its origins in the college version. Soccer, basketball, cricket, baseball, rugby, Formula-1, NASCAR, tennis they all have evolved too in their own different ways.

It is also about big cultural differences that exist among different parts of the world in general, nothing sport specific. Of course, rest of the world excluding USA isn't homogeneous. But when it comes to comparing one country vs. rest of the world, no other country has as pronounced differences as USA. This is true about so many things including sport. It's also true about art, cinema, humor, food and on and on and on. The way things are liked loud, in-your-face, big in USA just isn't appreciated the same way in other parts of the world. Similarly, what is considered cool elsewhere in the world, e.g. singing by supporter groups at sports events is considered bizarre in American mainstream.

These likings and differences are just the way they are. There is not too much to be achieved by brooding over them.

BTW, I'm personally not obsessed about why soccer in USA isn't as popular as say baseball. I don't find it to be a constructive activity. It is the person who started this thread that was more interested in that question. I don't even want to compare it with popularity of NFL in USA. That's because NFL and its current American popularity are literally aberrations when you compare it with other sports leagues on the planet. (I have a theory that it cannot continue to stay at such an insane levels forever, because what goes up must come down. A cash cow cannot be milked forever. Sometimes, over-popularity of something can lead to its own downfall. Anyway, that's a topic for another thread.)

For me, the slow and steady state at which soccer popularity has been gaining in USA is perfectly fine. I don't care for it to be like other mainstream American sports as of today. The reason I jumped into this thread was because I saw incorrect statements about sports in rest of the world.

I stated this in the thread somewhere else before: The original poster started with an extreme and possibly incorrect surmise for its subject. "Why do American people (as a whole) dislike soccer?" is an incorrect question. There is an implicit assumption in that question which I don't even believe is correct. A better worded question is "Why are American people (as a whole) indifferent towards soccer as a professional sport?"

Notwithstanding the usual sound-bites from some posters in this thread before ("not enough scoring", "no use of hands"), I don't believe American people (as a whole) dislike soccer. As a whole they're too preoccupied with other things which they're conditioned for, to pay attention to something new and very different.


----------



## KurtV

Chandu said:


> It is also about big cultural differences that exist among different parts of the world in general, nothing sport specific. Of course, rest of the world excluding USA isn't homogeneous. But when it comes to comparing one country vs. rest of the world, no other country has as pronounced differences as USA. This is true about so many things including sport. It's also true about art, cinema, humor, food and on and on and on. The way things are liked loud, in-your-face, big in USA just isn't appreciated the same way in other parts of the world. Similarly, what is considered cool elsewhere in the world, e.g. singing by supporter groups at sports events is considered bizarre in American mainstream.


This is demonstrably false in many ways. American film is extremely popular throughout much (most?) of the developed world. American fast food and chain restaurants are very popular throughout the world (there's no accounting for foreign taste either, apparently). Wal-Mart is expanding in Europe and Asia as are many other U.S. retailers. People throughout the world do indeed seem to like it loud and in-your-face in some pretty significant ways.

In sports the situation is similar. Basketball has spread from America across the globe. I think that by some measures it's now the most popular game in the world. Baseball, even while it may be starting to wane a bit here, is ever more popular elsewhere. NFL Europe is going strong in Germany. Exhibition football games in Mexico and Japan are wildly popular.

People don't sing at sporting events in the U.S.? Ever seen 100,000 people singing "Rocky Top" at a Tennessee football game? (I guess not.) Countless other fight songs and alma mater at events? (Ditto.) " When the Saints go Marching In" at a Saints game?


----------



## DawgLink

I had 0 interest in soccer until I went to Europe last summer and got caught up in the World Cup.

Now, I pay attention to the Premier league and all that....very weird

US people have no idea how serious football is over there


----------



## Chandu

Chandu said:


> The way things are liked loud, in-your-face, big in USA just isn't appreciated the same way in other parts of the world.


Hate to reply to my own post, but I knew I was forgetting something very important related to this. And don't want to keep editing my posts, leading to even bigger posts.

In no sport is this emphasis on "loud and big" the most today than in NFL. The manner in which it has evolved with micro-specializations, there is no way rest of the world can take up interest in it. It is a code of football that has separate players playing offense/defense and sitting idle for potentially half of the game. Or how about: a code of football that has something called 'special team' with micro-specialized player responsibilities (2 separate players dedicated for kicking punts and kickoffs??? Huh? What's the reason for that?)

Try explaining the rationale behind such eccentricities to sports fans elsewhere in the world. If a team couldn't make touchdown and need to punt football away, but why do they need to get off the field and sit on the bench, potentially staring at the sky or scratching their butts? This is while another army for the same team comes on? Is it just so they could show another MetLife commercial while that exchange of troops is taking place? Even in Rugby League, a tackle football code I dislike, if a try can't be scored after sixth phase, the football is punted away and the team just gets on with the business of defending and trying to get the football back.

Sometimes I feel NFL would have had an easier job exporting to rest of the world, had their rules stayed closer to 1950-60s when all players were required to play offense as well as defense.

Talking about "loud and big", what percent of the common population can even participate in this sport which requires 300 lbs+ mutated androids to play it? Touch football or flag football or whatever it is called doesn't count. I mean, really participating at the level in which those guys are playing. Americans really like to adulate their sportsmen to be big and super-human androids. This shows not only in NFL but also steroid laced baseball players. Sometimes I fantasize that NFL could mutate to a level where 600 lbs+ robots thrash and smash each other with sparks flying, and something resembling tackle football is being played, while American TV watching public enjoys the "action" eating pizza and Doritos, interrupted by commercials.

Contrast that with sports heroes which rest of the world adulates. Forget soccer for a second. Even in other codes of tackle football elsewhere in the world - Rugby Union, Australian Football, Gaelic Football, Rugby League - the players are not as absurdly sized as in NFL. Sure, they're very athletic and strong and bigger, taller, speedier than average population. And sure, props in Rugby Union can be chubby. But the difference in size from average population is not as absurdly high as in NFL.

Coming back to the most popular sport in the world, the biggest reason so many soccer stars are adored are majority of them are just average sized, similar to the sports watching population. People can actually identify with them and attempt to participate in a sport like that. If they cannot make it at the highest level, it would be because of lack of skill or athletic ability. But size impediment wouldn't be the biggest reason. I mean, one of the most skilled and accomplished soccer player in the world (even though as a person he is an idiot) Maradona is literally a midget, when you compare him with NFL players. He is 5 feet 5 inches tall. But that didn't stop him from performing crazy, superhuman feats of skill ("Hand of God" not included) on a soccer pitch.

I find it difficult to accept that American population as a whole, with its admiration for "loud and big" could ever adore a midget sized athlete to be their superstar. Or even general pool of soccer players who are not as crazily big as NFL players.


----------



## Chandu

KurtV said:


> This is demonstrably false in many ways. American film is extremely popular throughout much (most?) of the developed world. American fast food and chain restaurants are very popular throughout the world (there's no accounting for foreign taste either, apparently).


Don't want to take the thread too off-topic, but, huh?

So that makes all local film industry in developed world irrelevant? (My original point being about inherent cultural differences that exist between different parts of the world.)

And perhaps you would be aware that what they sell in American named fast food restaurants in many countries is not exactly identical food as in USA, menu included, but tailored to local food interests?



> Wal-Mart is expanding in Europe and Asia as are many other U.S. retailers.


And that wouldn't be for love of Wal-Mart by those Europeans or Asians, mind you. It's just that Wal-Mart is shoving itself down their throats. The same is true for Wal-Mart in USA as well, but don't want to take the thread too off-topic. That's a topic for a separate thread by itself.



> NFL Europe is going strong in Germany.


Guess you missed the part where I mentioned the ever shrinking NFL Europa (note the new name) in one of my earlier posts. Wonder when they will change their name to NFL Germany or "NFL variant supported by American military personnel".



> Exhibition football games in Mexico and Japan are wildly popular.


Actually, I think they played a regular season NFL match in Mexico, and will try the same gimmick in London. I did mention that earlier in the thread. I don't think these gimmicks will go very well with NFL team season ticket holders in USA long term. About popularity in those countries long term, the jury is still out, simply because it is dependent on how American fan-base reacts. And the "wildly popular" part is really niche interest when compared with interest in Mexican Apertura, El Tri in Mexico or Premiership, English rugby in England. Just as, soccer still is niche interest in USA.

About Japan: I think they skipped pre-season there in 2006 altogether. And I wouldn't exactly call an attendance of 26000 for once a year event with cheaper ticket prices "wildly popular". Especially if you contrast that with similar exhibitions in USA going back 3-4 years between "Man United vs. Celtic" or "Barcelona vs. Chivas" or "AC Milan vs. Chelsea" etc., with full ticket prices and definitely blowing away NFL Japanese pre-season attendance numbers.

Anyway, putting a stop to these nitty-gritty pickings. Coming back to my post, are you actually denying the basic premise in my statement that inherent cultural differences exist in various walks of life, in various parts of the world? And that it could have something to do with soccer's exceptional case for popularity in USA?



> People don't sing at sporting events in the U.S.? Ever seen 100,000 people singing "Rocky Top" at a Tennessee football game? (I guess not.) Countless other fight songs and alma mater at events? (Ditto.) " When the Saints go Marching In" at a Saints game?


Sorry, need to clarify. I'm well aware of the marching bands and singing fanfare, fight songs associated with a lot of college football in the US. What I meant was, supporter groups singing during the course of play, not just before an event or during stoppages, but literally during the course of play? And here is the key difference, supporter groups actually singing on their own, not being led by some marching band or stereo PA song?

Here are 2 examples.

Urawa Reds supporters in Japan singing in unison before and during a match:











Liverpool Kop with famous "You'll Never Walk Alone" actually during the course of play:






Are you actually telling me such singing wouldn't be considered bizarre in mainstream American sport (soccer matches played in USA excluded) culture? That's not a rhetorical question. It's just that I've never heard of such non-marching band led singing spontaneously started by fans during the course of play.


----------



## BubblePuppy

Chandu said:


> * Of course, rest of the world excluding USA isn't homogeneous*. But when it comes to comparing one country vs. rest of the world, no other country has as pronounced differences as USA.


Not sure what you mean by that statement. What do you mean by homogeneous in refererence to America? Care to elaborate?


----------



## Chandu




----------



## Chandu

BubblePuppy said:


> Not sure what you mean by that statement. What do you mean by homogeneous in refererence to America? Care to elaborate?




Where did I say America is homogeneous? Please re-read that statement.

"Rest of the world excluding USA isn't homogeneous."

"Rest of the world excluding USA" = "entire planet" - "USA".

"Rest of the world excluding USA isn't homogeneous."

Where and how does that imply America is homogeneous?


----------



## Art

Chandu said:


> As a whole they're too preoccupied with other things which they're conditioned for, to pay attention to something new and very different.


 I think you nailed it here, and right on the head. And, as you put it several times already, it doesn't mean it's a good thing or bad thing. It's just how things are. This is exactly why so many americans indifferent to soccer in first place, and this is why it is being poorly marketed compared to more traditional sports in this country. But give it time.

PS. And kids stop playing soccer after the age of innocense is over is for one reason only - social pressure. There's no prestigious team, or a superstar, or a league to aim for in soccer. MLS is not a Holy Grail for soccer fans and their salaries are not comparable with NFL, NBA, etc. If you want to become a cult hero, become millionaire, play for a team with a chance to be named "World Champions" in the end of the season, you do not go into soccer in US. Not yet...


----------



## KurtV

Chandu said:


> Don't want to take the thread too off-topic, but, huh?
> 
> So that makes all local film industry in developed world irrelevant? (My original point being about inherent cultural differences that exist between different parts of the world.) *Who said the rest of the film world is irrelevant?*
> 
> And perhaps you would be aware that what they sell in American named fast food restaurants in many countries is not exactly identical food as in USA, menu included, but tailored to local food interests? *You can get a Big Mac in Rome, Paris, Mexico City, London, etc. Of course they tailor parts of the menu to the locale; that's just smart business.*
> 
> And that wouldn't be for love of Wal-Mart by those Europeans or Asians, mind you. It's just that Wal-Mart is shoving itself down their throats. The same is true for Wal-Mart in USA as well, but don't want to take the thread too off-topic. That's a topic for a separate thread by itself.
> *So Wal-Mart somehow forces those people to come in and spend money? How exactly do they do that? I guess if you consider underselling the competition force, your statement could be true.*
> 
> Guess you missed the part where I mentioned the ever shrinking NFL Europa (note the new name) in one of my earlier posts. Wonder when they will change their name to NFL Germany or "NFL variant supported by American military personnel". *I'm sure that name change is just around the corner. Look, I'm not saying that football is going to rival soccer (or basketball or even cricket) anytime soon. Just that it's been somewhat successful in Europe, Asia, and Mexico, not to mention Canada. They've done pretty well for a sport that no one in most of those places understands very well because they never played it and which isn't played by the youth.*
> 
> Anyway, putting a stop to these nitty-gritty pickings. Coming back to my post, are you actually denying the basic premise in my statement that inherent cultural differences exist in various walks of life, in various parts of the world? And that it could have something to do with soccer's exceptional case for popularity in USA?
> *See below.*
> 
> Sorry, need to clarify. I'm well aware of the marching bands and singing fanfare, fight songs associated with a lot of college football in the US. What I meant was, supporter groups singing during the course of play, not just before an event or during stoppages, but literally during the course of play? And here is the key difference, supporter groups actually singing on their own, not being led by some marching band or stereo PA song? Are you actually telling me such singing wouldn't be considered bizarre in mainstream American sport (soccer matches played in USA excluded) culture? That's not a rhetorical question.
> *I am indeed. It may not be as common and it may not happen in precisely the same way, but it certainly happens. It's generally a function of the total alcohol consumption.*


Your statement that I was replying to was essentially that the U.S. was somehow singular in its film, food, music, sports, etc. as compared to the rest of the world. To wit, "when it comes to comparing one country vs. rest of the world, no other country has as pronounced differences as USA". I demonstrated that that is false. Nothing more or less. The world is ever more homogenous. We in this country of course borrow things from other regions and cultures but no country or even entire continent influences the rest of the world nearly so much as the U.S. does. That obviously wasn't always so and almost certainly won't continue forever. That's just the way it is now and has been in the recent past.

I do think soccer will continue to grow in populartity here. The professional leauge won't rival football, basketball, or baseball soon, but it could ecplipse hockey in the not too distant future (next ten years maybe?). Beyond that, who knows?


----------



## djlong

Chandu said:


> Why is it that American Football has been exposed to rich, developed nations mentioned in first paragraph (through over-saturated media covering NFL, as well as leagues like NFL Europe, World Football League), yet has no chance of ever becoming popular anywhere close to soccer or Rugby Union. That's taking either of those sports individually, not even combined together.


How long did it take for pro football to "catch on" in the US?

Wikipedia says that the first pro football game was in 1892. Predecessors to the NFL started in 1920. Football grew in popularity over the years but didn't start to really skyrocket until after Super Bowl III when a brash Joe Namath lead the Jets to the "upset of the century" when they beat the Colts.

Now, we've had almost 40 years from THAT event to keep building the Football Marketing Machine.

It's been a work-in-progress for over 80 years.

Now - when did the NFL start marketing itself overseas? How many years?


----------



## purtman

Chandu said:


> Sometimes I feel NFL would have had an easier job exporting to rest of the world, had their rules stayed closer to 1950-60s when all players were required to play offense as well as defense.


It wasn't a requirement. It's just that players weren't as specialized.



> I find it difficult to accept that American population as a whole, with its admiration for "loud and big" could ever adore a midget sized athlete to be their superstar. Or even general pool of soccer players who are not as crazily big as NFL players.


Emmit Smith was small running back, only 5-9. It's not just about "loud and big". There are many other examples.


----------



## MikeR

I don't understand the whole "not liking soccer" thing.

They have some of the greatest fans in the world!


----------



## Chandu

KurtV said:


> Your statement that I was replying to was essentially that the U.S. was somehow singular in its film, food, music, sports, etc. as compared to the rest of the world. To wit, "when it comes to comparing one country vs. rest of the world, no other country has as pronounced differences as USA". I demonstrated that that is false. Nothing more or less.


Your blanket statement of "that is false" is highly questionable. It's assuming that we're talking about a black and white subject with absolute "true" and "false", when in fact it is a gray area. Both your and my claims are correct in their own ways. We could argue back and forth beating this specific issue to death, and won't finish for days, if we don't accept that it is a gray area.

For example, pizza has been a part of menu in American restaurants for ages. Except that what they sell as pizza in a place like "Pizza Hut" has very little resemblance to the real pizza back in Italy (forget about specific island like Sicily). The same goes for Mexican, Chinese or Indian restaurants in USA, most of which serve vague approximations of what people really eat back in Mexican, Chinese or Indian households respectively. Does prevalence of such restaurants really mean American culture has homogenized with Italian, Mexican, Chinese or Indian cultures? Hardly.

A counter example is, would some Dutch teenagers enjoying watching Dutch football like PSV Eindehoven vs. Feyenoord on TV, while eating junk food from McDonalds make them homogenized with American culture? Hardly.

Extending the factoid you posted about American movies being very common elsewhere in the world : Do you suppose movies like "Bull Durham" or "Rudy" had as much acceptance in countries like Sweden or Turkey, as opposed to "Terminator 2" or "The Matrix"? Would that say something about peculiarity of American sports culture which isn't readily understood by foreign cultures? Reverse argument could be made about a movie like "Victory" not being a hot sale in USA.

To deny that USA is somehow singular in its culture, and especially more so when it comes to sports would be denying a fact. In fact for ages, it has been part of the American mindset to stress such singularity and take pride in it.



> The world is ever more homogenous.


That statement is true at a very superficial level. If you scratch under surface, big differences in culture exist worldwide and aren't just going away overnight. It would be a tragedy if they did.

Which is exactly why soccer is going to remain a niche sport in USA for a long time. And American Football is going to remain a niche sport even in a country like Germany for a long time.

And sticking to the soccer subject: Just because soccer happens to be the most popular sport in both Mexico and Sweden (yes, incredibly it is even more popular than ice hockey there), does that make their sports cultures homogeneous? Only on a superficial level. For one thing they have huge differences in climate and physiques leading to very different playing styles. Not to mention other cultural differences in what is acceptable in Scandinavian culture vs. Latino culture. For example, Scandinavian culture would put more emphasis on playing with hardmanship as opposed to Latino on skill.


----------



## Chandu

djlong said:


> How long did it take for pro football to "catch on" in the US?
> 
> Wikipedia says that the first pro football game was in 1892. Predecessors to the NFL started in 1920. Football grew in popularity over the years but didn't start to really skyrocket until after Super Bowl III when a brash Joe Namath lead the Jets to the "upset of the century" when they beat the Colts.
> 
> Now, we've had almost 40 years from THAT event to keep building the Football Marketing Machine.
> 
> It's been a work-in-progress for over 80 years.


Discussion about how it grew organically in USA over all those years wouldn't be that relevant to how it could grow synthetically in other countries.



> Now - when did the NFL start marketing itself overseas? How many years?


You can give them even 20 more years and it still won't be able to break past the micro-niche barrier in majority of the world.

The reverse argument applies to a young league like MLS as well, which is only in its 12th season. Anyone here remembers when NBA was in its 12th season? I don't expect MLS to be able to break out of the niche barrier even after 10 years.

And no, I didn't account for the dead NASL in that argument. Because from the ground-up NASL and MLS have been founded on completely different principles with completely different business models. Otherwise we would have to account for dead leagues in other sports such as ABA, USFL, AFL (no, not the Arena Football kind and definitely not the Australian Football kind) etc.


----------



## Chandu

purtman said:


> It wasn't a requirement. It's just that players weren't as specialized.


Fine, but doesn't change the basic gist of my statement.



> Emmit Smith was small running back, only 5-9. It's not just about "loud and big". There are many other examples.


I'll concede that there definitely are exceptions, and it actually exposes depth of my knowledge about NFL.

I still stand by my statement that "difference in physical size between an average NFL player and average population" is far more than "difference in physical size between an average soccer player and average population". It's also somewhat more than "difference in physical size between an average player for other international tackle football codes and average population".


----------



## Sharkie_Fan

Chandu said:


> You can say whatever you want to say. Just because you're stuck to a belief doggedly/steadfastly, doesn't mean it will become a fact.
> 
> BTW, I also know of few people who are members of the "Flat Earth Society", as well as people who believe man never walked on the moon, instead it was some staged/filmed experiment carried out in a desert in Nevada. I won't even bother mentioning tons of other popular conspiracy theories about other matters which have been floating around for long times.


He makes a valid point, to an extent here...

I agree with you that other nations have a variety of sports to choose from. But take my location, for instance. Here in the bay area, we have the SF Giants, SF 49ers, Oakland Athletics, Oakland Raiders, Golden State Warriors, San Jose Sharks, San Jose Stealth, San Jose Sabercats. And that's just pro teams. We've got Santa Clara, Cal, and Stanford here as well. Lump that in with a half dozen JuCos if you're into that (there's 3 within 20 minutes of my house), and you've got more choices for sport than you know what to do with...

New York, Chicago, etc... there are several places in the US that have all kinds of professional sports right at their fingertips...

I'm not a big world traveller, but I don't think there are alot of places with THAT variety of sports to choose from in such a small area....


----------



## KurtV

Chandu said:


> Your blanket statement of "that is false" is highly questionable. It's assuming that we're talking about a black and white subject with absolute "true" and "false", when in fact it is a gray area. Both your and my claims are correct in their own ways. We could argue back and forth beating this specific issue to death, and won't finish for days, if we don't accept that it is a gray area.
> 
> For example, pizza has been a part of menu in American restaurants for ages. Except that what they sell as pizza in a place like "Pizza Hut" has very little resemblance to the real pizza back in Italy (forget about specific island like Sicily). The same goes for Mexican, Chinese or Indian restaurants in USA, most of which serve vague approximations of what people really eat back in Mexican, Chinese or Indian households respectively. Does prevalence of such restaurants really mean American culture has homogenized with Italian, Mexican, Chinese or Indian cultures? Hardly.
> 
> A counter example is, would some Dutch teenagers enjoying watching Dutch football like PSV Eindehoven vs. Feyenoord on TV, while eating junk food from McDonalds make them homogenized with American culture? Hardly.
> 
> Extending the factoid you posted about American movies being very common elsewhere in the world : Do you suppose movies like "Bull Durham" or "Rudy" had as much acceptance in countries like Sweden or Turkey, as opposed to "Terminator 2" or "The Matrix"? Would that say something about peculiarity of American sports culture which isn't readily understood by foreign cultures? Reverse argument could be made about a movie like "Victory" not being a hot sale in USA.
> 
> To deny that USA is somehow singular in its culture, and especially more so when it comes to sports would be denying a fact. In fact for ages, it has been part of the American mindset to stress such singularity and take pride in it.
> 
> That statement is true at a very superficial level. If you scratch under surface, big differences in culture exist worldwide and aren't just going away overnight. It would be a tragedy if they did.
> 
> Which is exactly why soccer is going to remain a niche sport in USA for a long time. And American Football is going to remain a niche sport even in a country like Germany for a long time.
> 
> And sticking to the soccer subject: Just because soccer happens to be the most popular sport in both Mexico and Sweden (yes, incredibly it is even more popular than ice hockey there), does that make their sports cultures homogeneous? Only on a superficial level. For one thing they have huge differences in climate and physiques leading to very different playing styles. Not to mention other cultural differences in what is acceptable in Scandinavian culture vs. Latino culture. For example, Scandinavian culture would put more emphasis on playing with hardmanship as opposed to Latino on skill.


I did not say and would not argue that the world culture is homogenous; just that it's ever MORE homogenous. I don't think that's really debatable. I agree that this is in many ways a tragedy, but it's completely unavoidable. With the tremendous amount of information that's available everywhere and all the time and the ever-increasing mobility of people it's just going to happen. Thankfully, anythging approaching full homogenity is probably centuries away.

I don't know that soccer will remain a niche sport in the U.S. for a long time (or that American football will remain so throughout Germany). I suppose that depends on your definition of a long time and your definition of niche. As I said before, I think soccer could eclipse hockey (and maybe even baseball) in a decade or two.

By the way,I wouldn't call the ABA or the AFL "dead". Both merged with their more senior brethren and live on today through them. Both were also significant contributors (especially the AFL) to the increased popularity of their sports.


----------



## bluedogok

I think the differences lie in what the respective countries grew up exposed to and what is ingrained in those cultures. In large parts of the world people grew up with familial passions to soccer just like American kids grew up tied to teams in the sports long established in the US, it is familiar and passionate to us. The same way someone follow Real Madrid is no different than a parent and child who grow up following the NY Giants or Yankees or someone in the south who grew up following a college team. We just grew up exposed to different sports that have been around for over 100 years and soccer has not had that following in the US just as they have had club and professional soccer leagues in Europe (just using the one region as an example for the rest of the world).

You also have to consider the expanse that is the US and the fact that you have states that are similar in size to entire countries in Europe and elsewhere. I consider state differences to be not that much different than country differences, it is easy to consider the area in which I live and grew up (Oklahoma and Texas) is pretty much culturally different than the northeast or the west coast just like there are differences between the countries in Europe. Passions for college sports in this region grew from the fact that pretty much all professional sports did not exist west of St. Louis until the Brooklyn Dodgers moved to LA so state universities became the teams that became popular as a way of state pride that the cities have had with pro sports....just like the city teams that the Europeans follow.

Also, MotoGP is about as popular in Spain as F1. Nascar grew in popularity here as a result of marketing and the split in American Open Wheel racing, 2 series cannibalized sponsorship money so they went to a stable platform to advertise and it has since taken off from being a regional racing series to a nationwide one. Nascar has grown in appeal because it is a ******* soap opera in much the same way that F1 is a soap opera to those outside the US. Most new Nascar fans are not race fans, they are Nascar fans, there is a big difference. 

I watch F1 and bought the MotoGP online package, so it is not like I just stay with the local US sports only. I watch some MLS and the World Cup if there isn't anything else on that I prefer to watch (American football, baseball, racing). Much like Nascar, I will watch it if there is not F1, MotoGP or sports car racing on. I do wish Aussie Rules Football was still on something besides Setanta, I always enjoyed watching it. I am also ready to start recording the Louis Vuitton Cup races and watch those, so I am diversified in my sports watching in addition to having MLB Extra innings, NFL Sunday Ticket and NHL Center Ice.

The first that I ever really heard about soccer in Oklahoma was in the mid-70's at the height of the NASL with Pele and Kyle Rote Jr. as the stars and there was a team in Tulsa. We kicked a ball around in elementary school but Oklahoma was football and baseball territory, that is what we grew up on and proceeded to follow. Soccer is just lagging behind the other sports in the US in the amount of time they have been established here, don't expect 2 attempts at major level professional leagues to establish the sport on the same level as the NFL, MLB or NBA which have been part of the US sports culture for a very long time. If the MLS stays stable, I can imagine over time it will move into "major" level status but I think part of what is holding it back in the US is the fact that the English Premier League and/or UEFA is considered the top level and not the MLS. Americans are used to their top sports being considered the "top level" of the sport and don't like the fact that the league in the US is not on the same level. The MLS is like Triple A baseball to the MLB compared to UEFA.


----------



## bills976

I've always been annoyed at how slowly plays develop in soccer. That friggin field is so large, and watching people run back and forth is, well, boring. Hockey is totally different because rinks are a whole lot smaller, you can skate a lot faster than you can run, and there's plenty of hard hitting. Power plays add to a lot of that as well.


----------



## Charise

Why do Americans (as a whole) dislike Soccer? I don't know that we do "dislike" soccer. I actually loved playing soccer in high school. Unfortunately, when it was televised long ago, even I hated watching it. It was exceedingly boring, and very difficult on the (then) small screens to even tell where the ball was.

Improvements in camera angles and display may help immensely this time and draw in new views. However, I probably won't be tuning in. Just too many other things get my attention now.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

HD and widescreen helps out a little, showing more of the field at one time and the newness of HD and limited quantity of HD available at the moment helps encourage folks to try out watching soccer when nothing else is on... who knows if that will translate into viewers who stick with it for the long haul, but it is a plus for those curious to check it out.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan

I have another idea as to why soccer isn't popular... Getting back to the cultural issue a bit...

For me, football, hockey, baseball are so ingrained into my life that if they're on TV, I'm hooked... I'm all over it... I'm already interested in the game, and then there's the big picture of it all - your team fighting for a spot in the playoffs so they can go to the world series/super bowl/stanley cup... It's all there for me to dream about...

If a soccer game comes on.... the big picture isn't there for me. I know it exists, but I don't know what the big picture is... because soccer isn't ingrained in me like the other sports...

It's all a bit circular, but it's like a snowball... it self perpetuates... soccer isn't "in me" and so it doesn't interest me, and because it doesn't interest me, i don't watch it, and since I don't watch it, it isn't "in me"...

I think American society tends to be a bit lazy (that's a whole other can of worms).. but because for many of us, culturally, soccer isn't a big deal, we don't really get interested in it... my dad played when he was in elementary school, then moved on to baseball... I did the same... I imagine my son will do the same... It's always been that way, and being the lazy person I am, I don't take the time to get involved in ANOTHER sport... My wife thinks I spend too much time watching the Sharks already, I don't need something else to watch, and so soccer falls to the wayside, along with tennis, or basketball, or whatever...


----------



## celticpride

soccer is one of the world most BORING sports right up there with nascar,golf, and hockey. plus i hate that they don't play overtime, and have to get 3 kicks at the goal to see who wins this is STUPID ,imagine if the NBA had them shoot 3 point shots after a tie game to determine a winner instead of playing a 5 minute overtime!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

celticpride said:


> plus i hate that they don't play overtime, and have to get 3 kicks at the goal to see who wins this is STUPID ,imagine if the NBA had them shoot 3 point shots after a tie game to determine a winner instead of playing a 5 minute overtime!


Hockey has something similar to kicks too, or at least they used to.

For that matter, the NFL has a coin toss and sometimes the other team doesn't even get a chance to score... and not too long ago in college football we just had tie games without even a chance for extra time before declaring a draw.

One could make the argument that having kicks in soccer makes sense... because if they play 90+ minutes to a draw, how is another 5 minutes fair to either team to determine a winner? At least each team gets an equal number of kicks at the goal in a shootout, which could be more shots on the goal than they got the entire regulation period!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

To further my earlier "argument" that the rest of the world is not as diverse in popular sports as the USA... Let's talk about the popularity of baseball in the US.

Baseball used to be THE American passtime. Before my lifetime, baseball ruled the sports world in terms of attendance and popularity, and even TV ratings once it became televised.

But where is baseball now? NFL and NBA are above it... sometimes Nascar is too... Baseball is no better than 3rd and sometimes 4th most popular sport in the USA when maybe 50 years ago it was at the top.

What happened? Increased choice and popularity of NFL and NBA started to take away fans to some extent... not only taking fans away during the times the sports seasons overlap... but causing some fans to lose interest in baseball by comparison even when there was no football or basketball to watch. Some folks would rather watch the NFL draft now than watch an early season baseball game, for instance!

It took many years for this evolution to happen... but it happened.

The longer there is soccer in the US, the more of a chance it has to increase in popularity here... but it is also true that the longer the rest of the world has to try out other sports, the more of a chance those sports have to take root and take some audience away from soccer.

That's just life and evolution and a little bit of "what have you done for me lately" mixed in.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan

HDMe said:


> At least each team gets an equal number of kicks at the goal in a shootout, which could be more shots on the goal than they got the entire regulation period!


And here we come, full circle, to one of the complaints you'll hear most often about soccer... no action... 

Although, I must say, when the US Womens team was vying for the World Cup (with Mia Hamm, and Brandi Chastain stripping at midfield, etc). I was helping out at a local Little League at the time, and on the last day of the tournament, we had games and I took along a littke 6" portable B/W television and had the game in the background. Whenever I was announcing little league games, I'd have sports radio on and I'd announce scores for local teams from time to time. WC wasn't local, but it was USA, so I kept apprised of the score throughout the day.... At the end of the day, we had 8 or 10 people huddled around that little 6" television, bobbing and weaving around the head in front of you trying to get a clear view of the TV.... The shootout to end that was quite possibly one of the most exciting sporting events I've witnessed...

And I'm by no means a soccer fan....

I don't necessarily dislike soccer, it just doesn't really float my boat, so I follow other sports... Given the right circumstances, like the WC tournament that year, I think soccer can be every bit as exciting as the other sports...


----------



## bluedogok

Sharkie_Fan said:


> I don't necessarily dislike soccer, it just doesn't really float my boat, so I follow other sports... Given the right circumstances, like the WC tournament that year, I think soccer can be every bit as exciting as the other sports...


I think this is the way the majority of Americans feel, they don't dislike soccer (or other non-mainstream sports), they are just apathetic about it because it isn't an interest.


----------



## prorixum

This thread is so ridiculous, I can't help but chime in with some of my own thoughts. So here is something I don't think has been mentioned yet:

I have never seen more whiners and fakers than in a soccer match. Every game features at least one player falling down, writhing on ground feigning injury, then popping up and running about once he realizes his efforts have left the referee unmoved. Actually, it often happens several times a game. Maybe that kind of fakery is charming to hardcore soccer fans, but people in America tend to consider that unsportsmanlike. 

(And, yes, I realize that some injuries are legitimate, but a very simple solution to this problem is mandatory substitution. If you are hurt, you shouldn't be playing. If you want to fake an injury, enjoy the rest of the game from the bench.)

Now, I'm off to start my own, "Why do Americans (as a whole) dislike Hockey?" thread, and then berate anyone who posts.


----------



## purtman

prorixum said:


> This thread is so ridiculous, I can't help but chime in with some of my own thoughts. So here is something I don't think has been mentioned yet:
> 
> I have never seen more whiners and fakers than in a soccer match. Every game features at least one player falling down, writhing on ground feigning injury, then popping up and running about once he realizes his efforts have left the referee unmoved. Actually, it often happens several times a game. Maybe that kind of fakery is charming to hardcore soccer fans, but people in America tend to consider that unsportsmanlike.
> 
> (And, yes, I realize that some injuries are legitimate, but a very simple solution to this problem is mandatory substitution. If you are hurt, you shouldn't be playing. If you want to fake an injury, enjoy the rest of the game from the bench.)
> 
> Now, I'm off to start my own, "Why do Americans (as a whole) dislike Hockey?" thread, and then berate anyone who posts.


That's funny. I was just about to start a thread "Why do Nigerians (as a whole) dislike Hockey"? :lol:


----------



## mocciat

two words, "scoreless tie"


----------



## BrynMawr

Most americans that don't like soccer are apathetic towards it. That's fine. The bad thing is when the small percentage (see Jim Rome, Francis Deford, etc) feel the need to put it down despite not knowing a thing about it. 
This should not surprise anyone. This type of biggoted attitude is based more on our country's psyche than on anything else. We are raised thinking that we are better than anyone else because we are american.
"We are the best country in the world"! 
"We are the leaders of the world"! 
Well, this sounds fine and dandy, but it's like me telling you that my dad is cooler than yours. The idea is meaningless, yet we continue to look at many things through these eyes. Sport is one of them.
When someone with these beliefs is confronted by the idea that soccer might actually be a great game, they get a little nervous because in there eyes soccer has always been a "foreigner" sport. They can't entertain the idea (nativism maybe??). 

Than there's the arguement of, "there's no real action". This is mainly due to our cultural differences to the rest of the world when it comes to sport. Jimbo, the NY Giants fan, sees action in the terms of points. The more your team scores the funner it is to watch. Obviously he won't be to entertained with a spectacular 1-0 soccer game. But if you ask soccer fans from Europe why they don't like american sports they'll tell you the same thing, "There's no action". They don't see the fun in a game when most of the time is spent waiting and planning set plays inbetween commercials. I'm reminded of this classic question asked by a soccer fan, "why does it take 3 hours to play a 60-minute game (US football)"? 
You can't expect everyone to like your favorite sport, but the difference between soccer fans and the soccer haters is that soccer fans don't bother telling you why their sport is better than yours.


----------



## KurtV

BrynMawr said:


> Most americans that don't like soccer are apathetic towards it. That's fine. The bad thing is when the small percentage (see Jim Rome, Francis Deford, etc) feel the need to put it down despite not knowing a thing about it.
> This should not surprise anyone. This type of biggoted attitude is based more on our country's psyche than on anything else. We are raised thinking that we are better than anyone else because we are american.
> "We are the best country in the world"!
> "We are the leaders of the world"!
> Well, this sounds fine and dandy, but it's like me telling you that my dad is cooler than yours. The idea is meaningless, yet we continue to look at many things through these eyes. Sport is one of them.
> When someone with these beliefs is confronted by the idea that soccer might actually be a great game, they get a little nervous because in there eyes soccer has always been a "foreigner" sport. They can't entertain the idea (nativism maybe??).
> 
> Than there's the arguement of, "there's no real action". This is mainly due to our cultural differences to the rest of the world when it comes to sport. Jimbo, the NY Giants fan, sees action in the terms of points. The more your team scores the funner it is to watch. Obviously he won't be to entertained with a spectacular 1-0 soccer game. But if you ask soccer fans from Europe why they don't like american sports they'll tell you the same thing, "There's no action". They don't see the fun in a game when most of the time is spent waiting and planning set plays inbetween commercials. I'm reminded of this classic question asked by a soccer fan, "why does it take 3 hours to play a 60-minute game (US football)"?
> You can't expect everyone to like your favorite sport, but the difference between soccer fans and the soccer haters is that soccer fans don't bother telling you why their sport is better than yours.


Where to start?

I don't know whether Jim Rome or Frank Deford knows anything about soccer. Do you? I do know that Deford is generally a well informed guy (a little too "soft" for my taste, but generally knowledgable). Rome's a pretty astute guy too, I would think he's a least taken a look at soccer. Maybe they've watched the sport and still don't like it. Is that a possibility? Is the European who is bored with football and wants to know why a 60 minute game takes three hours better informed about football than Deford or Rome is about soccer? My guess is that the contrary is much more likely.

What's with the anti-Americanism? Why do so many soccer fans revert to that to "explain" the relative unpopularity of their sport? Americans don't like soccer because they're bigoted or "nervous" with the idea that soccer might be a great game? Please.

The lack of scoring, not action, is the complaint most often voiced by non-fans. I am a fan and it bothers me. Not because I think you need more scoring to make the game interesting or exciting, but because scoring is so difficult in soccer that the end result too often doesn't reflect what happened on the field. How many times have you seen one team completely dominate the other on the field but the score ends in a tie, or even worse, the better team loses 0-1? I think that turns many potential fans off.

Soccer fans don't tell others why their sport is better? Have you read any of this thread (and countless other similar ones on countless other forums)?

Look, I like the sport but I don't attack those who don't. Calling those who don't like it bigots and jingoists is wrong in and of itself and won't advance the sport a bit.


----------



## purtman

I enjoy watching soccer to an extent, but not all of it. It can be pretty slow at times in the middle and low scoring. That said, I do enjoy a great pitching duel in baseball, a great defensive performance in football, and great defensive performances in hockey. For some reason, it just doesn't click as a major sport with myself (and many others I know).


----------



## bluedogok

If you think the opinions of a Rome or DeFord are the majority, then you are mistaken. You also have to take almost _ANYTHING_ a sports talk guy says with a grain of salt, their job is to rile people up and illicit a response whether it is good or bad. They prefer "bad" usually because it makes for better radio in the producers minds.


----------



## purtman

bluedogok said:


> If you think the opinions of a Rome or DeFord are the majority, then you are mistaken. You also have to take almost _ANYTHING_ a sports talk guy says with a grain of salt, their job is to rile people up and illicit a response whether it is good or bad. They prefer "bad" usually because it makes for better radio in the producers minds.


Not true. Some do it that way, but that's not the majority. Don't talk about it unless you have experience in the field.


----------



## heavyobjects

bluedogok said:


> If you think the opinions of a Rome or DeFord are the majority, then you are mistaken. You also have to take almost _ANYTHING_ a sports talk guy says with a grain of salt, their job is to rile people up and illicit a response whether it is good or bad. They prefer "bad" usually because it makes for better radio in the producers minds.


You may just have a general "the sports world hates me" disposition because you are a 'Sooner in Austin.' I find most sports analysts these days much too forgiving...


----------



## bluedogok

I am not talking about analysts, I am taking about sports talk guys, there is a big difference between the two. They are merely doing the same thing that a Rush Limbaugh does, say something outrageous to get a reaction. I know people currently in the business and that is exactly what I have been told, many times they will argue a point they don't agree with for the sake of the show. It is a much different business than reporting sports even though many sports talk stations use the TV/newspaper people. It is much more of an opinion driven medium than reporting.

I don't listen to any of the sports talk here or really don't watch much of the sports on TV. I don't need to hear what the UT-SIO decided to say that day.


----------



## heavyobjects

bluedogok said:


> I am not talking about analysts, I am taking about sports talk guys, there is a big difference between the two. They are merely doing the same thing that a Rush Limbaugh does, say something outrageous to get a reaction. I know people currently in the business and that is exactly what I have been told, many times they will argue a point they don't agree with for the sake of the show. It is a much different business than reporting sports even though many sports talk stations use the TV/newspaper people. It is much more of an opinion driven medium than reporting..


Analysts/commentators. Same thing. These are not play-by-play announcers. If you want to differentiate between in-game and in-studio, fine, but even that line is blurring - need only look at Monday Night Football and see Tony Kornheiser doing color. Whatever the case, I am taking issue with your premise. There are plenty of quality analysts that don't say things just to get reactions, quite the contrary.

And besides...

...


bluedogok said:


> I don't listen to any of the sports talk here or really don't watch much of the sports on TV. I don't need to hear what the UT-SIO decided to say that day.


 ...

how can you make such a broad claim when you don't consume enough of the medium to adequately spit it out?


----------



## purtman

bluedogok said:


> I am not talking about analysts, I am taking about sports talk guys, there is a big difference between the two. They are merely doing the same thing that a Rush Limbaugh does, say something outrageous to get a reaction. I know people currently in the business and that is exactly what I have been told, many times they will argue a point they don't agree with for the sake of the show. It is a much different business than reporting sports even though many sports talk stations use the TV/newspaper people. It is much more of an opinion driven medium than reporting.
> 
> I don't listen to any of the sports talk here or really don't watch much of the sports on TV. I don't need to hear what the UT-SIO decided to say that day.


I have to say I've known many guys in the business (I was in it myself) and there are few who will say things solely to get a rise out of people. Rush Limbaugh is an exception to rules. He's just a hot wind bag who will say anything to put people down.


----------



## DawgLink

To me, it's very simple.

Americans just don't get it. 

I went to Europe for the first time in 2006. I had never been.

All my soccer friends for years told me how insane the World Cup was...European Soccer....I laughed at them...it's all about SEC Football to me....

Then I saw the World Cup in Germany, Austria, and Italy.

Wow...how wrong was I....

I am stuck on European Soccer after getting a taste of the world cup.


----------



## bluedogok

heavyobjects said:


> how can you make such a broad claim when you don't consume enough of the medium to adequately spit it out?


I see the local news every night, I gave up paying close attention to the local UT sports broadcasts for the most part but it is still on so I hear it until Leno/Letterman come on.

I consume plenty (if you ask my wife).....the sports talk that I am talking about is the local radio sports talk, not a national like ESPN Radio. I do listen to quite a few different ones around the country online (OKC, Dallas, Boston, DC, etc.) so I do get my fill of it, and some are much worse than others in their instigating stuff to fire people up. Yes there are some that do both and some of them have a completely different personality for both. To me, they seem like completely different types of sports broadcasting.

I still think Kornheiser is lost on MNF, I can see where it would be hard for a writer/sports talk person who is used to going on about a topic in detail to try and fire out what they want to say in a 15 sec. soundbite. His radio show is pretty good, MNF is not and I don't think it is his fault, he is just out of his element.

To get back on topic, I will watch some EPL when it is on, that is a completely different level and can be entertaining to watch. I still miss Australian Rules Football but not willing to pay more to watch it on Setanta, I already have enough sports subscriptions.


----------



## Chandu

mnbulldog said:


> The only reason it is so popular worldwide is because they don't have the NFL or equivalent - if they had (for years) soccer would be about as popular as synchronized swimming.





KurtV said:


> NFL Europe is going strong in Germany. Exhibition football games in Mexico and Japan are wildly popular.





djlong said:


> Now - when did the NFL start marketing itself overseas? How many years?


Right. 



Chandu said:


> You can give them even 20 more years and it still won't be able to break past the micro-niche barrier in majority of the world.





Chandu said:


> Yeah, and they will keep trying. Because frankly, nobody in the world gives a hoot about NFL.
> 
> Exhibit A : World League of American Football
> 
> Exhibit B: NFL Europe, NFL Europa and its dying variants.
> 
> Frankly, other than bunch of American military personnel based in Germany, not a single guy on the street in Europe gives a damn about NFL Europe. NFL Europe has been such a joke, they've been forced to evacuate one by one from England, Scotland, Spain, Netherlands. I believe they're only based in Germany right now, and might as well call them NFL American Military Personnel League in Germany. The "league" such as it is has been artificially kept on life support by parent NFL. A number of NFL owners have been angry about this money drain, waste of resources and have been threatening to kill it off any time. I won't be surprised if NFL Europe is dead in few years.
> 
> Also, the latest NFL gimmick of hosting regular season games in Mexico City, London is exactly that, gimmick. The moment at which a business starts messing with its core product this way, you have to question its wiseness. Until it was pre-season games or NFL Europe variants elsewhere, it was OK. Do you think the season ticket holders of those teams would be thrilled if their teams play "home" games in random locations like that? It would be as absurd as Barcelona and Arsenal flying over to Los Angeles to play a real Champions League match.
> 
> I honestly don't see such desperate moves of "exporting" by NFL to be paying off in the long run.
> 
> As it stands right now, way too many Americans care about soccer, than people outside of USA caring about American specific sport variants like NFL.





Chandu said:


> The only reason it is so popular is because the rest of the world has been exposed to NFL already, and has discarded it for what it is: a rubbish freak-show, almost like a gladiatorial circus.
> 
> That includes not only the pretentious World Football League, NFL Europe or other failed variants, but actually the base NFL itself. Outside of few American military bases in Germany, nobody gives 2 bits about NFL Europe and they had to fold their bases in Spain, England, Scotland, elsewhere in desperation. Let's not even go back to the failed experiments in Japan and other countries.
> 
> The statement that actually puts all of this debate to rest (as already stated in a post above) is: Far too many people on US soil care about soccer very passionately compared with the number of people on non-American soil caring about American Football passionately. This statement is true for both aggregate number of people, as well as taken as percentage. There is tons and tons of evidence to support it already.





Chandu said:


> Before you start giving popular sound-bites talking about how/why soccer has already spread like wildfire in Africa and poorer sections of South America, first try to answer the following question: Why is it that American Football has been exposed to rich, developed nations mentioned in first paragraph (through over-saturated media covering NFL, as well as leagues like NFL Europe, World Football League), yet has no chance of ever becoming popular anywhere close to soccer or Rugby Union. That's taking either of those sports individually, not even combined together.





Chandu said:


> Guess you missed the part where I mentioned the ever shrinking NFL Europa (note the new name) in one of my earlier posts. Wonder when they will change their name to NFL Germany or "NFL variant supported by American military personnel".
> 
> Actually, I think they played a regular season NFL match in Mexico, and will try the same gimmick in London. I did mention that earlier in the thread. I don't think these gimmicks will go very well with NFL team season ticket holders in USA long term. About popularity in those countries long term, the jury is still out, simply because it is dependent on how American fan-base reacts. And the "wildly popular" part is really niche interest when compared with interest in Mexican Apertura, El Tri in Mexico or Premiership, English rugby in England.


Like that took a rocket scientist to see it coming from a mile away. Actually, never mind. They won't need to worry about any more name changes, like NFL Germany or "NFL variant supported by American military personnel".

NFL Folds European League After 16 Years



And mark my words again: These gimmicks of playing singular regular season NFL games in random rotating locations like London, Mexico City, Tokyo will definitely not go well with season ticket holders in USA. Those same season ticket holders who're being extorted to shell out increasing sums of hard earned money. *AND* take into account the public money funded billion dollar newer and newer NFL stadiums, if the NFL commissioner wants to continue having these regular season NFL games on foreign soil.

My realistic prediction about these "marketing overseas" experiments: They will start out with a bang as a fad to begin with. But there is no way in hell any brand name loyalty or continuity could be achieved by random round-robin scheduling of regular season matches on a rotating basis. Fact of the matter NFL should've realized by now - rest of the world just isn't interested in NFL or American Football as a core product . They'll show big interest in it in the beginning with a curiosity factor. But caring about it on a week to week basis, year after year in mass numbers? Fuggetaboutit. There are already tons and tons of diverse sport choices for the rest of the world, steeped in old traditions.

And oh yeah, BTW for the original poster with the thread title of "Why do Americans (as a whole) dislike soccer?":

Couldn't have been a more appropriately chosen thread title. The proof is in the pudding.

41 percent more households tuned into Gold Cup final than Stanley Cup final


----------



## purtman

zzz ....


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I suppose if we want to really be correct... The rest of the world doesn't like soccer either.

The rest of the world likes football! (hence the FIFA acronym)

Here in the USA we have our own "football" so we had to rename the rest-of-the-world-sport as soccer.

It would have been a whole lot simpler if we had never recycled the "football" name to begin with... maybe the NFL should have been the NSL and we could have called our sport soccer


----------



## Chandu

HDMe said:


> Here in the USA we have our own "football" so we had to rename the rest-of-the-world-sport as soccer.


I know you're joking, but it is one of the biggest misconceptions that the word soccer is "our" (American) creation. This misconception is actually far more prevalent in Britain than in USA.

The fact of the matter is that the word "soccer" originated in England, the spiritual home of the sport, as well as another football code - rugby. The fully qualified name of the sport "soccer" or "football" really is "Association Football". Before the 2 rugby codes had their big bitter divorce into Rugby Union and Rugby League, the parent code used to be called just "rugby". It still is. It's fully qualified name has always been "Rugby Football Union" - true before and after divorce. It's extremely rare for the mutated code to be called just by the name "rugby", pretty much never happens. It's called by the names just "League" or "Rugby League", it's fully qualified name being "Rugby Football League".

Before the Union/League divorce there were only 2 major football codes in England - Association Football and Rugby Union Football. In order to differentiate between these codes, the common man's slang language used abbreviations. For example:

"I hear he plays footy at the university."
"Really? What, is he a rugger or an assocer?"

Needless to stay, this slang abbreviation for Association mutated into the word "soccer" and ended up sticking. The slang word "rugger" is still very prevalent in UK, but somehow it never achieved an official status the word "soccer" achieved.

As I said above, there are lots of ignorant people in England who know little about the heritage of football codes from their own country. They wrongfully accuse Americans of perverting the name of the sport "football" into "soccer", calling it by a wrong name. The fact of the matter is that the word originated in their own country, in their own usage and is a correct, alternative name.



> It would have been a whole lot simpler if we had never recycled the "football" name to begin with... maybe the NFL should have been the NSL and we could have called our sport soccer


Also "we" (USA) are definitely not the first to recycle the word "football" to begin with anyway. A number of football codes in the world have older traditions and were already established before American Football rules were standardized, and had already recycled the word "football".

For example, here are some random historical data points:

Everyone knows that the football code of Rugby Union predates American version by many, many years, and has always been correctly referred to by the "football" word. Football had been played for about 200 years at Rugby School in England, before official rugby rules were published in 1845. The first Rugby Football Union was established in 1871 when 21 football teams met to agree on rules and format of competitions.

American Football rules were codified sometime between 1873 to 1880. I think the colleges of Harvard, Princeton, Rutgers, Yale etc. were involved in this. I'm very hazy about the timeline for codification of Canadian Football rules. I think McGill University in Montreal and another college in Toronto were involved in this??? 

The Football Association which happens to be the parent of all of Association Football (surprise!!) in the world was founded in 1863. Without a shadow of doubt, this code (also called soccer) happens to be the most accepted and most influential among all football codes in the world. I don't believe in our lifetime any other football code in the world will be able to achieve the kind of global footprint and popularity which this code has managed to achieve. Not Rugby Union, not Rugby League, not American Football, not Canadian Football, not Australian Football, not Gaelic Football and definitely not indoor American version called Arena Football.

It is well known that the oldest football club in the world *for any football code* is not a soccer club, is not a rugby club (Union or League), and is definitely not of American or Canadian variety from a college. It is instead the Melbourne Demons Football Club founded in 1858 for the Australian Football code (in those days known as Victorian Football). It is even older than biggest soccer clubs like Manchester United or Liverpool, or even very old soccer clubs like Notts County or Accrington Stanley. Rules of Australian Football were codified well before the American version was even conceived in the colleges of US East coast. It is fascinating that they even predate the founding of "The Football Association" by 5 years!!! Of course they "recycled" the word "football". Melbourne Demons Football Club has managed to survive in its original form after all these years. In fact it has been involved in leagues at the highest level of Australian Football for almost all of them. Currently this highest level happens to be the AFL.

The divorce of 2 football codes of rugby became official in 1895. But what happened to those codes past that point is completely unrelated to any progression of the American code.

Once again, I know you were joking and most likely know about all of this anyway. But I couldn't pass this opportunity of clarification, hoping that it will be of benefit to some other posters, either reading it passively or posting in this thread.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Chandu said:


> Once again, I know you were joking and most likely know about all of this anyway. But I couldn't pass this opportunity of clarification, hoping that it will be of benefit to some other posters, either reading it passively or posting in this thread.


I was joking... but I didn't know all of that, so I found it very interesting. Complicated, but interesting.

I haven't actually seen any rugby, aside from some faked rugby in a movie or two... nothing of the actual sport. I have seen a little Australian rules football, though, and it was a little strange (from my perspective of American football of course).

From what I can tell... from what little I've seen... I can see some connections in rugby to soccer and to Australian football... but modern American football bears little resemblance to those anymore. Perhaps in the olden days before the modern protectivewear and change in football... but it seems the NFL has evolved into something quite a bit different and a departure from the origins.

I would be interested to see a documentary, History-channel style, of the various forms of football and how they relate.

A bit off-topic... but I watched a documentary on the history of Golf once... and that was quite interesting. The history of not just the sport but how the ball design and club design changed over the early years and became what we have today.

A similar sort of thing, probably would have to be multi-part to cover all the footballs, would be interesting... at least until say the modern era of the NFL. Not a whole lot significant change in things during my lifetime, but a lot during the last century.


----------



## txtommy

I fail to understand why Americans like football over soccer. 

Soccer is continuous action. If the teams are evenly matched, the score is usually low but the action is continuous. The same group of players stays on the field so you can actually keep track of who is in the game. 

Football is mostly standing around for huddles, commercial breaks, timeouts, halftime and such with brief 2 to 3 second plays. Scoring is high but only because a single score amounts to 7 points. Even a failed offensive attempt can result in a 3 point field goal of a 2 point safety. Several players change almost every play and the entire team when the ball goes from offense to defense, not to mention special teams. The announcers continually shout and scream to make things seem exciting when they really aren't (kind of like a laugh track in a comedy). 

The commercials are almost continuous in football and are frequently more interesting than the actual game. Soccer has its advertising but it is small spots rather than the lengthy 30 second and 1 minute commercials allowed by football. This results in much less advertising dollars being available to promote the sport and Americans are prone to listen to advertising.


Although I grew up with football, I find it mostly boring. Give me soccer anyday.


----------



## purtman

txtommy said:


> I fail to understand why Americans like football over soccer.
> 
> Soccer is continuous action. If the teams are evenly matched, the score is usually low but the action is continuous. The same group of players stays on the field so you can actually keep track of who is in the game.
> 
> Football is mostly standing around for huddles, commercial breaks, timeouts, halftime and such with brief 2 to 3 second plays. Scoring is high but only because a single score amounts to 7 points. Even a failed offensive attempt can result in a 3 point field goal of a 2 point safety. Several players change almost every play and the entire team when the ball goes from offense to defense, not to mention special teams. The announcers continually shout and scream to make things seem exciting when they really aren't (kind of like a laugh track in a comedy).
> 
> The commercials are almost continuous in football and are frequently more interesting than the actual game. Soccer has its advertising but it is small spots rather than the lengthy 30 second and 1 minute commercials allowed by football. This results in much less advertising dollars being available to promote the sport and Americans are prone to listen to advertising.
> 
> Although I grew up with football, I find it mostly boring. Give me soccer anyday.


A pro football game has 12-14 minutes of action on average. But based on this, hockey has much, much more action than soccer.


----------



## packfan909

purtman said:


> A pro football game has 12-14 minutes of action on average. But based on this, hockey has much, much more action than soccer.


Feedback from a hockey fan...

Soccer (Football) and Hockey are very complicated sports when you look at the strategy and also watching individual efforts. Hockey does better since it plays on a smaller surface. With HD the entire field of play can be seen. I have not watched a football match in HD so I am not sure what you can see. But on SD, it is so difficult to see anything as you tend to be watching from a wide perspective.

Just as with hockey, soccer does not translate very well to TV watching. But hockey is completely engaging when watching in person. Soccer is probably the same. All of the sports that the US finds popular are ones that translate well to TV.

Just my opinion, but one that makes sense to me completely.

pf


----------



## Upstream

Chandu said:


> IAmerican Football rules were codified sometime between 1873 to 1880. I think the colleges of Harvard, Princeton, Rutgers, Yale etc. were involved in this. I'm very hazy about the timeline for codification of Canadian Football rules. I think McGill University in Montreal and another college in Toronto were involved in this???


In the first American College Football games between Rutgers and Princeton in 1869, their were two sets of rules. Rutgers rules were used for the game in New Brunswick and Princeton rules were used for the game in Princeton.

As other colleges started participating in future years, other sets of rules were used, most notably Boston rules. In 1873, Rutgers, Princeton, Columbia, and Yale agreed on standardized rules.

Walter Camp from Yale led several efforts to standardize and modify the rules during the 1870s and 1880s, focusing on the running aspect of the game. These rule changes made the game very similar to the modern game, although the forward pass was introduced later.

Association Football in England also standardized rules during the 1860's to 1880's. The most notable rule change was elimination of the running game and focus on the kicking aspect of the game.

It was the rule changes in the 1880s which led to the great differences between English Association Football (Soccer) and American Collegiate Football.

As to the original poster's question about why Soccer isn't more popular in the US, probably for the same reason it isn't more popular in Australia: We developed a different game from the original premise of soccer. Soccer doesn't fill an unmet need in America. I guess you could also ask why Cricket isn't more popular in America (or why Baseball isn't more popular in England).

What I don't understand is why are so many Europeans so hostile about Soccer's lack of popularity in America. I used to travel to Europe quite a bit on business, and I went to several soccer matches. I understand the appeal of soccer to Europeans. But soccer isn't inherently better than other sports. It is different. But not necessarily better or worse.


----------



## Chandu

HDMe said:


> I would be interested to see a documentary, History-channel style, of the various forms of football and how they relate.
> 
> A bit off-topic... but I watched a documentary on the history of Golf once... and that was quite interesting. The history of not just the sport but how the ball design and club design changed over the early years and became what we have today.
> 
> A similar sort of thing, probably would have to be multi-part to cover all the footballs, would be interesting... at least until say the modern era of the NFL. Not a whole lot significant change in things during my lifetime, but a lot during the last century.


That's a fantastic idea, and I'm not sure if such a documentary (or series of documentaries) already exist(s). I'll do a search to find out what is available and post if I find any info.


----------



## purtman

I guess the real question that should have been asked to start this whole thread is "Why should Americans like soccer?" I enjoy a good soccer game once in a while, but that doesn't mean we're supposed to be sold on it. Hockey and football are much faster and baseball has much more strategy to it. Soccer has a lot of back and forth passing before attacks. It's a good sport, but I think after a few months this topic has been beaten to death ... kind of like soccer fans in Europe to people they don't like.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

purtman said:


> I guess the real question that should have been asked to start this whole thread is "Why should Americans like soccer?" I enjoy a good soccer game once in a while, but that doesn't mean we're supposed to be sold on it. Hockey and football are much faster and baseball has much more strategy to it. Soccer has a lot of back and forth passing before attacks. It's a good sport, but I think after a few months this topic has been beaten to death ... kind of like soccer fans in Europe to people they don't like.


Those are odd examples from my perspective. I find baseball, for instance, to be VERY boring. I didn't even enjoy playing baseball. I am amazed it is popular at all really... just never cared for it.

Hockey is right up (or down) there with soccer to me. I'd watch either before I'd watch a baseball game.. but neither would hold my interest for long. I did play soccer, though, and it was at least fun to plan even though I don't enjoy watching others play.


----------



## Chandu

packfan909 said:


> I have not watched a football match in HD so I am not sure what you can see. But on SD, it is so difficult to see anything as you tend to be watching from a wide perspective.
> 
> Just as with hockey, soccer does not translate very well to TV watching. But hockey is completely engaging when watching in person. Soccer is probably the same. All of the sports that the US finds popular are ones that translate well to TV.
> 
> Just my opinion, but one that makes sense to me completely.


Actually, this says more about the random televised soccer you (and general American public) might have seen on TV than generically translating well to TV watching. Comparing televised soccer produced by American TV channels to that produced by TV channels in countries where it's a mainstream sport is like comparing amateur college TV news productions to professional news channel productions.

For one thing, American TV channels employ cameramen who do not have years of background or connection to the sport at all. They tend to use camera angles as well as zoom ratios from sport they're more familiar with e.g. baseball which cannot possibly translate to soccer. The most vital part of soccer presentation which is showing how plays develop, as well as a lot of crucial off the ball runs get lost in the details. Some atrocious zoom ratios show individual players as microscopic figures running around aimlessly on the ground without any connection to the game as a whole. Lay over this with constant chattering of commentators whose style is more amenable for American sports with lots of breaks in them e.g. baseball or American Football, showing irrelevant shots such as kids eating lollipops in the crowd, and it becomes a juvenile product. I've heard atrocious play calling where the commentator isn't even aware of the relevance of some of the important plays taking place, so it's impossible that they would say anything about this.

Some of the best TV coverage I've experienced recently in SD has been the German Bundesliga. Of course it also helps that the stadium atmosphere and crowd involvement has been some of the best in Bundesliga as well, so it helps selling it as a top-notch polished product.


----------



## purtman

I'm glad to see that you know which games that Packfan99 watches and the fact that they are just "random". I'm also glad to see that you know the background of the cameramen who cover the games.

If you don't like American TV producers nor the fact that soccer isn't No. 1 nor will it ever be No. 1 in this country, there are plenty of airports to take you somewhere else in the world. We also have some borders that will allow you to cross them with no problem. Go for it.


----------



## Upstream

The lack of soccer's popularity has nothing to do with how it plays on television. Soccer wasn't popular long before there was television.


----------



## Chandu

purtman said:


> I'm glad to see that you know which games that Packfan99 watches and the fact that they are just "random".


The fact that he said he hasn't watched a single one in HD itself gives away that what he has been watching are some random events. But go ahead, be Packfan99's guest and answer all of his threads on his behalf. Knock yourself out.



> I'm also glad to see that you know the background of the cameramen who cover the games..


Well, guess what? I'm in fact deeply familiar with the background of a number of them. Now what? Should I undertake the project of "un-knowing" this? Be glad.



> If you don't like American TV producers...


I'm glad you put the word "If" in front of your statement to make it vacuous. Also I'm glad that you can demonstrate your extrapolation skills by jumping from "American TV producers who covered soccer games" to "American TV producers".



> ...nor the fact that [...you don't like...] soccer isn't No. 1 nor will it ever be No. 1 in this country...


:rolling: !rolling

Now there is some serious **** being smoked in that statement. Here, I have this little exercise for you. Since you seem to take the freedom of volunteering to answer for other people, I'll take the freedom of volunteering to give you this exercise.

Do a search in this thread for my posts, (and I'm sure you won't have any problem getting hits for such a search) and show me where I made above statement, or even I personally like or dislike something about soccer's ranking on the totem pole in this country.

Since you're making such a categorical statement, notwithstanding the vacuous "if", the burden of proof lies on you. Hyperbolize much? Come on, PROVE IT!!!

Go ahead, buster!!! Go for it!!! This will be a great reading comprehension lesson for you. :up:

No. 1. 



> ..there are plenty of airports to take you somewhere else in the world. We also have some borders that will allow you to cross them with no problem. Go for it.


Ahem, let's see. This one is the most hilarious one!!!! Where do we start?

Since you seem to think one needs to take oneself "somewhere else in the world" to watch events being produced on TV "somewhere else in the world", I would imagine you're unfamiliar with these little technological innovations called "satellite transmissions". That too, on a forum called dbstalk.com, no less. I also take it that you would be completely unaware that USA happens to be one of most unique countries on the face of this planet, leading in the total aggregate diversity of televised soccer from all over the world, both the number of matches being televised, as well the various leagues/competitions from various regions on this planet.

But go ahead. Continue to live in your hyperbolized existence, volunteering to reply on other posters' behalf, volunteering to make vacuous statements on other posters' behalf and volunteering to escort other posters to an airport or land border crossing.

Seriously, keep it up!!! :up:


----------



## durl

Soccer may become more popular in the US but it will take time. Personally I don't care for it but I used to not like hockey and now I enjoy it. In soccer there's a lot of running for little in return for my taste.

Hockey may have low scoring at times but the action is fast paced in a smaller area.

Baseball is slow but at least we know one of 2 things will happen soon: a batter will get on base or he'll make an out.

Soccer is run, run, run, kick, run, run, run, kick, kick, run (another 30 yards), tap, run, run, run, run, kick, steal, kick, run, run, run, run....for 90 minutes.

For those who have seen the Simpson's episode where a soccer match comes to Springfield, you'll see my perspective.



purtman said:


> I have to say I've known many guys in the business (I was in it myself) and there are few who will say things solely to get a rise out of people.


In any business there are those who try anything to get noticed. While they may be fewer in number, they tend to attract a lot of attention.



purtman said:


> Rush Limbaugh is an exception to rules. He's just a hot wind bag who will say anything to put people down.


A tad on the political side there. And I disagree with you. There are a lot of people who put him down without taking the time to actually listen to him for a few weeks to fully understand what he's about.


----------



## purtman

durl said:


> Soccer may become more popular in the US but it will take time. Personally I don't care for it but I used to not like hockey and now I enjoy it. In soccer there's a lot of running for little in return for my taste.
> 
> Hockey may have low scoring at times but the action is fast paced in a smaller area.
> 
> Baseball is slow but at least we know one of 2 things will happen soon: a batter will get on base or he'll make an out.
> 
> Soccer is run, run, run, kick, run, run, run, kick, kick, run (another 30 yards), tap, run, run, run, run, kick, steal, kick, run, run, run, run....for 90 minutes.
> 
> For those who have seen the Simpson's episode where a soccer match comes to Springfield, you'll see my perspective.
> 
> In any business there are those who try anything to get noticed. While they may be fewer in number, they tend to attract a lot of attention.
> 
> A tad on the political side there. And I disagree with you. There are a lot of people who put him down without taking the time to actually listen to him for a few weeks to fully understand what he's about.


Not to be too political, but I know of several people who believe that Rush is 100 percent on target. He comes across (regardless of political affiliation) as taking whatever side he can to a) support his argument and b) put down those who don't agree with him. On one day the drug users need to be sent up the river and the next day everything is okay with him.

As far as the baseball side of things, having been around the game for many years, I understand the overall picture and the strategy involved with it. I'm not talking about just the current batter, but who is on deck, who is available in the bullpen, etc.


----------



## James Long

Please keep the comments related to SOCCER and stay away from themes that will get this thread closed, more posts deleted or time off from the forums.

Insulting each other and discussing politics/etc. is not appropriate for DBSTalk.


----------



## Steve Mehs

While it’s been a while since I posted in this thread, I gave it a chance a few times, but man soccer is boring. Some observations, the field is too big, there’s really no big name player or team which makes getting into it and find someone to root for difficult. I mean, you don’t have to be a sports fan, know anything about sports, but provided you didn’t just get beamed down everyone knows who Joe Montana, Michael Jordon, Wayne Gretzky, Willie Mays, Dale Earnhardt and Tiger Woods were/are. I couldn’t name one pro soccer player (past or present, domestic or foreign) to save my life. 

MLS Direct Kick is currently in free preview, there were three games on tonight, flipped between all three, couldn't find anything remotely fascinating in any of the games. I was surprised though to see the number of people at the games. While I don’t care for it, obviously a lot of Americans do. 

I just can’t understand how LA can have not one but two MLS teams, but the second largest market in the country no longer has an NFL team. The NFL (real football) is where it's at, action packed, plenty of strategy and it's America's sport. I was on Wikipedia looking up soccer and Rochester is mentioned as a potential future MLS market. Bring the MLS to the area and I might give it another chance, just like give us back an NBA team, and I might get into basketball rather then watching an occasional game in HD.

For now it’s the NFL (Go Titans!), NHL (Go Sabres!) and MLB (Go Yankees!).


----------



## HDTVFanAtic

Steve Mehs said:


> I just can't understand how LA can have not one but two MLS teams, but the second largest market in the country no longer has an NFL team. The NFL (real football) is where it's at, action packed, plenty of strategy and it's America's sport. I was on Wikipedia looking up soccer and Rochester is mentioned as a potential future MLS market. Bring the MLS to the area and I might give it another chance, just like give us back an NBA team, and I might get into basketball rather then watching an occasional game in HD.


Then you don't understand basic business.

The NFL doesn't go where Governments will not build them $300 - $400 Million Stadiums and hand it over to them - plus gives them additional tax breaks.

MLS can play in any old stadium in LA as they don't have the expense or need the seating - as there aren't as many fans.

And....what else are you going to do in Rochester


----------



## Steve Mehs

> Then you don't understand basic business.


No I understand that, I don't understand why the Rams and Raiders left LA. Obviously they had stadiums. I have no idea the situation and never bothered to look into it. I would have to guess both teams wanted new stadiums and the local government said no. I really only follow the Titans and Bill in-depth.



> And....what else are you going to do in Rochester


A nice Science Museum, the Strong Museum for the kids, boating/sailing/fishing at Lake Ontario or the Finger Lakes, Lamberton Conservatory, the Canal Days Festival in Fairport, the colonial village in Mumford, Sabres and Bills a short drive down the Thruway. There's a lot to do here in Upstate NY, we just don't have the glitz and glamour of NYC, and I prefer to keep it that way. I'm happy were known for snow and chicken wings.


----------



## Chandu

HDTVFanAtic said:


> Then you don't understand basic business.
> ......
> MLS can play in any old stadium in LA as they don't have the expense or need the seating - as there aren't as many fans.


Then you don't understand basic business either. Either that, or you understand business far better than big shot sports business people like the now late Lamar Hunt (may the honorable old man's soul rest in peace), Robert Kraft, Stan Kroenke, Dave Checketts, Dietrich Mateschitz, Jorge Vergara, Lew Wolff, Phil Anschutz, or high profile sports conglomerate like Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment Ltd.

MLS teams don't go where they can't control destiny of their revenue and are dependent on the renting whims of other stadium owners. And yes, certainly not "any old stadium in LA" either.

Outside of teams in Washington D.C., Houston, Kansas City and Boston area, every single MLS team either plays in a brand new stadium they own or have favorable rental deal, OR have brand new stadium construction in progress due to open very soon. And in case of Washington D.C., Houston and Kansas City, as well as upcoming San Jose, work is hectically underway for finalizing brand new stadium deals which could be announced as early as within a month. In case of the Boston area team, it's even a moot point as the NFL team owner there himself owns the local MLS team. So he can use his own NFL team stadium as he pleases for his MLS team. Meaning, zero rental liability and controlling destiny of his finances.

It's very ironic you chose to lecture someone else using a fictitious "any old stadium in LA" without doing basic background research, or having a clue about what stadium you're taking about.


----------



## Chandu

Steve Mehs said:


> While it's been a while since I posted in this thread, I gave it a chance a few times, but man soccer is boring. Some observations, the field is too big, there's really no big name player or team which makes getting into it and find someone to root for difficult.


If your exercise for knowing about the sport more is through checking out some MLS matches and declaring that there are no big name players or teams in the sport, then by all means, you're entitled to such an opinion. There seems to be an implicit assumption in such logic that a "USA based league" is for some reason a be-all and end-all for any sport. For a massively global sport such as soccer, I won't bother pointing out the fallacy in such an assumption. Which is not to say that there are absolutely no world class players in MLS or none of the MLS play is ever on par with anything on world stage. But I won't bore you with the details by writing about it more.



> I mean, you don't have to be a sports fan, know anything about sports, but provided you didn't just get beamed down everyone knows who Joe Montana, Michael Jordon, Wayne Gretzky, Willie Mays, Dale Earnhardt and Tiger Woods were/are.


Having traveled in more than dozens of countries for extensive periods of time, I can assure you that there are thousands and thousands of died in the wool sports fans (people who literally eat, breath, drink sport every waking and sleeping moment of their life, crazier than craziest of sports fans you might have known in USA) who won't be able to tell who all of Joe Montana, Wayne Gretzky, Willie Mayes or Dale Earnhardt are, to save their life. There are pockets such as Scandanavian countries or Eastern Europe who of course know all about Gretzky. But to be able to tell who *ALL* of those guys are? Forget about it.

Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods are completely different stories. Those guys are not sports people. They are brand names, even more on a business plane than sports.

Of course, I also know of pretty much majority of USA here who won't be able to tell who Leo Messi, Jonah Lomu, Daniel Carter, Ayrton Senna, Michael Schumacher, Wayne Rooney, Sachin Tendulkar, Glenn McGrath, Russell Coutts etc. are.

It doesn't mean all those dyed in the wool sports fans in USA are any more or less sports fans than the others I mentioned, or vice versa. Just wanted to provide a perspective that biases based on personal experiences do actually fog up perceptions both outside USA and within.



> I couldn't name one pro soccer player (past or present, domestic or foreign) to save my life.
> 
> MLS Direct Kick is currently in free preview, there were three games on tonight, flipped between all three, couldn't find anything remotely fascinating in any of the games. I was surprised though to see the number of people at the games. While I don't care for it....


That's great for you.



> ...obviously a lot of Americans do.


Exactly. You've hit on the head of the nail. As I had posted in a previous link, those 41% more people in USA who watched Gold Cup final as opposed to Stanley Cup final last game must have really cared about the sport.

The good news from MLS standpoint is, they've very little motivation in going after potential customers like you, because they've figured out it's a waste of resources. Instead, they're focussed on thousands and thousands of soccer fans in this country who have never been MLS fans. And such a strategy of going after a core customer base has been paying them off incredibly well financially.

Actually, I'm going to take an unusual step of pointing to one of my own posts earlier in this thread which talked about this:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=859962&postcount=49



Chandu said:


> It just so happens that the powers that be at MLS and USSF are not actively after potential customers like you. After spending a lot of time trying to get this right and making some mistakes along the way, they've finally figured out that it is a loss proposition trying to market to people like you. Meaning, the amount of money required to spend for marketing, and the diminishing returns, it's just not worth it. And I commend them for finally understanding it.
> 
> What they've figured out is that instead of going after your demographic, they want to focus on soccer fans in USA who have shown no interest in MLS or USA national team in the past. And there is an incredible number of them out there. As the big TV ratings for World Cup showed, and as the extremely high popularity for those summer friendlies 4 years in a row showed (involving ManUtd, Chelsea, Celtic, AC Milan, Juventus, Liverpool, Bayern Muenchen, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Club America etc.), there are tons and tons and tons of soccer fans in this country, who have never got behind MLS or USA national team.
> 
> MLS is right now interested in getting all soccer fans in USA on board, who currently are not MLS fans. They are not actively spending resources on trying to get general sports fans who are not soccer fans on board. Maybe they'll get to the second category if and when they declare victory on the first category. Even if they're successful with the first category, it will be a very good achievement, and they'll do just fine in the long run with a customer base like that. And the signs are showing that they've started to make progress on this front.
> 
> Of course, this never means people in your demographic are not welcome as new customers. If you show up, you'll be welcomed with open arms. But it is understood that customer retention with your demographic is questionable to begin with, compared with high retention for that other demographic. So there will be no tears shed if you don't feel like coming back.





> I just can't understand how LA can have not one but two MLS teams, but the second largest market in the country no longer has an NFL team.


That's actually a fallacious statement which seems to assume that the fates of these completely unrelated leagues (which are in totally different stages of their life) are somehow linked. It also seems to completely ignore very vital information about the Los Angeles market, which has on a number of occasions been known to set staggering TV ratings for soccer matches, most notably Club America vs. Chivas de Guadalajara - the El Classico derby from Mexican league.



> The NFL (real football) is where it's at, action packed, plenty of strategy and it's America's sport.


That's fantastic for you and pretty much all of USA. As for me personally? Whatever.



> I was on Wikipedia looking up soccer and Rochester is mentioned as a potential future MLS market.


Wikipedia is obviously no authority for such info, but that's exactly what it is. "Potential future". Rochester is in fact a fantastic market for soccer and has been for ages. The fanbase for Rochester Raging Rhinos (of A-League) is very passionate and diehard. However, they have little hope of joining MLS anytime soon, which has absolutely nothing to do with reasons related to the sport itself. They are more financial/business related reasons. The owner of the Rochester team would have to shell out significant chunk of money to join MLS ranks, and he just doesn't have that deep pockets, or is not motivated to throw his money away on it right now. If some other rich business people buy his team outright in the future, this may of course change. Given that how little of a TV market Rochester is, this is extremely unlikely.


----------



## txtommy

Steve Mehs said:


> The NFL (real football) is where it's at, action packed, plenty of strategy and it's America's sport. .


NFL = Action packed? Let's see. Between each 2-3 second action packed play, the players stand around talking and resting for 30 seconds. If that isn't enough they call time out so they can talk and rest some more. If they get low on timeouts, a player will fake an injury so that they can talk and rest more from their previous 4 second run; how tired these athletes must be. Meanwhile the fan gets to see several beer commercials and endless replays of the previous 3 second burst of action. In a one hour game which takes 4 hours to play there might be 2 minutes of actual action playing time and two hours of beer and viagra commercials. Even after the superbowl I hear more people talk about the commercials than the actual game play. Most of the plays are done by rote after practicing each move 1000 times and require little thought by the player other than to remember the play number and what their move is on that number. Only a few are able to improvise and achieve success when a play falls apart. Bores me to death.

Soccer = Ball in continuous play = Action = Excitement.


----------



## James Long

Rugby ... take off the pads and PLAY BALL!

BTW: This thread is about why Americans dislike soccer. It really doesn't matter if American sports heroes are unknown overseas if the topic is about the preference of Americans.

Saying that Americans are too ignorant of the sport to know players like Mia Hamm is an honest answer ... "Americans don't like it because they don't know the players."

When it comes to sports do Americans (or anyone for that matter) focus solely on teams? Yes, teams have their followers regardless of what players they have but the superstar isn't "The Bulls" as much as it is "Michael Jordan and The Bulls". It could be just a matter of education ... get people interested in whomever the leading players are on "The Fire" and grow the audience.

If there are no leading players and soccer is truly a team sport then it could be just a matter of preference. Americans like individual achievement. We look for heroes as individuals more than groups. (Even when heroes are grouped we seek to make them individuals by listing names.) Changing that in our culture could be difficult.


----------



## Ira Lacher

Americans don't like soccer because:


We don't dominate it; therefore, it's not important; 
We're not familiar with its rules; therefore, it's not worth learning about; 
Most of us have never played it; therefore, there's no sense watching it; 
It's played in parts of the world we simply don't give a carp about (read: outside the U.S.); therefore, see 1, above; 
It's too full of complexities and nuances that Americans just don't grok; therefore we don't have the time or patience to appreciate it; 
Most players don't have pronounceable-to-American names; therefore we can ridicule them, just as we ridicule anyone who isn't named Smith or Jones or whose name ends in a vowel; 
Most players aren't Americans; therefore they're not worth listening to or learning about;
Most players don't speak English; therefore, see No. 7, above; 
There's no organized violence as part of the gameplay; therefore the games can't be exciting.


----------



## Ray_Clum

Steve Mehs said:


> A nice Science Museum, the Strong Museum for the kids, boating/sailing/fishing at Lake Ontario or the Finger Lakes, Lamberton Conservatory, the Canal Days Festival in Fairport, the colonial village in Mumford, Sabres and Bills a short drive down the Thruway. There's a lot to do here in Upstate NY, we just don't have the glitz and glamour of NYC, and I prefer to keep it that way. *I'm happy were known for snow and chicken wings.*


Don't forget about Ted's Dogs too... mmmm.... get 2-3 Ted's footlongs smothered in their special sauce... mmmm.... {wiping drool}


----------



## packfan909

Chandu said:


> Actually, this says more about the random televised soccer you (and general American public) might have seen on TV than generically translating well to TV watching. Comparing televised soccer produced by American TV channels to that produced by TV channels in countries where it's a mainstream sport is like comparing amateur college TV news productions to professional news channel productions.
> 
> For one thing, American TV channels employ cameramen who do not have years of background or connection to the sport at all. They tend to use camera angles as well as zoom ratios from sport they're more familiar with e.g. baseball which cannot possibly translate to soccer. The most vital part of soccer presentation which is showing how plays develop, as well as a lot of crucial off the ball runs get lost in the details. Some atrocious zoom ratios show individual players as microscopic figures running around aimlessly on the ground without any connection to the game as a whole. Lay over this with constant chattering of commentators whose style is more amenable for American sports with lots of breaks in them e.g. baseball or American Football, showing irrelevant shots such as kids eating lollipops in the crowd, and it becomes a juvenile product. I've heard atrocious play calling where the commentator isn't even aware of the relevance of some of the important plays taking place, so it's impossible that they would say anything about this.
> 
> Some of the best TV coverage I've experienced recently in SD has been the German Bundesliga. Of course it also helps that the stadium atmosphere and crowd involvement has been some of the best in Bundesliga as well, so it helps selling it as a top-notch polished product.


Hi Chandu,

I would love to get TSN/NHLNet/CBC here in the states. I agree that the countries that are more dedicated to the sport will give better coverage. Versus comes close during playoff season, but nothing beats watching TSN for hockey news. My friend is big into football and would rather watch Setana / FSN World / ETC to get International broadcasts. It is just not a priority to make those widely available. Heck, Beckham made news when it was announced he was playing in the states, but you don't here about how he is playing at all.

American sports is crazy like this. A hot dog eating competition gets more air play than soccer (football).

If people have a passion for something, they will pay for it. Its there on PPV or as a Subscription if you really want to watch it.

pf


----------



## packfan909

James Long said:


> Rugby ... take off the pads and PLAY BALL!
> 
> BTW: This thread is about why Americans dislike soccer. It really doesn't matter if American sports heroes are unknown overseas if the topic is about the preference of Americans.
> 
> Saying that Americans are too ignorant of the sport to know players like Mia Hamm is an honest answer ... "Americans don't like it because they don't know the players."
> 
> When it comes to sports do Americans (or anyone for that matter) focus solely on teams? Yes, teams have their followers regardless of what players they have but the superstar isn't "The Bulls" as much as it is "Michael Jordan and The Bulls". It could be just a matter of education ... get people interested in whomever the leading players are on "The Fire" and grow the audience.
> 
> If there are no leading players and soccer is truly a team sport then it could be just a matter of preference. Americans like individual achievement. We look for heroes as individuals more than groups. (Even when heroes are grouped we seek to make them individuals by listing names.) Changing that in our culture could be difficult.


Which is why soccer and hockey do not thrive here in the states. Team sports without individual achievement do not go over well.

"Chicks dig the long ball..." Baseball is a team sport but we go crazy when a home run is hit.

We know all about the quarterback, running back, wide receivers on our favorite football teams but wouldn't recognize the middle line backer if he were in front of you in line at the supermarket.

pf


----------



## Upstream

Ira Lacher said:


> Americans don't like soccer because:
> 
> 
> We don't dominate it; therefore, it's not important;
> We're not familiar with its rules; therefore, it's not worth learning about;
> Most of us have never played it; therefore, there's no sense watching it;
> It's played in parts of the world we simply don't give a carp about (read: outside the U.S.); therefore, see 1, above;
> It's too full of complexities and nuances that Americans just don't grok; therefore we don't have the time or patience to appreciate it;
> Most players don't have pronounceable-to-American names; therefore we can ridicule them, just as we ridicule anyone who isn't named Smith or Jones or whose name ends in a vowel;
> Most players aren't Americans; therefore they're not worth listening to or learning about;
> Most players don't speak English; therefore, see No. 7, above;
> There's no organized violence as part of the gameplay; therefore the games can't be exciting.


Way to draw meaningless conclusions.

Maybe it is no more complicated than Americans don't like soccer because we are not familiar with it. No value judgment. No insults. It is what it is.

Why assume there is something wrong with Americans (or Australians or soccer) because Americans (or Australians) don't like soccer to the same degree as people in some other countries.

Instead, answer the question: *Why should Americans like soccer?* I expect a better answer than "Because everyone else does."


----------



## SledDog

I think it's a little more basic then people think...

I lived in the country of Turkey for a couple of years and had the good fortune to attend quite a few soccer games...

The sport is different in a live setting, just like any sport.

But, in the US we see the violence that takes place in the stands. The Soccer Hooligans of England are a great example of this....

I think the violence of the sport, in the stands, turns people off. The news programs show this violence and point out that it's happening in a third world country. I feel that is a contributing factor to our dis-like of the sport.

I knew a gentleman in Turkey that was an part owner of the team in Adana. I traveled most of the country following his team. And I can tell you, I have seen the violence in the stands. I have seen people nearly kill each other over a "bad call" on the field.

When I attended the games I knew I would be safe. I alway sat in the owners section. This section was fenced off and had Turkish Navy troops with Thompson machine guns (with the round style magazines) guarding it. 

That's soccer in a third world country. And that's what, I believe, most americans associate the sport with, third world countries. And, of course, anything that it popular in a third world country could not be worth watching. Unless we created the sport and exported it, like baseball.


----------



## Chandu

James Long said:


> If there are no leading players and soccer is truly a team sport then it could be just a matter of preference. Americans like individual achievement. We look for heroes as individuals more than groups. (Even when heroes are grouped we seek to make them individuals by listing names.) Changing that in our culture could be difficult.


Let me just state that "There are no leading players" is a hypothetical statement arrived at, by extrapolating observations of one poster here (Steve Mehs) by checking out the domestic league in this country (MLS) for few months. It goes without saying that such a statement couldn't be further from the truth. I mean, names like Steven Gerrard, Pavel Nedved, Francisco Totti, Wayne Rooney, Paolo Maldini, Zinedine Zidane, Ronaldinho, Thierry Henry, Ruud van Nistelrooij, Andriy Shevchenko, Michael Ballack and on and on and on and on..... We're talking about larger than life superstar figures here who are drooled around by incessant paparazzi to track their meaningless moves (which is not necessarily a good thing). And those are just contemporary names. Start listing all-time great names like Johann Cruijff, Johann Neeskens, Michel Platini, Diego Maradona, Gary Lineker, Marco van Basten, Peter Schmeichel, Edson Pele, Franz Beckenbauer, George Best and on and on and on...., and I hope you would realize how ridiculous that statement sounds. Of course it's a team sport, just like there are tons of other team sports, yet have had superstar leading players.


----------



## James Long

I could respond to every one of those names with "who?". To be successful in America it could be argued that a sport needs players BIGGER than the game. Guys who play like a Tiger or are Magic. People who transcend the limits of the sport.

I'm not sure where the paparazzi you speak of are publishing ... certainly not in anything I read or watch.


----------



## txtommy

James Long said:


> I could respond to every one of those names with "who?". To be successful in America it could be argued that a sport needs players BIGGER than the game. Guys who play like a Tiger or are Magic. People who transcend the limits of the sport.
> 
> I'm not sure where the paparazzi you speak of are publishing ... certainly not in anything I read or watch.


Unless you have an interest in soccer, you probably wouldn't recognize the names. Just the same as I wouldn't recognize more than a handful of football or basketball names, and would be hard pressed to name more than 2 without some hints.

Soccer, like any sport, has its greats who are BIGGER than the game. If advertisers and promoters in the US could figure how to get 5 minutes of commercial into every one minute of game time, the game would suddenly take off in the US.


----------



## James Long

txtommy said:


> Unless you have an interest in soccer, you probably wouldn't recognize the names. Just the same as I wouldn't recognize more than a handful of football or basketball names, and would be hard pressed to name more than 2 without some hints.


And that is the difference. Without an interest in Soccer people might be lucky to name one player, other than their kids. Yet regardless of interest in the other sports people can name someone - or at least recognize the star of other sports AS a star.


> Soccer, like any sport, has its greats who are BIGGER than the game. If advertisers and promoters in the US could figure how to get 5 minutes of commercial into every one minute of game time, the game would suddenly take off in the US.


If advertisers thought they had the eyeballs watching the games they would buy up all the time they could get at a premium. It doesn't take a large margin.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Just because I haven't heard of anybody, I don't automatically assume no one has heard of them... especially internationally... so while I am not familiar with most soccer players, I feel that is just indicative of lack of popularity here and not internationally.

I do know who David Beckham is (mostly not from soccer references though) and who Zidane is, thanks to the infamous head-butt incident! But can't say I am familiar with anyone else.

However... Tiger is not famous here in the USA because of how great a golfer he is. Sure, he is a great golfer... but most of his popularity comes from the press he gets outside of the golf-world. I don't watch golf on TV or play golf.. but I know Tiger because his personality lends itself to be presented in the media for other things.. and I do catch highlights now and again in Sportscenter so things tend to wander into my brain.

Football players (NFL) tend to not get as recognizable famous as say NBA players for a simple and obvious reason. Their uniforms (especially helmets) make it hard to recognize them on the field and off as well. Yes, some guys do break through a bit and become household names outside of football.. but that is rare. You could see Jordan's tongue hanging on every layup so when he did a commercial he was instantly recognizable. Even NFL quarterbacks are sometimes unrecognizable outside their local fanbase when they remove their helmets.

Soccer in the US has no big names because there are also no big teams because the sport is not popular enough because people don't go to the games because there is little TV coverage because there are no big names because they are not recognized... A big circular argument that feeds itself really.


----------



## purtman

James Long said:


> I could respond to every one of those names with "who?". To be successful in America it could be argued that a sport needs players BIGGER than the game. Guys who play like a Tiger or are Magic. People who transcend the limits of the sport.
> 
> I'm not sure where the paparazzi you speak of are publishing ... certainly not in anything I read or watch.


Pele is one example of this. He was bigger than the game. I can't say the same about today's soccer players.


----------



## KurtV

Ira Lacher said:


> Americans don't like soccer because:
> 
> 
> We don't dominate it; therefore, it's not important;
> We like tennis but Americans don't always dominate that; sometimes for fairly lengthy periods (like now); ditto golf. We haven't dominated basketball for most of the last 20 years but it's still a very popular sport here (and the most popular sport in the world by participation; yes more so than soccer). Yes, we still have the best basketball players in the world, but we are no longer so much better than everyone else so as to dominate every international competition. So, why do we like those sports?
> 
> We're not familiar with its rules; therefore, it's not worth learning about;
> The first part of this point and the next are your only semi-valid ones and they're essentially the same. Why tack on the non-sequitur, "it's not worth learning about"? (Other than to bash Americans?)
> 
> Most of us have never played it; therefore, there's no sense watching it;
> See above. Plus, tens of millions of people in this country have played the sport and they're more every day.
> 
> It's played in parts of the world we simply don't give a carp about (read: outside the U.S.); therefore, see 1, above;
> Yea, that's it. We're such boobs and ignorami. (We don't even know the difference between a fish and feces, apparently.)
> 
> It's too full of complexities and nuances that Americans just don't grok; therefore we don't have the time or patience to appreciate it;
> Ditto. Those English and Columbian soccer fans are such sophisticates; man do I wish more Americans would assault rival fans and attempt to kill players who didn't live up to fans' expectations. Then we'd really be refined and nuanced.
> 
> Most players don't have pronounceable-to-American names; therefore we can ridicule them, just as we ridicule anyone who isn't named Smith or Jones or whose name ends in a vowel;
> Good one. Unless you consider the likes of Manu Ginobili, Toni Kukoc, Brett Favre, Dirk Nowitzki, Peja Stojakovic, Garo Yepremian. Again with the American bashing?
> 
> Most players aren't Americans; therefore they're not worth listening to or learning about;
> Ditto.
> 
> Most players don't speak English; therefore, see No. 7, above;
> Ditto. Beyond that, Yao and countless Latino baseball players put the lie to that "point".
> 
> There's no organized violence as part of the gameplay; therefore the games can't be exciting.
> Huh? Do you get TV up there? Have you actually watched a soccer match? I guess that's why everyone here hates golf and tennis, too.


I like soccer but I don't think the way to get others to like it too is to ridicule anyone who doesn't like it. And label them and all their countrymen as idiots. Maybe I'm just not capable of comprehending the nuances, though.


----------



## uscboy

Boring. 

Wow, 6 pages and so easy to sum up. Boring.

I loved the run, run, run, kick, run, steal, kick, run, run, etc, etc comment by durl....

Then.... WOOO! We win 1-0. After 90 (maybe?) minutes of running.

Now I know there's more to it than that, the problem is that there isn't MUCH 
more to it than that. 

At least in football and baseball there are many different things that can happen 
and more types of things that can happen and far more strategy involved. There's
just more details, rules, plays, stats, etc in most other sports.

Then there's always the easy cop out of the amount of scoring.

There's also the economic side of things as far as the popularity goes in many 
latin american countries... it's cheap to tie a bunch of rags together and kick it 
when compared to outfiting a bunch of people (or kids) in full pads, helmets, etc, 
or get them decent baseballs, bats, and baseball fields.

In the end however, I think it just comes down to the fact that it's kind of boring.


----------



## Steve Mehs

txtommy said:


> NFL = Action packed? Let's see. Between each 2-3 second action packed play, the players stand around talking and resting for 30 seconds. If that isn't enough they call time out so they can talk and rest some more. If they get low on timeouts, a player will fake an injury so that they can talk and rest more from their previous 4 second run; how tired these athletes must be. Meanwhile the fan gets to see several beer commercials and endless replays of the previous 3 second burst of action. In a one hour game which takes 4 hours to play there might be 2 minutes of actual action playing time and two hours of beer and viagra commercials. Even after the superbowl I hear more people talk about the commercials than the actual game play. Most of the plays are done by rote after practicing each move 1000 times and require little thought by the player other than to remember the play number and what their move is on that number. Only a few are able to improvise and achieve success when a play falls apart. Bores me to death.
> 
> Soccer = Ball in continuous play = Action = Excitement.


Yeah that's your opinion, and I read it the first time you posted.


----------



## Steve Mehs

> If your exercise for knowing about the sport more is through checking out some MLS matches and declaring that there are no big name players or teams in the sport, then by all means, you're entitled to such an opinion. There seems to be an implicit assumption in such logic that a "USA based league" is for some reason a be-all and end-all for any sport.


If I want to follow a sport, I'll follow an American league. I am ethnocentric and really have no interest in following leagues outside of the MLS if I were to follow soccer at all. I love football and hockey, but I don't follow the CFL or OHL. The rest of the planet holds no interest of mine. When go to the auto show here in Buffalo, I spend an hour at the Ford display, and 30 minutes at each the GM and DCX displays. I have no interest in Hyundi or Toyota and could careless. If I could go on vacation to anywhere in the world, it would be to the Grand Canyon, Mt Rushmore, or better yet a 4 week nationwide Road trip at my own expensive. I have no interest in seeing the sites overseas in Germany or France when there's so much to see and do in this great country. And before even thinking about bringing up that ignorant American BS, how many sports fans only follow their home teams and could care less about the rest of the league? The USA is my home.



> But to be able to tell who *ALL* of those guys are? Forget about it.


I was talking about name recognition in the US, not the rest of the world.



> That's actually a fallacious statement which seems to assume that the fates of these completely unrelated leagues (which are in totally different stages of their life) are somehow linked. It also seems to completely ignore very vital information about the Los Angeles market, which has on a number of occasions been known to set staggering TV ratings for soccer matches, most notably Club America vs. Chivas de Guadalajara - the El Classico derby from Mexican league.


I was simply making an observation about the second largest market in the nation They have two MLB, NHL, NBA and MLS teams, but no NFL teams, I just think that's a little strange. Don't live in LA, never been to LA, and I don't know the particulars, but I was just making an observation.



> That's fantastic for you and pretty much all of USA. As for me personally? Whatever.


Good, you've accepted that soccer is a niche sport in America and will never ever remotely rise to the popularity of the NFL or MLB, so now stop trying to talk everyone into it or telling us all how ignorant we are. Over the course of the past few months, I've tried to get into soccer and outside of a handful of interesting plays, I could follow the game for too long. I love hockey, but other than a few markets in the US hockey is a niche sport as well. Here in Buffalo, hockey is just as big, if not bigger then football. Especially in recent years when the Sabres kickass and the Bills can't even make .500. I know hockey isn't accepted all over the country, and really I could care less, I love it and that's all that matters. I'm not going to try to talk anyone into following it.


----------



## purtman

I have to agree with KurtV on several key points. There is a lot of America bashing going on in this particular post. Like I said before, can somebody tell me why we're _*supposed to like*_ soccer? There is a lot of just running and kicking, running and kicking, and running and kicking. As KurtV alluded to, some of these posts make it seem as though Americans don't like it because they're arrogant and unintelligent. I must confess, I don't know too many people who can focus on a sporting event while kicking the snot out of the person next to him. I guess those other soccer fans are pretty intelligent.
As I said before, if people want to just use this to bash American, there are plenty of places to exit the country.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic

Chandu said:


> Then you don't understand basic business either. Either that, or you understand business far better than big shot sports business people like the now late Lamar Hunt (may the honorable old man's soul rest in peace), Robert Kraft, Stan Kroenke, Dave Checketts, Dietrich Mateschitz, Jorge Vergara, Lew Wolff, Phil Anschutz, or high profile sports conglomerate like Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment Ltd.
> 
> MLS teams don't go where they can't control destiny of their revenue and are dependent on the renting whims of other stadium owners. And yes, certainly not "any old stadium in LA" either.
> 
> Outside of teams in Washington D.C., Houston, Kansas City and Boston area, every single MLS team either plays in a brand new stadium they own or have favorable rental deal, OR have brand new stadium construction in progress due to open very soon. And in case of Washington D.C., Houston and Kansas City, as well as upcoming San Jose, work is hectically underway for finalizing brand new stadium deals which could be announced as early as within a month. In case of the Boston area team, it's even a moot point as the NFL team owner there himself owns the local MLS team. So he can use his own NFL team stadium as he pleases for his MLS team. Meaning, zero rental liability and controlling destiny of his finances.
> 
> It's very ironic you chose to lecture someone else using a fictitious "any old stadium in LA" without doing basic background research, or having a clue about what stadium you're taking about.


Oh, you mean the 27,000 seat Home Depot Center - No exclusive to any - but home to 2 Soccer teams, the East West Bank Tennis Classic, Track and Field Stadium and home to the LA Riptide, among others?

Yes, they can play in any old stadium in LA....as there is nothing exclusive or special about the Home Depot Center.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic

Steve Mehs said:


> No I understand that, I don't understand why the Rams and Raiders left LA. Obviously they had stadiums. I have no idea the situation and never bothered to look into it. I would have to guess both teams wanted new stadiums and the local government said no. I really only follow the Titans and Bill in-depth.


Again, if you haven't seen the change in NFL and MLB stadiums in the last 15 or so years, you haven't followed the business. Old stadiums with lack of luxury boxes and facilities don't cut it for either any longer.



Steve Mehs said:


> A nice Science Museum, the Strong Museum for the kids, boating/sailing/fishing at Lake Ontario or the Finger Lakes, Lamberton Conservatory, the Canal Days Festival in Fairport, the colonial village in Mumford, Sabres and Bills a short drive down the Thruway. There's a lot to do here in Upstate NY, we just don't have the glitz and glamour of NYC, and I prefer to keep it that way. I'm happy were known for snow and chicken wings.


Exactly my point.....that's why they expand there.


----------



## Steve Mehs

Considering I'm 22, I never knew stadiums and arenas existed WITHOUT luxury boxes and suites.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

uscboy said:


> Boring.
> 
> Wow, 6 pages and so easy to sum up. Boring.
> 
> I loved the run, run, run, kick, run, steal, kick, run, run, etc, etc comment by durl....
> 
> Then.... WOOO! We win 1-0. After 90 (maybe?) minutes of running.
> 
> Now I know there's more to it than that, the problem is that there isn't MUCH
> more to it than that.
> 
> At least in football and baseball there are many different things that can happen
> and more types of things that can happen and far more strategy involved. There's
> just more details, rules, plays, stats, etc in most other sports.
> 
> Then there's always the easy cop out of the amount of scoring.


I cannot believe you said "low scoring" in the same breath that you said baseball was more interesting than soccer!

Seriously... I don't like soccer, but baseball is excrutiating to watch. At least in soccer, when they aren't scoring they are running around! In baseball, entire games have been played with little action beyond the pitcher throwing to the catcher and back again.

And scoring? I see lots of 1-0 baseball game scores in the highlights... and there are like 162 or something baseball games (not counting the playoffs) for every team... and most of the winning scores are in the single digits.

I never enjoyed playing baseball either. IF you are not the pitcher or the catcher, you can go the whole game doing nothing in the outfield... only marginally more in the infield... and maybe get a turn or two at bat. At least in soccer, everyone on the field gets a chance to do something.

And baseball games go 3+ hours sometimes of nothing... at least the soccer game is over after roughly 90 minutes (not counting stoppage time or overtime).

Baseball is just not the best sport to counter against soccer if your gripe against it is being boring.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic

Steve Mehs said:


> Considering I'm 22, I never knew stadiums and arenas existed WITHOUT luxury boxes and suites.


http://www.eseats.com/buffalo_bills_tickets.html

"The Buffalo Bills christened Ralph Wilson Stadium on August 17, 1973. The stadium consists of three decks of blue and red seats. The lower and second levels of seats circle the entire Fieldturf playing field. An upper level of seats are located on both sides of the playing field. The playing field is located 50 feet below ground level, eliminating long walks to the upper deck. Ralph Wilson Stadium has underwent many changes over the years. In 1984, the stadium's capacity was increased to 80,290 with the addition of 16 executive suites, and in 1992, when 24 more executive suites were added. More additions were completed in 1994. The Red Zone and Goal Line clubs, which are enclosed of glass and consist of 500 seats each were added, along with 14 executive suites. The main addition in 1994 was a massive 31.5 feet high and 41.5 feet wide JumboTron video/scoreboard. In 1999, Ralph Wilson Stadium was renovated. Renovations included the addition of 76 dugout suites, seat warmers for club seats, and cup holders for all seats. "

As I stated in the E* HD thread minutes ago, its hard to track the changes and reasons why things are done if you don't know the history.


----------



## Steve Mehs

Or don't really care about the history. Really I could care less about the changes to Rich Stadium over the years whether I was alive or not. I drive past the thing enough. My Aunt was invited to the unveiling of the last renovations made in 1999, I have the commemorative coin they handed out around here somewhere. I’m not interested in the business behind stadiums, I’m interested in what goes on inside of them.


----------



## Chandu

James Long said:


> I could respond to every one of those names with "who?".


Sure, go ahead!!!

Obviously, all those people who bought tickets for Man United vs. Barcelona friendly in Philadelphia, selling out in 20 minutes after tickets going on sale didn't. That being just one example, among too many matches to count over last 5+ years all over the country.

Obviously, all those people watching FIFA 2006 World Cup in USA setting TV ratings for some matches better than individual NBA Finals or World Series baseball games didn't.

All the people with subscriber numbers for Fox Soccer Channel jumping from 2 million to 30 million in a matter of few years won't.

All those people with 41% higher ratings for Gold Cup final than the highest rated Stanley Cup final game won't.

Sports business people like Malcolm Glazer or Robert Kraft won't.

As HDMe said in a previous post, just because you don't know about something, don't assume there are others who don't.


----------



## Chandu

HDTVFanAtic said:


> Oh, you mean the 27,000 seat Home Depot Center - No exclusive to any - but home to 2 Soccer teams, the East West Bank Tennis Classic, Track and Field Stadium and home to the LA Riptide, among others?
> 
> Yes, they can play in any old stadium in LA....as there is nothing exclusive or special about the Home Depot Center.


Oh, you mean it is a bad business idea spending money on a facility you can control, with complete control over scheduling of events, ability to stage high profile friendlies with teams such as Real Madrid, with telecasts being beamed all over the planet including countries such as China, ability to charge rent for state level high school championships, you know, following the basic principles of capitalism while at the same time making incredible progress for your sport?

In short it's a bad business idea turning profit for a sport which isn't even considered mainstream in the country?

Got you.


----------



## purtman

Chandu said:


> Got you.


Boy, HDTVFanAtic. I guess it's just not your day. He got you! I'd be trembling! :lol: 
My gosh, why are we *supposed *to like soccer?


----------



## uscboy

HDMe said:


> I cannot believe you said "low scoring" in the same breath that you said baseball was more interesting than soccer!
> 
> Seriously... I don't like soccer, but baseball is excrutiating to watch. At least in soccer, when they aren't scoring they are running around! In baseball, entire games have been played with little action beyond the pitcher throwing to the catcher and back again.
> 
> And scoring? I see lots of 1-0 baseball game scores in the highlights... and there are like 162 or something baseball games (not counting the playoffs) for every team... and most of the winning scores are in the single digits.
> 
> I never enjoyed playing baseball either. IF you are not the pitcher or the catcher, you can go the whole game doing nothing in the outfield... only marginally more in the infield... and maybe get a turn or two at bat. At least in soccer, everyone on the field gets a chance to do something.
> 
> And baseball games go 3+ hours sometimes of nothing... at least the soccer game is over after roughly 90 minutes (not counting stoppage time or overtime).
> 
> Baseball is just not the best sport to counter against soccer if your gripe against it is being boring.


Meh, fewer baseball games are pitcher's duels than those that are not. And no, 
those that are sure aren't very exciting either. But at least they're a minority.

My biggest point is that there's a lot more rules and types of plays and types of
different action that can (and in most games does) happen in baseball.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic

Steve Mehs said:


> Or don't really care about the history. Really I could care less about the changes to Rich Stadium over the years whether I was alive or not. I drive past the thing enough. My Aunt was invited to the unveiling of the last renovations made in 1999, I have the commemorative coin they handed out around here somewhere. I'm not interested in the business behind stadiums, I'm interested in what goes on inside of them.


And we are right back around to where this started - and my original statement - you don't understand the business of it - because without the business of the stadiums, luxury suites and government tax breaks, what would take place inside would be totally different.


----------



## Chandu

Steve Mehs said:


> The rest of the planet holds no interest of mine.


I'm sure you have your strong reasons for any such interests or lack of them, and it is what it is. I obviously didn't have any context of such severe constraints the first time you posted in this thread or few days ago. Otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered wording my reply to you the way I did.

Anyway, I also noticed you're a diehard Buffalo Sabres fan. So I assume you must be ignoring contributions of any non-American players on their roster (whether Canadian or Eastern European) given your lack of interest in the rest of the planet. For example, back when the Czech Republic hotshot Hasek used to play for them? Or would the ideal scenario of interest to you be something like this: They all go back to play in leagues of their own countries, leaving only American players to play for Sabres, regardless of any drop in quality it may cause? (I'm not necessarily implying it is guaranteed to cause drop in quality, just suggesting the potential for it.) Presented with 2 options of "Sabres with some mix of foreign and American talent thrown in and good winning rate" versus "Sabres with exclusively American talent from a diluted player pool, but risk of drop in quality leading to some boring play", which one would you rather choose?

Assuming whatever little MLS you watched held your interest for soccer, I could've also asked a flip question for you. (For example, if some of the best American soccer players went to play in top European leagues, would you care tracking their progress? Like how their development is coming along for making USA national team stronger? That's a very real scenario at the present BTW, not something hypothetical. Or would you rather ignore any such American players playing in non-American leagues, in favor of American or foreign players playing in MLS?)

But anyway, since there was nothing for you in soccer, you don't need to bother replying anything about that. I'm still very curious about the scenario for the Sabres team I presented above.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic

Chandu said:


> Oh, you mean it is a bad business idea spending money on a facility you can control, with complete control over scheduling of events, ability to stage high profile friendlies with teams such as Real Madrid, with telecasts being beamed all over the planet including countries such as China, ability to charge rent for state level high school championships, you know, following the basic principles of capitalism while at the same time making incredible progress for your sport?
> 
> In short it's a bad business idea turning profit for a sport which isn't even considered mainstream in the country?
> 
> Got you.


Actually, I got you....because as I stated, they could play in any old stadium....which @ 27,000 seats at the HDC, they do. The local governments did not build them the center, AEG built it - and expanded it - as you admit.

As stated, that's why the NFL moved out. The NFL cannot play in any old 27,000 seat stadium in Los Angeles that cost $87M to build the MLS part.

You need a stadium 65,000+ seat stadium where you control luxury suites, concessions, parking and the rest and cost would run upwards of $350M+.

And there is a BIG difference in a multiuse stadium where the MLS part cost $87M and a $350M NFL stadium.

So again, thanks for making my point.


----------



## Chandu

HDTVFanAtic said:


> Actually, I got you....


Actually, before we go any further on this, a clarification is in order. That "Got you" I wrote means "Got your point" or "understood you". Not "gottcha" as in "trapped you", which is how you seem to be reading it.

OK, now that that's out of the way:



> So again, thanks for making my point.


Which I don't have the faintest clue what it is.



> ...because as I stated, they could play in any old stadium....which @ 27,000 seats at the HDC, they do.


OK, so let's go slowly here, since you obviously seem to be the economic expert here. So, HDC constructed brand new in 2003 is "any old stadium". According to your "they could play in any old stadium" standpoint, the following are equivalent:


Paying rent for any existing old stadium to some other stadium owners. Be at the mercy of those stadium owners to be able to schedule your season, because it might cause conflicts with some other revenue generating events for those owners. Being in poor situation to do revenue predictions or planning marketing for your events, never mind generating any supplemental revenue from others. Not have any income from parking and concessions.
Build your own stadium with luxury box seats. Have complete control over your scheduling. Be able to stage auxiliary lucrative events such as international team friendlies. Being able to sell committed luxury box seats for entire season to corporate customer accounts, locking in income. Be able to generate additional income during downtime, for example rent from state level high school events, USA national team friendlies or even women's World Cup. Generate parking and concessions income. Be able to go from in the red to black a lot quicker.

Oh wait! Or did you mean, buying "any old stadium" from someone else outright, (obviously without any luxury box seats, as it's an old stadium) just start playing in it, and kiss goodbye to any luxury box seats income (which happens to be the dearest to all pro sports team owners)?



> As stated, that's why the NFL moved out. The NFL cannot play in any old 27,000 seat stadium in Los Angeles that cost $87M to build the MLS part.
> 
> You need a stadium 65,000+ seat stadium where you control luxury suites, concessions, parking and the rest and cost would run upwards of $350M+.
> 
> And there is a BIG difference in a multiuse stadium where the MLS part cost $87M and a $350M NFL stadium.


I know exactly why NFL teams moved out of there, and I couldn't care less talking about it more. It was Steve who was talking about that. I was only replying to the part of your post which stated "MLS teams in LA could play in any old stadium".

What NFL team owners do for their stadiums has nothing to do with how MLS team owners design and build their stadiums. (Unless they happen to be owners of both teams in the same market which is true only in New England.) NFL stadium capacity requirements, construction budget are in a totally different spectrum compared to MLS stadiums. But MLS team owners aren't thinking about what NFL teams are doing with their stadiums. They are focussed on how to get their own stadiums built, and how to start generating profits of their own.

But since you obviously seem to think building a brand new stadium like HDC is equivalent to playing in "any old stadium", you sure understand economics better than Phil Anschutz who didn't think that way. That's exactly what you were implying, correct?

Got it.


----------



## txtommy

HDMe said:


> I cannot believe you said "low scoring" in the same breath that you said baseball was more interesting than soccer!
> 
> And scoring? I see lots of 1-0 baseball game scores in the highlights... and there are like 162 or something baseball games (not counting the playoffs) for every team... and most of the winning scores are in the single digits.


Seems like it's a numbers thing. If a touchdown only counted as 1 point, then football would also be low scoring. In reality a 35 to 28 game is really 5 to 4. Any time the score is not easily divisible by 7, it is because a soccer player came in and kicked a field goal after the 45 or so football players couldn't succeed.

Would you find baseball more interesting if we counted each base as a score? First base = 1, second base = 2, 3rd base = 3 and home =4. A single would then count as one point, a double as 3 points, a triple as 6 point and a home run as 10. Maybe an extra point for a stolen base so that stealing second would be worth 3 and stealing 3rd would be worth 4. How about an extra 2 points for a balk (sort of like a safety). We could also deduct a point for an error except that would lower the score and make it less interesting.

It would still be the same game but you people who find football more exciting because of the high scores might suddenly find baseball more interesting. Personally I find few games more exciting than a 0-0 pitchers duel going to the 9th inning. High scoring games are usually blowouts and I seldom sit until the end.

The real problem with soccer and baseball is that you have to pay attention to the game. Something can happen at anytime and usually does just as you go to the refrigerator. A comparison could be drawn to Nascar (I prefer Formula 1 for real driving and excitement) where the scoring is only after the game is over. With football there is time to go to the kitchen, bathroom, take out the trash and mow the lawn between many plays. That to me is like watching paint dry.


----------



## co_gooner

uscboy said:


> Meh, fewer baseball games are pitcher's duels than those that are not. And no,
> those that are sure aren't very exciting either. But at least they're a minority.
> 
> My biggest point is that there's a lot more rules and types of plays and types of
> different action that can (and in most games does) happen in baseball.


Dude, why do you want more rules in a sport, that just leads to more stoppages when nothing is happening


----------



## uscboy

Difference of opinion I guess... stoppages are fine when as a fan you can sit there 
and think... "Will they pass it deep down the sideline or over the middle... or 
perhaps run a sweep to the strong side. If they don't get it, will they go for it on 4th 
down or kick the long field goal." Etc, etc.

Whereas soccer couldn't stop play because the only thing the fan would be left 
thinking would be... "Will they come back out after the stoppage and kick the ball 
again?". Yes... yes, they will.

I don't know, soccer just isn't a very deep sport... situations, strategies, plays, 
statistics, etc are all so painfully limited compared to more mature and complicated 
sports IMO.

That said, I couldn't agree with the folks here more that are saying it's not 
necessary for Americans to care about soccer. I mean, who cares? We'll take our 
more complex and involved sports, stoppages and all, and everyone else can 
keep their boring soccer.


----------



## Chandu

celticpride said:


> plus i hate that they don't play overtime, and have to get 3 kicks at the goal to see who wins this is STUPID ,imagine if the NBA had them shoot 3 point shots after a tie game to determine a winner instead of playing a 5 minute overtime!


I must have somehow missed this post completely in the middle of slew of other posts. I thought after following the sport closely for more than 2 decades, I knew all the rules, but this is a new one! So are you saying in elimination round matches which must have a winner (only one team advancing), they don't play overtime?!?!?!  Instead of an overtime, they take 3 kicks at the goal to "see" who wins?  Gee wiz, you sure seem to know the rules to be able to comment on them as "STUPID" with authority. I wouldn't have learnt these rules myself if I didn't read them here and followed the sport for 50 more years!!


----------



## Chandu

uscboy said:


> Whereas soccer couldn't stop play because the only thing the fan would be left
> thinking would be... "Will they come back out after the stoppage and kick the ball
> again?". Yes... yes, they will.


Right, they all must be so devoid of thinking capability in their brain cells for wanting to follow such a sport, that's the only level of complexity they can strive for. Even when the ball goes out of bounds, that's the only deep thought that comes to mind.

It's impossible that they could think about anything else, such as what player substitutions could occur and when, which players might need to adjust their game being in jeopardy due to yellow card accumulation, who steps up for deadball set plays, which players need to adjust formation due to good or bad man marking, which player needs to improve their commitment and timing in tackling, how to exploit a vulnerable opponent who might be low on confidence due to too many fouls being called on him (or even a yellow card issued), who should be adjusting their off the ball runs - both the timing and placement of them. None of that stuff ever happens. Come to think of it, none of the off-the-ball runs, strategy behind timing and placement of them, hussle and tussle, getting in the minds of an opponent by making them look like an idiot with clever dribbling, fighting for position or elbowing during set-plays, none of that ever takes place. The only thing that happens is random, aimless kicking.

Will they kick, will they kick, will the kick??????
Will they kick, will they kick, will they kick?????

That could make for a cool song for the fans to sing.


----------



## purtman

Chandu,
Give it up. Soccer will never be a major sport here, there's not a lot of strategy compared to other sports, other sports are able to set up plays much more so than in soccer, and I find it hard to believe that any coach has considered "that guys' confidence is shot. He's had a lot of fouls called against him. Let's attack him." 
Soccer is okay, but it will never have the excitement of a squeeze play, no-hitter, or grand slam in baseball, a breakaway dunk in basketball, a penalty shot or breakaway in basketball, or a kick return or other big plays in football. It's definitely much better in person, but if you read these posts, you're so bent on getting people to kneel down and pray to soccer balls and nobody really cares so much. You're writing these long-winded messages trying to rip everybody points and coming off as "Mr. Know-It-all." You have put down a lot of people here and especially Americans. 
Give it a break! Let's just close this anti-American posting.


----------



## Chandu

purtman said:


> Chandu, .... Soccer will never be a major sport here...


You mean, I don't know that already? Nothing in my posts has given that away by now?



> ...I find it hard to believe that any coach has considered "that guys' confidence is shot. He's had a lot of fouls called against him. Let's attack him."


Since you find it hard to believe, it's impossible it ever happens. Your validation is what settles it then. It being a fundamental part of coaching strategy is totally out of question, because it would not be in agreement with your beliefs.



> Soccer is okay, but it will never have the excitement of a squeeze play, no-hitter, or grand slam in baseball, a breakaway dunk in basketball, a penalty shot or breakaway in basketball, or a kick return or other big plays in football.


That's obviously a subjective feeling, which is how most Americans feel anyway. I may not agree with it, but I will defend your right to state it. And that's perfectly reasonable, because the entire premise of this thread itself is based on a subjective topic.



> It's definitely much better in person, but if you read these posts, you're so bent on getting people to kneel down and pray to soccer balls


If that's what you get by reading them, instead of objectively reading what is written, you're reading "what you think I'm thinking" instead of what's actually written. And I'm not going to apologize to the world for your reading comprehension problems, or this habit of extrapolation. I couldn't care less if even one more person takes interest in the sport as a result of anything I write. That's none of my concern.



> You have put down a lot of people here and especially Americans.


Now, wait a second here. If there is one thing common in the theme of my posts in this thread, it is to attack unfounded, ignorant (sometimes unintentional, sometimes not) or on rare occasions outright inflammatory statements of some posters here, as well as to answer some sincere questions. Unfortunately, it is a lot of former rather than latter, because the thread is filled a lot with a lot of former.

The last I checked, this is a US based message board, with pretty much all American posters - which I happen to be one of, like all of them. There may be few scattered Canadian posters here and there, but that's not very relevant. How do you jump from "attacking a lot of posts" to "putting down a lot of posters here especially Americans", when pretty much everybody here is an American anyway?

The "American" part comes from the title of this thread, which I didn't start (and if I did it, I wouldn't have worded it like that either, which I stated multiple times).

Also, you're having trouble separating from "attacking a message" instead of "attacking a poster". I never had to resort to "attacking a poster" and would have no intention of doing it. With one exception - which was due to provocation by one poster (which you happen to be yourself), borne out of your reading comprehension problems or habit of extrapolation. Thankfully, a bunch of those "attacking the poster" kind of posts got canned (both yours and mine).

What I had been interested in, in most of those posts has been setting non-factual statements by other posters straight. Whether those posters are American or British or from Antarctica makes no difference to me.



> Let's just close this anti-American posting.


It's very convenient, isn't it? Using a categorical label like "anti-American" to fall back on? It goes without saying that you have not a single shred of evidence to back up such a statement. But never mind. I'm used to you making such sweeping extrapolations anyway.

Listen up, buster. This thread happens to be based on a topic which is my bread and butter. So, you cannot tell me if I should or shouldn't post in it. If I see anyone making incorrect statement, I see it my duty to point it out. I see it my duty to be civil, because this board is meant for civil communication. On very rare occasions, if I see posts of inflammatory nature (for example, few posts above: Someone calling a sport "STUPID" because it never has overtimes, which is factually incorrect), I will retort back in a sarcastic manner.

If you have nothing more to say in this thread, nobody is forcing you to post in it.


----------



## Steve Mehs

> Anyway, I also noticed you're a diehard Buffalo Sabres fan. So I assume you must be ignoring contributions of any non-American players on their roster (whether Canadian or Eastern European) given your lack of interest in the rest of the planet. For example, back when the Czech Republic hotshot Hasek used to play for them? Or would the ideal scenario of interest to you be something like this: They all go back to play in leagues of their own countries, leaving only American players to play for Sabres, regardless of any drop in quality it may cause? (I'm not necessarily implying it is guaranteed to cause drop in quality, just suggesting the potential for it.) Presented with 2 options of "Sabres with some mix of foreign and American talent thrown in and good winning rate" versus "Sabres with exclusively American talent from a diluted player pool, but risk of drop in quality leading to some boring play", which one would you rather choose?


I have no problem with having non American players on a domestic team, which is why I distinctively said League. My current favorite Sabre is Austrian Thomas Vanek. I'm glad the team was able to keep him despite the out of nowhere offer from the Oilers and we'll have him for at least the next 7 years. Honestly I thought Hasek was an arrogant jackass (not unlike myself, but I'm just sayin'). I stopped following the Sabres (and the NHL as a result) from '99 up until the year before the lockout because I couldn't stand our goaltender.



> Assuming whatever little MLS you watched held your interest for soccer, I could've also asked a flip question for you. (For example, if some of the best American soccer players went to play in top European leagues, would you care tracking their progress? Like how their development is coming along for making USA national team stronger? That's a very real scenario at the present BTW, not something hypothetical. Or would you rather ignore any such American players playing in non-American leagues, in favor of American or foreign players playing in MLS?)


It wouldn't have mattered, American, Spanish, Japanese or a Martian. If I would have be able to hold interest in the sport I would have continued to follow. Soccer doesn't interest me, I find it extremely boring. I gave it a shot, a few times, which is more then what most people would do. I followed NASCAR and it was my absolute #1 favorite before it got big, so I know what it like to have people call what you like boring and lame, but I didn't try to convert anyone over. I like what I like, you like what you like.

While I'd rather have the Braves back then an MLS team, if Rochester, Buffalo or even Syracuse can get a team at some point, I'll give it another chance. True like you said Rochester is a small TV market, but I believe Buffalo is the smallest TV market with an NHL team and one of the smallest with an NFL team. But we have very loyal fans from not only the Buffalo market, but all of Upstate NY as well.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic

Chandu said:


> But since you obviously seem to think building a brand new stadium like HDC is equivalent to playing in "any old stadium", you sure understand economics better than Phil Anschutz who didn't think that way. That's exactly what you were implying, correct?
> 
> Got it.


I suggest if it is your bread and butter you look at realities.

Realities are, yes, MLS can play in any old 27,000 seat stadium, which exist on most University Campuses.

Phil Anschutz built a multipurpose stadium that would serve multiple masters - the likes of which there are plenty around - working deals that afforded him multiple revenue streams.

But that still doesnt change the fact that MLS can play in any old stadium in Los Angeles.

It doesn't need a 65,000 seat stadium at 5x the cost - as the 27,000 seats are seldom always full.


----------



## Chandu

HDTVFanAtic said:


> I suggest if it is your bread and butter you look at realities.


Done.

I also suggest that if you're going to talk about a topic you may not be deeply familiar with, do a bit of research on it, before making categorical statements about it.



> Realities are, yes, MLS can play in any old 27,000 seat stadium, which exist on most University Campuses.


OK, let's talk about some real concrete data points here, instead of making generic statements in vacuum.


Dave Checketts announces it makes no sense for him economically to stay in an old university stadium called Rice Eccles stadium, and proceeds to build a brand new one for his MLS team.
Lew Wolff declares it makes no economic sense for him to work with an old university stadium called Spartan Stadium and proceeds to work on building a brand new one for the MLS team he wants to establish.
Lamar Hunt (back when he was alive, remember him?) declared that it made no economic sense for him to rent in the old BuckEye university stadium, so he built a brand new one for his MLS team.
AEG declare that it makes no economic sense for them to rent old Robertson university stadium, so they're working towards a brand new one in downtown Houston as we speak.
Real estate hotshot billionaire Victor MacFarlane declares it makes no economic sense for his group to be renting old, aging RFK stadium. So they're working towards a brand new one in Poplar Point as we speak.

But never let these little things called facts such as above get in your way. Why should you, when you know better than all of these people? All these people never became billionaires with any understanding of laws of economics. They forgot to consult with you.



> Phil Anschutz built a multipurpose stadium that would serve multiple masters - the likes of which there are plenty around - working deals that afforded him multiple revenue streams.


Now this part of your post, you actually got dead-on correct. I'll give you credit for that.



> But that still doesnt change the fact that MLS can play in any old stadium in Los Angeles.


Right, right. That's because, you believe so. You can somehow jump from your statement above to this one. I personally don't understand how you can logically jump from one to the next, having made this domain my bread and butter. But there is some secret HDTVFanAtic logic which actually proves it. The proof of course, is a top guarded secret.

Note also that according to you, "it still doesn't change the fact". Meaning, it is a fact. Says you. Let's call it the "HDTVFanAtic Commandment". Not only that, but "it still doesn't change", meaning "it has always been so".

Right, right. I'm nodding my head in agreement. You've been successful in hypnotizing me with the secret voodoo logical powers.



> It doesn't need a 65,000 seat stadium at 5x the cost....


It also doesn't need a 1 billion seat stadium at 80,000x the cost.

And your point is?

Where did you pull this 65,000 number from, and what is its relevance? I suspect you're pulling it from roughly the average NFL stadium capacity. But what is its relevance to the topic of discussion at hand?

So in the alternate reality of your world, capacity of the stadium is the sole factor that determines economics of the stadium. According to HDTVFanAtic's law of economic mathematics:

(27,000 old university rented stadium without luxury box seats, parking, concessions revenue) = (27,000 brand new non-university owned stadium with luxury box seats, parking, concessions revenue and a whole lot more)

Applying the mathematical laws of elimination, according to HDTVFanAtic mathematics:

(old university rented without luxury box seats, parking, concessions revenue) = (brand new non-university owned stadium with luxury box seats, parking, concessions revenue and a whole lot more)

In other words, you've invented a magical money generating machine which somehow has eluded even the most powerful billionaires in the world (in USA or otherwise), most of them leading sports business authorities. What are you doing wasting your time on this message board, given your magical economic powers?


----------



## purtman

Chandu said:


> You mean, I don't know that already? Nothing in my posts has given that away by now?
> 
> Since you find it hard to believe, it's impossible it ever happens. Your validation is what settles it then. It being a fundamental part of coaching strategy is totally out of question, because it would not be in agreement with your beliefs.
> 
> That's obviously a subjective feeling, which is how most Americans feel anyway. I may not agree with it, but I will defend your right to state it. And that's perfectly reasonable, because the entire premise of this thread itself is based on a subjective topic.
> 
> If that's what you get by reading them, instead of objectively reading what is written, you're reading "what you think I'm thinking" instead of what's actually written. And I'm not going to apologize to the world for your reading comprehension problems, or this habit of extrapolation. I couldn't care less if even one more person takes interest in the sport as a result of anything I write. That's none of my concern.
> 
> Now, wait a second here. If there is one thing common in the theme of my posts in this thread, it is to attack unfounded, ignorant (sometimes unintentional, sometimes not) or on rare occasions outright inflammatory statements of some posters here, as well as to answer some sincere questions. Unfortunately, it is a lot of former rather than latter, because the thread is filled a lot with a lot of former.
> 
> The last I checked, this is a US based message board, with pretty much all American posters - which I happen to be one of, like all of them. There may be few scattered Canadian posters here and there, but that's not very relevant. How do you jump from "attacking a lot of posts" to "putting down a lot of posters here especially Americans", when pretty much everybody here is an American anyway?
> 
> The "American" part comes from the title of this thread, which I didn't start (and if I did it, I wouldn't have worded it like that either, which I stated multiple times).
> 
> Also, you're having trouble separating from "attacking a message" instead of "attacking a poster". I never had to resort to "attacking a poster" and would have no intention of doing it. With one exception - which was due to provocation by one poster (which you happen to be yourself), borne out of your reading comprehension problems or habit of extrapolation. Thankfully, a bunch of those "attacking the poster" kind of posts got canned (both yours and mine).
> 
> What I had been interested in, in most of those posts has been setting non-factual statements by other posters straight. Whether those posters are American or British or from Antarctica makes no difference to me.
> 
> It's very convenient, isn't it? Using a categorical label like "anti-American" to fall back on? It goes without saying that you have not a single shred of evidence to back up such a statement. But never mind. I'm used to you making such sweeping extrapolations anyway.
> 
> Listen up, buster. This thread happens to be based on a topic which is my bread and butter. So, you cannot tell me if I should or shouldn't post in it. If I see anyone making incorrect statement, I see it my duty to point it out. I see it my duty to be civil, because this board is meant for civil communication. On very rare occasions, if I see posts of inflammatory nature (for example, few posts above: Someone calling a sport "STUPID" because it never has overtimes, which is factually incorrect), I will retort back in a sarcastic manner.
> 
> If you have nothing more to say in this thread, nobody is forcing you to post in it.


I had posted earlier and then you start making comments about my reading comprehension. I've seen several comments here (actually, most of them) where you seem to think that you know everything. You have put down myself and others. If you were intelligent enough to realize, celticpride's real intent was to rip soccer for the fact that it sometimes decides a world championship on penalty kicks, not overtime.

I believe that earlier you also made reference to Lamar Hunt among owners today. That's interesting since he's been dead last year and also sold the Wizards last year. But since this your "bread and butter", maybe he came back to life and re-purchased the team without the rest of us knowing it.

You come across as being very pompous, insecure, and a freakin' idiot. You think that you are more intelligent than anybody else here. Rather than attack people, why don't we just kill this post?


----------



## txtommy

Chandu said:


> Right, they all must be so devoid of thinking capability in their brain cells for wanting to follow such a sport, that's the only level of complexity they can strive for. Even when the ball goes out of bounds, that's the only deep thought that comes to mind.
> 
> It's impossible that they could think about anything else, such as what player substitutions could occur and when, which players might need to adjust their game being in jeopardy due to yellow card accumulation, who steps up for deadball set plays, which players need to adjust formation due to good or bad man marking, which player needs to improve their commitment and timing in tackling, how to exploit a vulnerable opponent who might be low on confidence due to too many fouls being called on him (or even a yellow card issued), who should be adjusting their off the ball runs - both the timing and placement of them. None of that stuff ever happens. Come to think of it, none of the off-the-ball runs, strategy behind timing and placement of them, hussle and tussle, getting in the minds of an opponent by making them look like an idiot with clever dribbling, fighting for position or elbowing during set-plays, none of that ever takes place. The only thing that happens is random, aimless kicking.


OK. I agree that there is some thinking in football. The coach has to think what play to run next. Then he gives a play number to the quarterback who relays the play number to the team (or at least the third of the team that is on the field). Each player then must think, play number XX, that means I run forward 3 steps, turn left and knock down whoever is in my path. That I must admit is real deep thinking. :nono: If he forgot his assignment on a play number he wouldn't have a clue what to do and probably would do something to earn a penalty. Remember most of the team flunked basket weaving in college so must keep individual thinking to a minimum.

Soccer players must think on their feet. They must think and react to every move of other players on both teams and determine where they need to be next to optimize their teams chances. There is very little, if any, random kicking. It is, in this regard, more like basketball where there are some set plays but no coach calling out the moves.


----------



## purtman

txtommy said:


> OK. I agree that there is some thinking in football. The coach has to think what play to run next. Then he gives a play number to the quarterback who relays the play number to the team (or at least the third of the team that is on the field). Each player then must think, play number XX, that means I run forward 3 steps, turn left and knock down whoever is in my path. That I must admit is real deep thinking. :nono: If he forgot his assignment on a play number he wouldn't have a clue what to do and probably would do something to earn a penalty. Remember most of the team flunked basket weaving in college so must keep individual thinking to a minimum.
> 
> Soccer players must think on their feet. They must think and react to every move of other players on both teams and determine where they need to be next to optimize their teams chances. There is very little, if any, random kicking. It is, in this regard, more like basketball where there are some set plays but no coach calling out the moves.


Actually, if you play football, you'd realize there is a lot more than that. If I'm the lineman who makes the linecall, I have to look at the defensive alignment, consider the play that is being called, and then determine the proper blocking scheme. Same with the receiver. If a certain play is called and the cornerback is up on me, I have to decide whether to suck him in and go deep or adjust my route to something else short. There are tons of other assignments. Defensively, it's the same thing. When you have 22 players all congested in a smaller area than in soccer, a 6-4, 250-pound linebacker who runs a 4.4 40-yard dash charging at you and don't have to react? C'mon. Is that real?
To say that most of the teams "flunked basket weaving in college" tells me you probably haven't been around the game much nor known many (if any) of the individuals. 
Basketball coaches are constantly calling plays. Outside of fastbreaks, they call plays every time down the floor.


----------



## txtommy

purtman said:


> Actually, if you play football, you'd realize there is a lot more than that. If I'm the lineman who makes the linecall, I have to look at the defensive alignment, consider the play that is being called, and then determine the proper blocking scheme. Same with the receiver. If a certain play is called and the cornerback is up on me, I have to decide whether to suck him in and go deep or adjust my route to something else short. There are tons of other assignments. Defensively, it's the same thing. When you have 22 players all congested in a smaller area than in soccer, a 6-4, 250-pound linebacker who runs a 4.4 40-yard dash charging at you and don't have to react? C'mon. Is that real?
> To say that most of the teams "flunked basket weaving in college" tells me you probably haven't been around the game much nor known many (if any) of the individuals.
> Basketball coaches are constantly calling plays. Outside of fastbreaks, they call plays every time down the floor.


Actually, I did play football and soccer when I was a bit younger. Both were exciting to play and both are less exciting to watch. Most of the better athletes that I associated with were the soccer players. Most football players couldn't run for the time needed in a soccer game. I also didn't know many 6'4", 250 lb linebackers who could run the 40 in 4.4. Now I am strictly a spectator and I find soccer much more exciting. Football puts me to sleep.


----------



## purtman

txtommy said:


> Actually, I did play football and soccer when I was a bit younger. Both were exciting to play and both are less exciting to watch. Most of the better athletes that I associated with were the soccer players. Most football players couldn't run for the time needed in a soccer game. I also didn't know many 6'4", 250 lb linebackers who could run the 40 in 4.4. Now I am strictly a spectator and I find soccer much more exciting. Football puts me to sleep.


Interesting. Most of the better athletes I played with played football with the exception of one. Now when you "a bit younger" I'm not sure how old you were, but it certainly gets better at the higher levels. One of the better athletes I played football with threw the shot put and discus and was the anchor on the 4x100 relay. Needless to say, he received a scholarship to play Division I football.


----------



## txtommy

purtman said:


> Interesting. Most of the better athletes I played with played football with the exception of one. Now when you "a bit younger" I'm not sure how old you were, but it certainly gets better at the higher levels. One of the better athletes I played football with threw the shot put and discus and was the anchor on the 4x100 relay. Needless to say, he received a scholarship to play Division I football.


Younger as in High School and College age. Four of my best friends went into pro ball; two soccer, one baseball, one basketball after college. I had a good chance at pro soccer or baseball but military life cut that short. All chose other sports over football although we could have continued playing that.


----------



## Chandu

purtman said:


> ...celticpride's real intent was to rip soccer for the fact that it sometimes decides a world championship on penalty kicks, not overtime.


He stated that soccer *DOES NOT* have an overtime to decide a winner. Ever. And so is a stupid sport.

Did he make such a statement or not?

I would like either celtipride or you (defender of his post) to list World Championships (or any soccer championship) decided exclusively on penalty kicks *WITHOUT PLAYING OVERTIME*.

Come on, I'm waiting!!!!



> I believe that earlier you also made reference to Lamar Hunt among owners today. That's interesting since he's been dead last year and also sold the Wizards last year.


Yes, and I stated that he is "late" in both instances where I mentioned him. Not that I really needed to. But I did.

And Abraham Lincoln is also dead. That doesn't change the fact that he was an American president. At least not in my world of logical reasoning.

Let's take a little logical lesson here.


Abraham Lincoln took an action of signing on Emancipation Proclamation.
Abraham Lincoln died some time after that.
The fact that Abraham Lincoln died does not make the statement "Abraham Lincoln took an action of signing on Emancipation Proclamation" invalid.

Now let's try:


Lamar Hunt took an action of declaring that the Buck Eye university stadium rental agreement is not economical for his MLS team. He built a brand new stadium for his MLS team.
Lamar Hunt died some time after that.
The fact that Lamar Hunt died does not make the statement "Lamar Hunt took an action of declaring that the Buck Eye university stadium rental agreement is not economical for his MLS team. He built a brand new stadium for his MLS team" invalid.

Do you see any similarity here? At least in my basic logical reasoning, it does. But I'm sure it's not quite the same thing for you. Would you like me to go a bit slower, break it down even further, so we can make sense of it?

But wait, there is more!!!!

Now, let's note that I did not mention which "MLS team". I simply stated "his MLS team". The fact that I mentioned "Buck Eye university stadium" would have probably given it away that it was something to do with Ohio.

OK, let me be nice with you. I'm usually not this nice when I'm attacking bogosities in other people's posts. But since I've been going back and forth a lot with you lately, I've started liking you in a bizarrely twisted way. So, I'll do your work for you. Usually I would have asked you to go through my posts and dig out my references to Lamar Hunt or Kansas City Wizards for yourself. But since I'm being nice, I'll do it for you here.



Chandu said:


> Either that, or you understand business far better than big shot sports business people like the now late Lamar Hunt (may the honorable old man's soul rest in peace)....
> .....
> Outside of teams in...Kansas City....every single MLS team either plays in a brand new stadium they own or have favorable rental deal, OR have brand new stadium construction in progress due to open very soon.





Chandu said:


> Lamar Hunt (back when he was alive, remember him?) declared that it made no economic sense for him to rent in the old BuckEye university stadium, so he built a brand new one for his MLS team.


I would have exactly expected you to pull a "Kansas City Wizards" reference when thinking of Lamar Hunt out of thin air, based on your habit of extrapolation. By now, I know how to extrapolate your extrapolated responses. You have not failed to disappoint me. At least you're consistent with yourself.

The fact that Lamar Hunt sold Kansas City Wizards before he died, does not preclude him from having built a brand new stadium for his MLS team in Columbus, Ohio. At least in my logical reasoning, one doesn't preclude the other, or doesn't even have to do with the other.

But I'm sure according to your logic, the moment any mention of Lamar Hunt and MLS team is made, it has to be about the Kansas City Wizards.



> But since this your "bread and butter", maybe he came back to life and re-purchased the team without the rest of us knowing it.


Reading comprehension 101, anyone?

"the team"

What team?

"he re-purchased the team"

Who re-purchased what team? What exactly are you talking about?

Have you thought about writing a book on "The art of extrapolating and inserting non sequitur in the middle of communication"?

Seriously, what exactly are you still doing in this thread, making a fool of yourself?



> You come across as being very pompous, insecure, and a freakin' idiot.





> Rather than attack people...


Ahem, **cough** **cough**.



> ...why don't we just kill this post?


Kill your post?

I completely agree. It would save you from major embarrassment.

OK, by now I've already learnt to extrapolate in my mind what extrapolated or non sequitur reply you're going to come back with. I'm simply having fun going back and forth like this. Let's keep this going, like a rally in tennis.


----------



## txtommy

Chandu said:


> He stated that soccer *DOES NOT* have an overtime to decide a winner. Ever. And so is stupid sport.
> 
> Did he make such a statement or not?
> 
> I would like either celtipride or you (defender of his post) to list World Championships (or any soccer championship) decided exclusively on penalty kicks *WITHOUT PLAYING OVERTIME*.
> 
> Come on, I'm waiting!!!!
> 
> Yes, and I stated that he is "late" in both instances where I mentioned him. Not that I really needed to. But I did.
> 
> And Abraham Lincoln is also dead. That doesn't change the fact that he was an American president. At least not in my world of logical reasoning.
> 
> Let's take a little logical lesson here.
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln took an action of signing on Emancipation Proclamation.
> Abraham Lincoln died some time after that.
> The fact that Abraham Lincoln died does not make the statement "Abraham Lincoln took an action of signing on Emancipation Proclamation" invalid.
> 
> Now let's try:
> 
> 
> Lamar Hunt took an action of declaring that the Buck Eye university stadium rental agreement is not economical for his MLS team. He built a brand new stadium for his MLS team.
> Lamar Hunt died some time after that.
> The fact that Lamar Hunt died does not make the statement "Lamar Hunt took an action of declaring that the Buck Eye university stadium rental agreement is not economical for his MLS team. He built a brand new stadium for his MLS team" invalid.
> 
> Do you see any similarity here? At least in my basic logical reasoning, it does. But I'm sure it's not quite the same thing for you. Would you like me to go a bit slower, break it down even further, so we can make sense of it?
> 
> But wait, there is more!!!!
> 
> Now, let's note that I did not mention which "MLS team". I simply stated "his MLS team". The fact that I mentioned "Buck Eye university stadium" would have probably given it away that it was something to do with Ohio.
> 
> OK, let me nice with you. I'm usually not this nice when I'm attacking bogosities in other people's posts. But since I've been going back and forth a lot with you lately, I've started liking you in a bizarrely twisted way. So, I'll do your work for you. Usually I would have asked you to go through my posts and dig out my references to Lamar Hunt or Kansas City Wizards for yourself. But since I'm being nice, I'll do it for you here.
> 
> I would have exactly expected you to pull a "Kansas City Wizards" reference when thinking of Lamar Hunt out of thin air, based on your habit of extrapolation. By now, I know how to extrapolate your extrapolated responses. You have not failed to disappoint me. At least you're consistent with yourself.
> 
> The fact that Lamar Hunt sold Kansas City Wizards before he died, does not preclude him from having built a brand new stadium for his MLS team in Columbus, Ohio. At least in my logical reasoning, one doesn't preclude the other, or doesn't even have to do with the other.
> 
> But I'm sure according to your logic, the moment any mention of Lamar Hunt and MLS team is made, it has to be about the Kansas City Wizards.
> 
> Reading comprehension 101, anyone?
> 
> "the team"
> 
> What team?
> 
> "he re-purchased the team"
> 
> Who re-purchased what team? What exactly are you talking about?
> 
> Have you thought about writing a book on "The art of extrapolating and inserting non sequitur in the middle of communication"?
> 
> Seriously, what exactly are you still doing in this thread, making a fool of yourself?
> 
> Ahem, **cough** **cough**.
> 
> Kill your post?
> 
> I completely agree. It would save you from major embarrassment.
> 
> OK, by now I've already learnt to extrapolate in my mind what extrapolated or non sequitur reply you're going to come back with. I'm simply having fun going back and forth like this. Let's keep this going, like a rally in tennis.


Reminds me of the Geico Caveman commercials.
"Do you have a comment?"
"Yes, I have a comment. *WHAT!!!*"


----------



## Chandu

txtommy said:


> Reminds me of the Geico Caveman commercials.
> "Do you have a comment?"
> "Yes, I have a comment. *WHAT!!!*"


I'm telling you, this is some of the most serious fun I've had posting on these boards in a long time!!!  :lol:

Where and how he is going to pull out random and predictably unpredictable responses out of thin air is beyond hilarious!!!!


----------



## txtommy

Chandu said:


> I'm telling you, this is some of the most serious fun I've had posting on these boards in a long time!!!  :lol:
> 
> Where and how he is going to pull out random and predictably unpredictable responses out of thin air is beyond hilarious!!!!


I'm sure glad you're having fun.
I haven't a clue what you are talking about.:nono2: 
Are you on drugs or something?


----------



## Ray_Clum

Chandu said:


> Will they kick, will they kick, will the kick??????
> Will they kick, will they kick, will they kick?????
> 
> That could make for a cool song for the fans to sing.


I was listening to Blue Collar Comedy on Sirius and a comic came on and was telling of his trip to England and watching soccer. It was a UK vs. Germany match. The comic said that the best thing in the game was the UK crowd singing to the German crowd (in a round fashion, one section sings, then the next, then the next... imagine the Wave, but singing). They were singing "If you won the war, stand up" and the section singing would stand up, then sit down as the next section started singing... he said it was like doing a wave, with an F-you in the middle. Nearly had a wreck when I heard that one...


----------



## Chandu

Ray_Clum said:


> I was listening to Blue Collar Comedy on Sirius and a comic came on and was telling of his trip to England and watching soccer. It was a UK vs. Germany match. The comic said that the best thing in the game was the UK crowd singing to the German crowd (in a round fashion, one section sings, then the next, then the next... imagine the Wave, but singing). They were singing "If you won the war, stand up" and the section singing would stand up, then sit down as the next section started singing... he said it was like doing a wave, with an F-you in the middle. Nearly had a wreck when I heard that one...




Must have been a England vs. Germany match. There is no such team as UK. All the individual 4 home nations in UK (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) have their own associations and national teams for historical reasons. England vs. Germany has been a very bitter rivalry for obvious reasons. The other 3 teams haven't been that strong for a long time and don't have much of a bitter rivalry with anyone to speak of.

All the same fun though, I guess!! :righton:


----------



## Chandu

txtommy said:


> I haven't a clue what you are talking about.:nono2:
> Are you on drugs or something?


Nope, are you? 

What is there not to understand? OK, I'll explain. It's a long thread with a bit of history.

purtman has taken the route of "attacking the poster" (also known as "ad hominem") instead of "attacking a post" if he doesn't like what he is reading. I and other posters have had long civil discussions back and forth, on a number of points. Some of them we agree on, lot of them we don't really agree on. For example, HDMe, Steve Mehs, James Long, maybe few others I'm forgetting. It's not a big deal to disagree on points, especially if they're subjective. You agree to disagree and move on.

For some reason, purtman seems to have some chips on his shoulders about me. I honestly don't know why. The reverse isn't true. He claims that I seem to think I know everything. Of course not!! There are tons of things I don't know anything about. There is nothing wrong not knowing about things. If you learn about it from others, you thank them. Also there is nothing wrong with making a mistake, as long as you accept it when someone else corrects it, take it like a man and thank them. In this thread itself, there is an example of me making an incorrect statement. purtman is the one who corrected it, I took it like a man and thanked him for it. I think I made a statement that in American Football, there is a big emphasis on physical body size of players than soccer, it is difficult for players of average size to become big stars in it. He gave me an example of Emmitt Smith whom I didn't know a whole lot about. But no big deal. I thanked him for it.

Anyway, as the thread moved on, for some reason purtman entered the twilight zone and started attacking me personally. Bunch of those posts were deleted by mods. He still continued with ad hominem attacks, claiming things about me personally without basis, pulling a random "anti-American" card. The last post which you're referring to was an extreme case of twilight zone, which unfortunately required an extreme twilight zone response.

To make a long story short, there is bunch of history behind this and a bunch of weirdness which required that kind of response.


----------



## Chandu

Steve Mehs said:


> While I'd rather have the Braves back then an MLS team, if Rochester, Buffalo or even Syracuse can get a team at some point, I'll give it another chance. True like you said Rochester is a small TV market, but I believe Buffalo is the smallest TV market with an NHL team and one of the smallest with an NFL team. But we have very loyal fans from not only the Buffalo market, but all of Upstate NY as well.


There already is a very popular team in Rochester called Rochester Raging Rhinos, which I mentioned before. While it's not an MLS team, it's in the league one level below it called USL-1. I don't know a whole lot about them, but I've heard their fanbase is very rabid and die-hard. Some 10-11 years ago they achieved the feat of beating an MLS team (DC United) in the US Open Cup final, which was a big deal for them. It was a big cinderella story. To put it in hockey terms, it was the equivalent of a college team beating bunch of NHL teams of experienced professionals in an open round elimination format, and winning the final prize. Their owner already built a brand new stadium exclusively for the team in Rochester few years ago. When you heard of "Rochester getting an MLS team", it was speculation of this same team getting a promotion into MLS. I don't think it's going to happen.


----------



## Steve Mehs

I know about the Raging Rhinos, my cable system is out of Rochester so I see local ad inserts for Rhinos tickets info and coverage all the time, even caught part of a few games. I'm not holding my breath at having the Raging Rhinos becoming an MLS team, I'm just throwing the idea out there as something that may happen in the very distant future, just like getting an NBA team back. The chances are slim to none, but it may happen and in the unlikely event it does I will welcome it. Although there have been a few half assed attempts to get an NBA franchise back in Buffalo, but they never went anywhere. 

If the Rochester soccer scene is as loyal and hardcore as you say, then I think it would be wonderful and beneficial to take it to the next level, for the league, the players, fans and the city. I have no idea how this works, but if the Rhinos can buy into the MLS at a large sum of money, but the current owner doesn’t have the financial resources to take the team to the next level, I would think eventually a more corporate owner would buy out the team and do just that, if down the road it becomes a serious thought and is a direction the team want to go in.

I have no idea how the business of soccer in the US works, but you do, but you don’t live in the area, I do (sort of), so I’m just throwing out some ideas that would put the wonderful city of Rochester on the map. I do think it would be GREAT to have NFL, NHL, NBA and MLS presence in the area (and we have the track in Watkins Glenn in the Southern Tier for NASCAR) and hey maybe even win a Championship. MLB would never fly here. Between the Yankees and our minor league team has their own niche following, pro baseball doesn’t make sense for this area, but professional soccer does.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

One of the oddities to me, in American sports... the NFL is recognized as being #1 most popular... and yet every owner says the survival of their franchise depends on a new stadium that has more luxury seating. Not necessarily increased total seating capacity for fans... but more expensive-entry luxury boxes.

To me that tends to imply either that they know expanding for more fans at regular ticket prices wouldn't gain them money because they don't have enough fans... or that they want to drive away regular fans to make room for more fat-cats.

Seems kind of counter-productive if the NFL is that popular. To my thinking, if they are the #1 fan favorite sport... and fans are not buying tickets enough to support it that they need more luxury box seating... maybe it isn't as popular as they want us to think?

Keep in mind that like football, but it is hard to miss this quandry.


----------



## Chandu

Steve Mehs said:


> If the Rochester soccer scene is as loyal and hardcore as you say, then I think it would be wonderful and beneficial to take it to the next level, for the league, the players, fans and the city. I have no idea how this works, but if the Rhinos can buy into the MLS at a large sum of money, but the current owner doesn't have the financial resources to take the team to the next level, I would think eventually a more corporate owner would buy out the team and do just that, if down the road it becomes a serious thought and is a direction the team want to go in.
> 
> I have no idea how the business of soccer in the US works, but you do, but you don't live in the area, I do (sort of), so I'm just throwing out some ideas that would put the wonderful city of Rochester on the map.


Yeah, it all boils down to money. There are various financial issues. First there is the stadium naming rights deal, which usually are multi-year and big. It helps that the stadium already exists, so I assume the infrastructure has been worked out already and no extra financial pressure on the community. Then you have the "jersey sponsorship" deal. Money from advertising on shirts can cover tons of costs. There are expenses involved with training facilities, which are typically in a separate practice fields area, not the stadium field itself. The last important piece of puzzle is the fee for being promoted to the next level. I hear this amount for expansion team is now going up from next year onwards. This is because unlike before, MLS team ownerships are well diversified and all of the owners are seriously loaded billionaires. MLS guys don't want to take the risk of someone joining in, only to not being able to pay the bills and folding or relocating. Demanding a higher expansion fee will cover MLS's contingency, as well as ensure that they only hear from serious players.

I don't know what the corporate scene in that area is like. I know Eastman Kodak have their headquarters there, but don't know what their financial situation is like. Also, how is the overall economy of the area, could there possibly be any other big corporate backers other than/instead of Kodak? I have no clue.


----------



## Chandu

HDMe said:


> One of the oddities to me, in American sports... the NFL is recognized as being #1 most popular... and yet every owner says the survival of their franchise depends on a new stadium that has more luxury seating. Not necessarily increased total seating capacity for fans... but more expensive-entry luxury boxes.
> 
> To me that tends to imply either that they know expanding for more fans at regular ticket prices wouldn't gain them money because they don't have enough fans... or that they want to drive away regular fans to make room for more fat-cats.
> 
> Seems kind of counter-productive if the NFL is that popular. To my thinking, if they are the #1 fan favorite sport... and fans are not buying tickets enough to support it that they need more luxury box seating... maybe it isn't as popular as they want us to think?
> 
> Keep in mind that like football, but it is hard to miss this quandry.


It's not just specific to NFL. That's the story with almost all professional league. Also, it's not just a phenomenon specific to North America. Even in Europe, you've got the same problem. For example, Manchester United have expensive luxury box seats at Old Trafford. Few years ago, their outspoken captain at the time (Roy Keane) complained that the hardcore element of fan support in the stadium is diminishing, and is being slowly replaced by "prawn sandwich brigade". Meaning, bunch of snobbish corporate types not really interested in football, sitting in luxury boxes eating prawn sandwiches.

Arsenal opened up a state of the art Emirates Stadium, and their executive boxes were a big deal. Their was a long list of corporate names from London waiting to sign up for the "executive boxes". Apparently, a lot of the movers and shakers mingle among these luxury box crowd. These bigwigs aren't that keenly interested in football itself, but a lot of financial deals get closed in such settings, similar to on the golf course.

The thing with executive boxes is that most of them are sold in bulk as a season package. They lock in big amounts of committed revenue. Companies even use them to treat customers, partners, whoever and can claim it as corporate tax write-off under "entertainment expenses". The biggest problem with that is, you know of course who ends up paying for them? Ordinary citizens. Ticket prices for ordinary fans go up, because of the high construction costs for new stadiums with these, maintenance for them. Worse yet, for stadiums funded with public money, this gets indirectly passed down to the people living in local communities. Team owners use "need for luxury boxes and amenities" as a need for newer and newer stadiums, when in fact they don't have to have them. They use it as a weapon to threaten moving to a different community, and gullible public officers are held financially hostage. I don't know if the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester United used any public money for stadium construction/renovations. But with NFL stadiums, this is very pervasive.

This is nothing more than money swindling and extraction. The rich get richer.


----------



## Steve Mehs

> I don't know what the corporate scene in that area is like. I know Eastman Kodak have their headquarters there, but don't know what their financial situation is like. Also, how is the overall economy of the area, could there possibly be any other big corporate backers other than/instead of Kodak? I have no clue.


I don't believe Kodak is the financial powerhouse it once was.

Xerox just left Rochester. There is the very successful Wegman's Submarket regional chain based in Rochester, frozen food company Birds Eye is also based there. Not sure if Birds Eye is a national thing or regional to this area. Time Warner Cable is big in the community as well as the ILEC Frontier. The Rhinos current home, which is a soccer specific stadium is sponsored by PAETEC. They're a regional company that specializes in commercial and B2B telecommunications.

I could really see there being interest in sponsorships. Only time will tell though.


----------



## purtman

HDMe said:


> One of the oddities to me, in American sports... the NFL is recognized as being #1 most popular... and yet every owner says the survival of their franchise depends on a new stadium that has more luxury seating. Not necessarily increased total seating capacity for fans... but more expensive-entry luxury boxes.
> 
> To me that tends to imply either that they know expanding for more fans at regular ticket prices wouldn't gain them money because they don't have enough fans... or that they want to drive away regular fans to make room for more fat-cats.
> 
> Seems kind of counter-productive if the NFL is that popular. To my thinking, if they are the #1 fan favorite sport... and fans are not buying tickets enough to support it that they need more luxury box seating... maybe it isn't as popular as they want us to think?
> 
> Keep in mind that like football, but it is hard to miss this quandry.


Unfortunately, one of the misconceptions behind popularity has nothing to do with fan attendance nor purchasing memorabilia. The NFL's popularity has soared with the introduction of betting and fantasy leagues. Baseball has been helped by the fantasy sports. I'm not sure about the NFL, but if you look at the price of the MLB players' shirts, you'll notice that they're pretty expensive. Much of the cost of those items which have players' names on them go into the players association funds and the players collect royalties off of them.


----------



## purtman

Chandu said:


> ... Few years ago, their outspoken captain at the time (Roy Keane) complained that the hardcore element of fan support in the stadium is diminishing, and is being slowly replaced by "prawn sandwich brigade". Meaning, bunch of snobbish corporate types not really interested in football, sitting in luxury boxes eating prawn sandwiches. ...


That's a terrible statement but oh so true.

It reminds me so much of a Stanley Cup playoff game I attended back in Hartford. My buddy and I were there watching a big rivalry between the Bruins and Whalers. The two guys behind us were talking about the PCs and other work-related issues. I wanted to tell them that we were a hockey game not a meeting room.


----------



## Steve Mehs

I've known a few people who have friends or relatives who work for companies that have luxury suites for both the Bills and Sabres. A girl I went to high school with, her father works for Fisher Price, and pretty much has full access to their suite at HSBC Arena, except for the rare occasion when the bigwigs take a client or potential client to a game. It's a business write off by people who have no interest in the game that used too impress others. Personally, I’d rather be in Level 1 right behind the endzone or net, but that’s just me. Not saying I wouldn’t turn down an offer to see a Sabres game in a box, or a trip to Nashville to see my Titans in a luxury suite, but I’m at a game to watch it an experience it and not be subjected to other distractions.


----------



## BJM

And now for something completely different...

Per the discussion about Rochester, and other teams (Pacific Northwest - Seattle? Portland?) that also have USL teams...

I think the MLS and USL should have a relegation system. It's completely foreign to American sports, but if they're going to go for it, it would make sense to the soccer fans in the smaller cities. The only problem I see is that there are only 13 MLS teams so the numbers aren't ideal - don't know of any soccer league that would only promote or relegate one team a year.

Also, I'll confess upfront that Mr. Beckham's impending arrival will increase my interest (at least for a time) in MLS. I'm curious to see how much he helps the (LA) Galaxy and if he + their other acquisitions can get them into the playoffs. I usually only follow the US team and the World Cup otherwise.

Is the MLS playoff format 'American' (2 out of 3) or 'home and away'?


----------



## purtman

Chandu said:


> He stated that soccer *DOES NOT* have an overtime to decide a winner. Ever. And so is a stupid sport.
> 
> Did he make such a statement or not?
> 
> I would like either celtipride or you (defender of his post) to list World Championships (or any soccer championship) decided exclusively on penalty kicks *WITHOUT PLAYING OVERTIME*.
> 
> Come on, I'm waiting!!!!
> 
> Yes, and I stated that he is "late" in both instances where I mentioned him. Not that I really needed to. But I did.
> 
> And Abraham Lincoln is also dead. That doesn't change the fact that he was an American president. At least not in my world of logical reasoning.
> 
> Let's take a little logical lesson here.
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln took an action of signing on Emancipation Proclamation.
> Abraham Lincoln died some time after that.
> The fact that Abraham Lincoln died does not make the statement "Abraham Lincoln took an action of signing on Emancipation Proclamation" invalid.
> 
> Now let's try:
> 
> 
> Lamar Hunt took an action of declaring that the Buck Eye university stadium rental agreement is not economical for his MLS team. He built a brand new stadium for his MLS team.
> Lamar Hunt died some time after that.
> The fact that Lamar Hunt died does not make the statement "Lamar Hunt took an action of declaring that the Buck Eye university stadium rental agreement is not economical for his MLS team. He built a brand new stadium for his MLS team" invalid.
> 
> Do you see any similarity here? At least in my basic logical reasoning, it does. But I'm sure it's not quite the same thing for you. Would you like me to go a bit slower, break it down even further, so we can make sense of it?
> 
> But wait, there is more!!!!
> 
> Now, let's note that I did not mention which "MLS team". I simply stated "his MLS team". The fact that I mentioned "Buck Eye university stadium" would have probably given it away that it was something to do with Ohio.
> 
> OK, let me be nice with you. I'm usually not this nice when I'm attacking bogosities in other people's posts. But since I've been going back and forth a lot with you lately, I've started liking you in a bizarrely twisted way. So, I'll do your work for you. Usually I would have asked you to go through my posts and dig out my references to Lamar Hunt or Kansas City Wizards for yourself. But since I'm being nice, I'll do it for you here.
> 
> I would have exactly expected you to pull a "Kansas City Wizards" reference when thinking of Lamar Hunt out of thin air, based on your habit of extrapolation. By now, I know how to extrapolate your extrapolated responses. You have not failed to disappoint me. At least you're consistent with yourself.
> 
> The fact that Lamar Hunt sold Kansas City Wizards before he died, does not preclude him from having built a brand new stadium for his MLS team in Columbus, Ohio. At least in my logical reasoning, one doesn't preclude the other, or doesn't even have to do with the other.
> 
> But I'm sure according to your logic, the moment any mention of Lamar Hunt and MLS team is made, it has to be about the Kansas City Wizards.
> 
> Reading comprehension 101, anyone?
> 
> "the team"
> 
> What team?
> 
> "he re-purchased the team"
> 
> Who re-purchased what team? What exactly are you talking about?
> 
> Have you thought about writing a book on "The art of extrapolating and inserting non sequitur in the middle of communication"?
> 
> Seriously, what exactly are you still doing in this thread, making a fool of yourself?
> 
> Ahem, **cough** **cough**.
> 
> Kill your post?
> 
> I completely agree. It would save you from major embarrassment.
> 
> OK, by now I've already learnt to extrapolate in my mind what extrapolated or non sequitur reply you're going to come back with. I'm simply having fun going back and forth like this. Let's keep this going, like a rally in tennis.


I finally decided to respond to this.

Chandu, I'm not going to get into this type of volleying. I don't know if you recall, but on two occasions you made some remarks about "your reading comprehension" to me. That's a low shot and personal. I have not seen any other personal attacks like that on here. However, I have seen several of your posts which can be considered as personal attacks.
I don't know if you've read some of your posts, but they can come off as being very condescending to the other posters. I know I have written many things and then had somebody else ask me whether I am ticked off at them or have an attitude. It's not my intent. But when you only see words and can't hear a tone in somebody voice, it's very easy to take things in the wrong manner.

There have been a few comments which I took as anti-American. I'm sure that I am not the only one.

As far as my comment about the overtime versus PKs, if you go back and read my comments on the PKs, I said that what he probably meant to say was that the game was decided on PKs, not overtime. Yes, overtime was played, but the game was decided by the penalty kicks, not the OT. That has happened twice in World Cup, the most recent was last year. I'm not sure about all of the states, but I do know that there are several states that do determine the high school state championships on penalty kicks after a pre-determined number of overtimes have been played and a tie still exists. I never said that any titles were determined exclusively by PKs and I don't believe that celticpride intented to imply that either.

As far as Lamar Hunt, I don't recall anything about Columbus being mentioned in your posting. If that's correct, I stand corrected. Also, it should be "Buckeye", not "Buck Eye". The first is a fish and the second may be a person for all that I know. I have no idea why Ohio State University would want its mascot to be a fish, but it is.

I'm not trying to offend you (nor anybody else for that matter). If I did, accept my apologies.

Now, have a great day!


----------



## Chandu

purtman said:


> Now, have a great day!


You too.

Communication on a message board is impersonal, and there aren't as many opportunities for real-live clarification. I don't think it will be very productive to address the rest of nitty-gritties, as now we both know what we're talking about (penalties, overtime, Columbus, Kansas City). Let's just be civil and end the nit-picking.

I'll address the rest of the stuff by editing this post later. Need to run right now.

EDIT: OK, finally got the time to edit this.

Right from the beginning in this thread, I've tried as much as possible to not attack any individual poster, rather posts which made invalid claims which cannot be backed up. I've tried my best. As much as possible, I've tried to offer real, concrete data for refuting such posts instead of speaking in vacuum. But unfortunately there might have been cases where delivery of my message might have gone overboard, and if it offended anyone, I apologize.

If someone says that they find soccer to be a boring sport, *I WILL NOT* attack that post. It's none of my business to tell people what they should or should not find interesting. If they don't like it, they don't like it. End of story, and I shouldn't care to tell people what they should or shouldn't like.

If someone says that soccer is a stupid sport because it never has overtime to decide winner, I'll attack that statement, because it's not true. Emphasis on statement, not person. (I read your explanation about celticpride's post above. And I know what he really intended to say. But it was clear from his post he had botched it up pretty badly, essentially calling something STUPID without knowing it too well. When were 3 penalty kicks used to decide a winner?)

If someone says rest of the world has no diversity of sports apart from soccer, I will attack that post.

If someone says that MLS teams can afford to play in any old college stadiums, I will attack that post.

etc. etc. etc. Most of above are objective topics which can be measured reasonably. They're not as subjective as "finding a sport boring". You get the point. Once again, emphasis on "attack the post", not "attack the poster" and also provide actual data points for why I'm attacking the post.

It is quite conceivable that when there is a single poster attacking so many different points of so many different posters, it may be seen as condescending. That was not really my intent and I can't help it. (Or maybe in hindsight, I could've helped it by wording some of the posts differently).

Regarding you personally: I think things went downhill when you arbitrarily declared "people to leave the country by air or land border crossings". You also claimed me of being unhappy that soccer isn't no. 1 sport in USA, when there is absolutely nothing I've written which suggests that. That's where the "reading comprehension" thing came from. Just as you perceived that as a low blow, believe me that there was an exact flip side to it and comments of "leave the country, anti-American" were perceived as low blows by me as well. And you can very well check whose low blow comments preceded whom.

Anyway, there is no point in stretching this any further. It's not productive for anyone. I suggest that we behave like grown men, shake hands and say sorry and move on. I don't feel any shame in saying sorry if it helps end squabbles.


----------



## purtman

Chandu said:


> You too.
> 
> Communication on a message board is impersonal, and there aren't as many opportunities for real-live clarification. I don't think it will be very productive to address the rest of nitty-gritties, as now we both know what we're talking about (penalties, overtime, Columbus, Kansas City). Let's just be civil and end the nit-picking.
> 
> I'll address the rest of the stuff by editing this post later. Need to run right now.


Don't sweat it. I'll catch you later. I know I set off an uproar with a group that I led once by an e-mail I sent. I certainly didn't mean it to come out the way everybody interpreted it.

While we're on the subject on Lamar Hunt, one of the new owners of the KC Wizards is Neal Patterson. He is the CEO of Cerner Corp. I have included links to his infamous e-mail. There was no doubt what he intended. However, members of the media picked up wind of this e-mail and it made its way into the internet. Once the e-mail was published by the media, the company's stock dropped 22 percent in three days.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0406-04.htm

http://www.stand-deliver.com/star_ledger/010515.asp

http://www.caucusnj.org/adubato/starledger/laughing.asp


----------



## Chandu

purtman said:


> While we're on the subject on Lamar Hunt, one of the new owners of the KC Wizards is Neal Patterson. He is the CEO of Cerner Corp. I have included links to his infamous e-mail. There was no doubt what he intended. However, members of the media picked up wind of this e-mail and it made its way into the internet. Once the e-mail was published by the media, the company's stock dropped 22 percent in three days.
> 
> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0406-04.htm
> 
> http://www.stand-deliver.com/star_ledger/010515.asp
> 
> http://www.caucusnj.org/adubato/starledger/laughing.asp


I had no idea about these events. They're pretty old from April 2001, but the guys sounds like a total jerk. I did hear about some consortium called OnGoal purchasing Kansas City Wizards from Lamar Hunt just before he died, and also that Cerner executives were part of this consortium. However, I hadn't been paying attention to details and had no knowledge about what kind of person this Cerner CEO is.

Last I checked, OnGoal were slowly making progress towards a new stadium somewhere on Kansas-Missouri border, but don't know the details. I also don't know how well they're running the team (both on the field and attendance/finance wise).

Anyway, I also finally got time to edit my previous post. Read it when you get a chance. I hope you understand my explanation, any squabbles are over once and for all, and we can take any further communication of this nature to PM.


----------



## purtman

Chandu,
Howdy! Actually, the first "reading comprehension" comment came way back and that kind of set me off. Bottom line is, whatever you said and whenever you said it, it doesn't matter. I made a choice and said some stupid, mean things. I didn't have to take it any further and am sorry I did. I let my frustrations interpret things in the wrong way and then made matters worse when I didn't approach it in the proper manner. It's kind of like in the World Cup last year when things were said about a player's sister. Do you give a head butt and get thrown out of the game or do you just go on and play your best? The best retaliation in that situation? Win the game. The best "retaliation" in our case? None. It's not a sport or competition so there should be nut. The only thing I should have done was let you know what I thought and how I felt. I didn't and I regret that. I'm sure if I did, your responses would also have been different.

As you can tell by those e-mails, Cerner is not the place to work. I worked there briefly when we moved to the midwest. The standard IT work week is 48 hours. While interviewing, I asked about that. They said occasionally I may have to work as many as 50 hours. Well, I was spoken to by my manager because I was "only" putting in 55-60 hours per week. Then towards the end, I worked from 8:40-6:15 p.m. one day. I went home, took a few hours off, and then worked until 4:30 in the morning.
Later that same morning, I went in again at 8:40 (three hours sleep). That morning, my wife called me and said she was leaving work. She was vomitting and had to go home to go to bed. That was at 9:30. At 1:30, daycare called and said our two-year-old and the baby both had diarrhea (sorry or sharing this before lunch) and I had to get them. I told people I was going to go get the kids and bring them home. I received looks and comments for this -- bringing home two sick kids to a sick mother. 
If I had known the sweatshop it would be, I never would have moved my family there. Needless to say, I'm glad that things didn't work out there. It's a nasty sweatshop and my family is much important than any job.
Have a great day and we'll catch you later on.


----------



## purtman

I heard an interesting one on the radio. I'd like to ask everybody, without looking these up, can you answer the following?
1) How many teams are in the MLS?
2) Can you name the teams in the MLS?
3) How many stars in the MLS can you name?
4) How many people will continue to follow the MLS after Beckham begins playing? 
Obviously, this last question is not something you can look up, but it is interesting. Granted, there will be people who will take their kids to see Beckham play, but will they attend another game?
I heard parts of this discussion on ESPN radio today and I thought they were some interesting questions.


----------



## KurtV

purtman said:


> ...Also, it should be "Buckeye", not "Buck Eye". The first is a fish and the second may be a person for all that I know. ...


Purt,
A buckeye is a nut (and the tree that bears that nut). The fish you're thinking of is (probably) a walleye.

Now, you are probably saying to yourself, "A nut?, that's worse than a fish!" If so, stop. Leave us alone. We like our nut. It's ours and you can't do anything about it. We have our reasons and we don't have to explain ourselves to you...


----------



## purtman

KurtV said:


> Purt,
> A buckeye is a nut (and the tree that bears that nut). The fish you're thinking of is (probably) a walleye.
> 
> Now, you are probably saying to yourself, "A nut?, that's worse than a fish!" If so, stop. Leave us alone. We like our nut. It's ours and you can't do anything about it. We have our reasons and we don't have to explain ourselves to you...


:lol: :lol: :lol:

You're absolutely right. I was thinking about the walleye. My bad. I guess I'm the nut.

What I don't understand is why you named the team after a nut even before Maurice Clarett played there? Did you know he was going to go there? :lol:


----------



## Chandu

purtman said:


> Chandu,
> Howdy! Actually, the first "reading comprehension" comment came way back and that kind of set me off.




I looked in the thread all the way to the beginning and don't really remember anything of that nature. In my first conversation with you, you asked which part of US I'm from, told me you have some background in sports broadcasting and I told you I respect your background. I'm coming up with blanks here. Are you sure you're thinking the same poster? Anyway, I'll send you a PM.


----------



## Chandu

purtman said:


> I heard an interesting one on the radio. I'd like to ask everybody, without looking these up, can you answer the following?
> 1) How many teams are in the MLS?
> 2) Can you name the teams in the MLS?
> 3) How many stars in the MLS can you name?


Obviously for me, it's "Yes" on all those 3 questions. But I recognize I may not be like a typical poster here.

Anyway, I think the Beckham circus may end up becoming more about Hollywood and less sport. It will give a bit of publicity to MLS which they're looking for. As Don Garber said, David Beckham is not here to save the sport of soccer in US, it doesn't need to be saved. That's what all the baby steps they've taken to lay down the infrastructure over last decade have been about. Slow and steady wins the race.


----------



## purtman

Chandu, I figured you would probably know all of the teams, etc. 

As far as Beckham is concerned, the MLS probably learned from the MISL and NASL. Like you said, slow and steady will win the race.


----------



## Chandu

BJM said:


> And now for something completely different...
> 
> Per the discussion about Rochester, and other teams (Pacific Northwest - Seattle? Portland?) that also have USL teams...
> 
> I think the MLS and USL should have a relegation system. It's completely foreign to American sports, but if they're going to go for it, it would make sense to the soccer fans in the smaller cities. The only problem I see is that there are only 13 MLS teams so the numbers aren't ideal - don't know of any soccer league that would only promote or relegate one team a year.


This argument while good intentioned, is completely impractical.

First of all, the fee for a new expansion MLS team owner to join the ranks is very steep, of the order of $35 million. It used to be around $10 million couple of years ago, but has jumped up more than 3 times, after MLS team ownership has diversified greatly. This group now includes people with tons of sports business experience (majority of them in American sports, few from outside USA), and almost everyone one of them is a seriously loaded billionaire. Do you suppose any one of these wealthy guys is going to throw away $35 million for a team, invest in new stadium construction? All that with the risk that 1 year later their team may get demoted to a lower division, their team won't be televised on national TV as part of MLS TV contract, while some lowly team from Charleston, Minneapolis or Rochester NY may take their place? These guys didn't become billionaires throwing money away like that. And what about those teams getting promoted? If they had never been in MLS before, will they be required to shell out dough to get promoted? Why would they feel compelled to? Some of them may want to, but almost all of them won't. If they had wanted it, they would've been part of current MLS (without relegation/promotion) anyway. Case in point, current Rochester Raging Rhinos. Their owner Frank DuRoss has clearly said he is not interested in spending any of his personal money to join MLS. If as of today Rochester wins USL championship and get promoted to MLS, but their owner refuses to pay money to join the ranks, then what happens to your proposal?

Second very important reason why this is very impractical is because unlike most countries with promotion/relegation, the physical size of USA (and now even parts of Canada included!!) is incredibly huge. The traveling distances and traveling budgets for some regular season matches are incredibly high. Only 2-3 other countries in the world come to mind which are of such crazy size and have top tier soccer leagues: Russia, Brasil and Australia. I know for a fact that the newly born A-League in Australia doesn't have promotion/relegation. They have only 1 remote team called Perth Glory on the West Coast and travel times for teams from the East Coast (Sydney, Melbourne...) are very high. Given that the fuel prices keep going up and up, this becomes even bigger problem. I think in Russia they have some sort of promotion/relegation, but I have no idea how they manage it? Maybe majority of teams are concentrated around Moscow/St. Petersburg anyway, and very few of them in Siberia?!?!? Given the latest petroleum boom in Siberia, the Russians could afford to waste their fossil fuel reserves and contribute more to global warming. I don't know the details. Lastly, I don't know if in the Brasilian league they have promotion/relegation either.

If according to your suggestion some poorer team from USL such as Portland or Charleston suddenly gets promoted and has to start traveling with higher frequency to crazily distant destinations such as Toronto/Boston or Vancouver/Los Angeles respectively, that would be a fast ticket on the road to bankruptcy. I do know USL teams need to travel lot right now too, but the frequency of travel under MLS schedule would be much, much more.

I think a more practical system for such a large geographic area would be to disband the current structure of MLS as a single league, and instead break it up into much smaller leagues for smaller geographical areas. For example, California could afford to have its own league with 8-10 teams. Some other variations: Pacific Northwest league, Texas league, New England league, New York league, Florida league, Ontario league etc. Such a model would mirror majority of European markets in terms of population density and geographic distances (German Bundesliga, French Ligue-1, Dutch Eredivisie, Italian Serie A etc.). Then the champions of these individual leagues could fight out among each other to determine the national champion for USA/Canada in a playoff format (which you could give the name MLS). The good thing about smaller geographical regions is that rivalry and hatred among teams could develop more organically. The more you meet each other often, and closer neighbor you are, easier is it to dislike you. It also makes it easier for fans of a team to travel and support their team even when it is visiting other teams, and raise hell in away stadiums. It's difficult for people in Fresno to hate Toronto as much as hating Los Angeles or Sacramento.

I had a vague memory that in Brasil they have some version of this implemented, by breaking up national league into Rio de Janeiro league and Sao Paulo league. Again, I only know about this as well as their promotion/relegation system vaguely.



> Is the MLS playoff format 'American' (2 out of 3) or 'home and away'?


I think as of now it is "home and away", but used to be various different variants of "2 out of 3" about 6-7 years ago. Unlike elimination rounds in UEFA Cup, UEFA Champions League etc., MLS "home and away" doesn't use the away goal rule to determine winner.


----------



## purtman

Chandu,
Not being a real soccer junkie, can you explain the "away goal rule"? Thanks.
Also, did you see ESPN's top 10 plays of the week on Sunday? One of the Houston players scored a phenomenal goal to get the No. 1 bill on the top-10 list.


----------



## Chandu

Sorry for the delay in replying my friend, but it's been crazily hectic at work. I don't get as much chance to browse or post here as last few weeks.



purtman said:


> Chandu,
> Not being a real soccer junkie, can you explain the "away goal rule"? Thanks.


Sure.

Away goals rule is applied when a playoff series consisting of 2 matches (or games) is played between 2 teams, one each at each team's home ground.

If one team wins both matches, it's obvious that they win the playoff.

If one team wins one match, and another match ends in a draw (tie), it's obvious that the team which got a win wins the playoff.

If both teams split a single win each, the aggregate goals scored determine the winner. That is, the team which scored more goals over 2 matches together determines the winner. What to do if both teams have same aggregate number of goals over 2 matches? The "away goals rule" comes into play to determine the winner here. Read on below.

If both matches end in draw, obviously the aggregate goal count for both teams is identical. The "away goals rule" determines the winner in this case.

OK, so now we come to the "away goals rule". This rule states that when aggregate goal count is equal, the tiebreaker to decide winner will be whichever team scored more goals as a visiting team in the other team's home ground. The philosophy behind this rule is that it is more difficult to score goals as a visiting team, on grounds you may not be very familiar with, in intimidating atmosphere where opposing team supporters are screaming like hell for you to lose. It also encourages visiting teams to play more attacking style of game, as opposed to fall into a defensive shell and play with negative tactics.

What happens if both teams are not only tied on aggregate goals, but also away goals at the end of 2 matches? In that case, extra time (overtime) is played at the end of the second match to determine the winner. Unlike American sports overtimes, these extra times are not sudden-death. They must be played in their entirety. If one team scores more goals than the other during extra time, obviously it's a winner. If both teams score equal number of goals during extra time, even then we're guaranteed a winner by using the "away goals rule" tiebreaker. Both teams were tied on away goals before extra time began, remember? The fact that both teams scored equal number of goals during extra time would mean that one team has scored more "away goals" than the other team. What if no goals are scored during this extra time? In that case, penalty kicks are used to determine the winner. The rules for penalty kicks are same as what you're probably used to seeing in other events such as World Cup matches (in which things such as "away goals" are irrelevant).

Now the question arises: How is it determined which team gets to host the second match as opposed to first? Because, any potential extra time and penalties will only be held on the ground of team hosting second match. No extra time or penalties will be held at the end of the first match even if it ends in a tie. (End of first match is really treated as a "virtual half time".) Obviously, the team with better seeding (better winning record and any other tiebreakers applied before the specific playoff began) gets to host the second match. This is equivalent to what is known as "home ground advantage".

Do you think all this was complicated? Not a chance. It was pretty simple, but can get even more complicated.

For example what happens when 2 teams who play in the same ground meet each other for a 2 match playoff? How is it determined which team is home team and which team is visiting team? And how in the world would an "away" goal be determined?

The closest equivalent example I can give in American sport is New York Jets and New York Giants who until now play in the same Giants Stadium, East Rutherford, NJ. Jets may go onto play somewhere else in the future, but that's not relevant here. Also, note that I said "same ground". Not same city, or same metropolitan area. So examples such as Chicago White Sox vs. Chicago Cubs, New York Mets vs. New York Yankees, Los Angeles Lakers vs. Los Angeles Clippers, Los Angeles Dodgers vs. Anaheim or-whatever-they-are-called Angels, San Francisco Giants vs. Oakland A's, San Francisco 49ers vs. Oakland Raiders etc. etc. do not apply. In each of those examples, the 2 different teams have their own stadiums. Also, using the "same city" or "same metropolitan area" logic is totally irrelevant in European sports markets anyway. That's because unlike USA, which is a hugely spread out country with many disjoint metropolitan areas, Europe is extremely densely populated. Many metropolitan areas have multiple teams playing in the same league.

Anyway, coming back to this "2 teams playing in the same home ground, meeting each other for a home-away playoff example". Do you suppose I'm talking some theoretical, weird stuff? Hardly. I have a concrete example. 2 Italian teams from the city of Milano - Internazionale Milan (Inter) and A.C. Milan had the misfortune of meeting each other in the Champions League semifinal in 2003. Both of these teams play on the same home ground of Giuseppe Meazza stadium, San Siro. And as misfortune would have it, the winner of this semifinal playoff was determined on "away goals". In the first match, A.C. Milan was designated as the home team and it was a 0-0 draw. In the second match, Inter Milan as designated as the home team and it was a 1-1 draw. Therefore, it was determined that A.C. Milan scored more away goals than Inter Milan (1 opposed to 0) and moved onto to the final.

What?!?!?!?!?!?!!?  Is this stupidity or what? How in the world can it be an away goal for A.C. Milan when it happens to be their home ground?

Well, actually it's not as stupid as it sounds. Similar to the New York Giants vs. New York Jets example, the attendance of most of these European club football matches (especially things like Champions League playoff) are heavily determined based on season ticket base. It's not arbitrary such that any number of walk-in crowd can show up at the ticket counter and enter the stadium. The number of "visiting team" attendees is restricted. Bulk of attendance is supposed to be for the "home team" to provide the home ground atmosphere, booing the away team, cheering home team, banners/chants for home team etc. I'm sure even if New York Giants and New York Jets played against each other in Giants Stadium, one team will be designated as "home", another as "visiting". Attendance would be dominated by home team fans. Same thing here. Location of visiting team fans within the stadium is also heavily regulated. They're all kept to the same section together with each other, and sometimes even segregated from home team fans to avoid potential for conflict. What it boils down to is, there are hardly any people there who are just "neutral" fans. Allegiance to one team or the other better be declared (and even documented by providing evidence of season-ticket ID) before entering the stadium.

So obviously, A.C. Milan scored a goal against Inter Milan in an extremely hostile atmosphere dominated by Inter Milan fans booing them to oblivion, on their home ground no less. Inter Milan did no such thing in the reverse fixture. So A.C. Milan did deserve to go through to finals on "away goals rule", as weird as it sounds on surface.

I'm sure you didn't expect such a long reply. But as with anything, there are complications.



> Also, did you see ESPN's top 10 plays of the week on Sunday? One of the Houston players scored a phenomenal goal to get the No. 1 bill on the top-10 list.


No, as a matter of fact I didn't. But I'm assuming you're talking about the goal in following video link. It's quite a wonderful goal!!!!

mms://a1503.v115042.c11504.g.vm.aka...nner/071207_smgotw_w15_ngwenya_winner_350.wmv

To be honest with you, I haven't been closely following MLS for almost 2 years. Lately, I have/had been paying lot close attention to Copa America (South American championship with couple of North American invitees USA/Mexico held in Venezuela), Asian Championship (held in Thailand/Malaysia/Indonesia/Vietnam together) and U-20 Youth World Cup (held in Canada).

The reason I haven't been paying close attention to MLS play is not because it's not worth my time. It was an old, bitter story. After having been loyal, die-hard season ticket holder of San Jose Earthquakes for many years, this team was brutally uplifted from San Jose and transplanted in Houston in 2005. And that's the same Houston team you're referring to in this goal. Although that specific player Joseph Ngwenya never played for them when they were in San Jose. This team had won couple of championships in San Jose and seeing them move to Houston was an extremely traumatic experience for me. To say that I had been pissed off with MLS and boycotting watching their events would have been an under-statement.

But guess what? With amazing luck, just yesterday (Wednesday) it was announced that my old team San Jose Earthquakes will be re-incarnated for 2008 season, and I couldn't be happier!!!!! :allthumbs  They will have a new, first-class owner in Lew Wolff (who also happens to own Oakland A's) and he plans to build a new, first-class stadium in San Jose. The team that will play in 2008 will not be the same team which plays in Houston right now. (One that was hijacked from my point of view.) The new San Jose Earthquakes team will be built from scratch of completely new players. Very few, if any of original players who were moved to Houston are expected to come back. But it doesn't really matter to me. I'm just ecstatic to have a home team back, to be able to support. So, my 2 year grudge on MLS is finally over, and starting today I plan to actually pay more attention to MLS play than last 2 years.

Once again, you got a much longer reply than expected. But hey, I can't help it. It has been a very good 2 days with this news.


----------



## purtman

Chandu,
Thanks. Most the tie-breakers I was aware of, but I never knew that the final determination in case of a rare tie was the away goal. That's pretty interesting. I appreciate the time you to took to draw it all out. 
I've been in some pretty hostile sporting environments here in the states. My high school plays a school across the border in Rhode Island in the oldest interstate high school football rivalry in the nation and the third-oldest overall. 
Plus, growing up a Yankees' fan and going to Fenway Park in Boston, I've seen some pretty intense battles (lots of fan fights, to say the least).


----------



## djlong

Umm... All of that craziness is avoided if you make your playoff an odd number of games with home field advantage going to the team with the better regular season record.


----------



## Chandu

djlong said:


> Umm... All of that craziness is avoided if you make your playoff an odd number of games with home field advantage going to the team with the better regular season record.


Yes, you're correct. The only problem is that this increases the number of days it takes to determine the champion. And the calendar is already very congested as it is.

The only condition under which it would work is if you use an odd number of 1 (play only 1 match at the home of team holding home advantage). But such a solution would be very unfair to the visiting team, both from sport perspective as well as financial (complete loss of revenue from gate receipts). It would also be unacceptable from financial standpoint to the TV channels who bid good amount of money for telecast rights of these events. I don't think you were suggesting an odd number of 1 anyway.

Unlike mainstream American sport playoffs, teams playing in Champions League elimination rounds are not playing in only that competition. Champions League is to determine the European Champion. But at the same time, each of these teams is also involved in determining the domestic champion for their respective domestic leagues. For example, Barcelona maybe playing against Milan in Champions League quarterfinal, but both teams maybe simultaneously involved in completely unrelated championship races in Spanish (against Real Madrid, Valencia...) and Italian leagues (against Roma, Juventus...) respectively. Similarly, Manchester United maybe playing against Bayern Muenchen in Champions League quarterfinal, but at the same time maybe involved in completely unrelated championship races in English (against Chelsea, Arsenal...) and German (against Stuttgart, Werder Bremen...) leagues respectively. These are completely hypothetical examples, but very realistic.

To throw another twist into complication, there are other completely unrelated competitions called domestic cup competitions, which take place on certain designated weekends. If replays are required, these might even spill over onto weekdays. These competitions follow elimination bracket format, similar to what they do with college basketball in USA. Domestic cup competitions have absolutely nothing to do with domestic league championships or Champions League. It gets so complicated to explain, I honestly don't think I want to start.

There is absolutely nothing in mainstream American pro sport for which I can provide parallels for you here. (In MLS, there are parallels. For example a team in MLS maybe involved in CONCACAF Champions Cup against teams from Mexico, Costa Rica etc., while at the same time competing exclusively against other American/Canadian MLS teams in MLS regular season. But I don't consider MLS to be a mainstream pro sport league in this country.) A team may end up becoming European champion by winning final of Champions League, but may fail to become champion of its own domestic league (Spanish, German, English, Italian, whichever applicable). Similarly, a team may end up winning its domestic championship (Spanish, German, English, Italian, whichever applicable), but may not win European championship. It might not have even qualified to play in Champions League depending on how well or poorly it had done in its domestic league in the previous season. Rarely, a team may end up winning both European championship as well as its domestic championship (whichever domestic league they play in).

All Champions League play happens on either Tuesday or Wednesday nights. Around the same time, these teams participate in their respective domestic league play on Saturday or Sunday preceding and following Champions League play. Form in one has nothing to do with form in another. Coaches have to plan very carefully how to manage their player squads, keeping eye on multiple competitions not risking injuries to players, as well as rotating squads to avoid exhaustion. The style of game in domestic league play is often very different than in Champions League play as well. So that also plays role in deciding which players to choose for which competition. Sometimes a team may do very well in domestic league on weekend, but fail miserably in Champions League 3 days later (or vice versa). Or, they may beat big opposition in Champions League, but come crashing to ground against lowly opposition in domestic league on weekend 4 days later (or vice versa).

As if this madness wasn't enough, there can be further complication involved with international play. Huh? What the heck is that, you ask?  Well, welcome to the world of club vs. country for which there is absolutely no parallel in mainstream pro sport in USA. (There are parallels for it in MLS, but again MLS is not a mainstream league yet.) Playing for their pro clubs for big money is not all these players do. If selected, they have to concurrently represent their countries in completely unrelated competitions too (could be World Cup qualifying, European Championship qualifying, international friendly). Club play has absolutely nothing to do with country play, and as a matter of fact the 2 of them are always in direct conflict with each other. The dates on which international play occurs are strictly followed based on a calendar set by FIFA or regional confederations (UEFA, CONMEBOL etc.) As an example, Raul Gonzalez and Ruud van Nistelrooij maybe teammates for Real Madrid on a Saturday. But they might compete against each other next Wednesday as they represent Spain and Netherlands respectively in a European Championship qualifier.

There are always big controversies involved in club vs. country either due to injuries or exhaustion from long travel. Gabriel Heinze might have played great for Argentina against Paraguay in Buenos Aires, in a World Cup qualifier over the weekend. But by the time he arrives back to Manchester, England on a long flight, he may be in no condition to play for Manchester United on Wednesday in Champions League against Barcelona. Or Michael Ballack might have gotten injured representing Germany against Russia on Wednesday in Moscow. So, it's pointless for him to fly back to London, to play for Chelsea in a critical match against Liverpool on Saturday that would determine English championship race.

What would manager of Manchester United care if the countries for which his players play (England, Argentina, France, whoever...) are doing great, other than improving form of his players? Nothing. It makes no difference to him if Argentina are tearing the world alight, as he is paid to make Manchester United win their club trophies. Not help England or Argentina national teams. He would get furious if any of his players get injured in meaningless international friendlies, when he is focussed on playing tough matches in multiple competitions.

To really understand the insanity of this convoluted universe, the best way is to play an online simulation computer game called "Football Championship Manager". It is a role playing game in which a person pretends to become manager of a European club squad and literally plays through a season, managing squads, doing player transactions, participating in multiple competitions, managing international play breaks. To go through such a game really gives insight into what a mad world it is.

There is absolutely no room left for increasing the number of days spent in Champions League play, so the odd number of playoff matches will never fly under current conditions.

You thought following American professional sport was complicated? Nothing in terms of convoluted complexity in mainstream pro sport here even comes close.

Now, now, now. After explaining the calendar congestion, there is a bizarre twist like a monkey wrench to throw. About 5-7 years ago, the consortium of 14 richest clubs in Europe called G-14 (they included Manchester United, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Muenchen, AC Milan etc.) were getting together and plotting a selfish financial revolution. They were trying to form a rival league resembling NFL in which only these richest clubs would participate, called European Super League. There would be no qualification or relegation involved in participating in it. Big TV contracts for such league would be guaranteed, and they were interested in following American style playoff formats. In that case, your odd number of playoff games suggestion should have been possible. But creation of such a rebel league meant they wanted to kill Champions League as well as stop participating in their domestic leagues. This was a threat to the very fabric of club football culture, with years and years of traditions behind it. It made lots of smaller teams in domestic leagues very angry. Because they would've been left rotting in smaller and irrelevant domestic leagues with smaller TV contracts, and would have nothing to look forward to in terms of qualifying for bigger European competitions.

This was such a big threat to multiple parties that UEFA and FIFA had to get involved to kill these plots of a mutiny. Under pressure, UEFA modified the format for Champions League which made it easier for more big clubs to qualify and play more round-robin matches among each other, before elimination rounds began. As far as I know, most big European clubs are now financially happy with a modified format of Champions League, so there is no more talk of any European Super League resembling NFL.


----------



## Chandu

purtman said:


> I've been in some pretty hostile sporting environments here in the states. My high school plays a school across the border in Rhode Island in the oldest interstate high school football rivalry in the nation and the third-oldest overall.
> Plus, growing up a Yankees' fan and going to Fenway Park in Boston, I've seen some pretty intense battles (lots of fan fights, to say the least).


You want hostile environment? You want hostile environment?

There is nothing that comes close to playing in madhouses at some of the clubs in Turkey. Seriously, Yankees vs. Red Sox or Clemson-Alabama college football hostilities are like civilized luncheons compared to the madness there. Not knowing the specific high school example you give, I won't comment. But I seriously doubt it comes anywhere close to the insanity at clubs like Galatasaray, Fenerbahce, Besiktas in Turkey.

Let me give you a concrete example. After a long ban for European Cup participation on English clubs was lifted, Manchester United ended up qualifying for it in 1993. At some stage in the tournament, they were pitted against Galatasaray, a club in Istanbul, Turkey. Manchester United were a team made up of mostly youngsters with little experience of playing in foreign lands (due to the years of ban on English clubs in years before). For the match in Istanbul, as the Manchester United team arrived on a flight from Manchester, England to Istanbul they were expecting a civilized reception. What followed them was the horror of horrors. All the way from the airport to the hotel or training ground at the stadium, they were greeted with unimaginable hostility, with big "Welcome to Hell" signs both outside hotel and in stadium. The stadium atmosphere itself was surreal, and one of the Turkish policeman ended up attacking one Manchester United player after the match ended. Needless to say, those naive kids lost the match, but had to escape for their lives from the ground completely shell-shocked.

Here is a quick video of those events in 1994. They don't tell the whole story, but capture important points for most of it.






Then about 7 years ago, when Leeds United from Leeds, England were squared against Galatasaray there were many bitterly hostile incidents. It was to the level where British and Turkish diplomacy had to get involved, and very bitter rivalries were created between English and Turkish oppositions in general.

The Turkish madness is not restricted to English or foreign oppositions. Even when these clubs play against each other in domestic Turkish league, they have some of the worst reputation for defining hostility. I'm 100% sure I never, ever want to set my foot at a match between Galatasaray vs. Fenerbahce in Istanbul, as I don't know if I will make it alive. I might die from shock. I've heard it's even worse than rivalries such as Boca Juniors vs. River Plate in Argentina (which by itself is a very mean rivarlry).


----------



## purtman

Chandu said:


> You want hostile environment? You want hostile environment?
> 
> There is nothing that comes close to playing in madhouses at some of the clubs in Turkey. Seriously, Yankees vs. Red Sox or Clemson-Alabama college football hostilities are like civilized luncheons compared to the madness there.


"civilized luncheons" ... :lol: That's a good line.

The Sox-Yankees games would have players wearing helmets on the field for fear of being struck in the head with batteries, bottles, etc. I've seen cherry bombs go off on the field while the players were out there. I've seen many a brawl in the stands at the games and, for that matter, on the field.

Our high school rivalry has definitely toned down a lot. There used to be many, many brawls, before, after and during the games.

There's no doubt there's more civility in the U.S. compared to the other places. I can only recall a few high school basketball and football games where they were played in empty gyms because of the violence with the fans. But, unfortunately, we see that quite often in many of the soccer matches. We have had some isolated morons in the last few years arrested for attacking officials, but, like you said, nothing to compare to what we see overseas .... Thank God for that!


----------



## Chandu

Yeah, these videos are few examples of what goes on during Galatasaray vs. Fenerbahce derby matches in Istanbul. They defy the word "insanity". I'm absolutely certain I have no desire to be trapped anywhere in the middle of such insanity, as I'm sure I'll suffer from a heart attack.


----------



## DawgLink

I laughed at soccer until I went to Europe last summer for a Summer School session and got to be around Germany & Italy during their World Cup runs.

I am the biggest SEC fan around....crazy, crazy for college football

But being around Munich, Vienna, Venice, Prague and other cities during the World Cup made me realize that the World Cup really is the craziest thing on Planet Earth. 

It wasn't even close. I have been to Super Bowls, Sugar Bowls, Big College Football Rivalry games, ext....NOT....EVEN....CLOSE

I thought I was in a video game after Germany lost to Italy in the Semi's (or was it Quarters?)....people were rioting across the city...it was CRAZY

Watched the Final in front of 20k-25k on just one huge-ass TV in the middle of a city in Germany


----------



## Chandu

DawgLink said:


> I thought I was in a video game after Germany lost to Italy in the Semi's (or was it Quarters?)....


Semis. Your memory is correct.

If you were on German soil during the Germany vs. Poland group stage match, I envy you. That was an absolutely classic thriller, with tension all the way till the end of the match. Germany attacked in waves after waves and missed a number of close chances. Till very late, things were hanging in the balance. If my memory serves right, I think Germany were in danger of being eliminated had they lost. And like steam blowing off of a pressure cooker, late in stoppage time of 2nd half, there was a beautiful cross from the right side of the box by Odonkor to Oliver Neuville (who had just come on on as a substitute) who made no mistake. The entire nation shrieked with an orgasm in unison at a singular moment. To see Juergen Klinsmann having virtual heart attacks on the sideline going through up and down emotions, and then celebrating like a madman after the steam whistle blew, it was like an instant classic had been created.

Here are couple of video highlights for it.











On the other hand, the Germany vs. Portugal 3rd place match was totally different. It was as if the entire nation was celebrating a huge closing party, a carnival!! Unlike all previous matches, there wasn't as much tension since there was no championship on the line. Germany had exceeded all expectations with a very young team by even making it to semi-finals. Also, unlike traditional "boring style" played by German national teams in years before, this young German team groomed by a young Klinsmann played a very entertaining, attacking football. Klinsmann's residence in California had been severely criticized by German press before World Cup began, but what they got as an end product was very refreshing. There was nothing boring about this Germany. As they say, "This is not your father's German national team". Since Klinsmann was saying nothing about his future as his contract was ending, it was assumed that this was his last match in charge. The 3rd place match was almost like a thank you party for Klinsmann who was assumed to be going back to California. Who's who of all German celebrities including Michael Schumacher, Boris Becker were in the house. Here is a video highlight for this one:


----------



## purtman

Very interesting one here. I'll have to see if I can find it. Apparently, last week in the Toronto suburbs, there was another incident of a fan attacking a referee. The scary part is that it was the mom of a player in the eight-and-under league attacking a 14-year-old girl referee. Here is the recount from the Toronto Globe & Mail:

*Nick Kyonka
Staff Reporter

It's Sunday afternoon and a semifinal soccer match is dissolving into screaming and shoving. A referee is accosted, a supporter punched, a police officer - who tries to intervene - scratched. Arrests are made and an embarrassed team is withdrawn from the tournament.

Think we're talking about World Cup play? Not even close. These histrionics took place at an "under-8" match for boys in Pickering on the weekend. The referee? A 14-year-old girl.

Now, an irate soccer mom who disagreed with the girl's officiating faces assault charges. Her husband is also charged.

"Incidents like this are very rare and sometime parents get heated or passionate about the game," said Shelly Augustin of the Pickering Soccer Club. "It's an incident and it's unfortunate that it happened but we had people on hand who were able to handle it quickly."

The outburst came during the dying moments of a semifinal match of the kids' tournament, in Diana, Princess of Wales Park near Kingston Rd. and Brock Rd., police said.

A team from Hillcrest had battled a team from Wexford, and were moments away from winning the game when the mother of a Hillcrest player took exception to a call by the teenaged ref.

When the referee's father tried to intervene to protect her, the woman allegedly punched him in the face, yelling at both of them.

That's when off-duty Durham Region police Det. Tom Dingwall, who was watching a game on an opposite field, overheard the commotion and decided to investigate.

"I was ... there watching a game and identified myself and arrested the female for assault," said Dingwall. "She began resisting, pulling away and digging her nails into my hand and her husband ... became involved and began pulling me away from his wife ..."

Both the woman and man were arrested, but worse was the message sent to the kids, Dingwall said.

"This type of behaviour won't be tolerated at the professional level, the rep level or the house-league level," he said. "We have to send a clear message to the kids to respect the referees and that message starts with the parents."

Though they won the game 3-1, the Hillcrest coach decided to withdraw the team from the tourney.

The kids were presented with participation trophies anyway. "Just because of a parent's frustration shouldn't mean the kids should be penalized," said Augustin.

The referee, Van Viet, went on to officiate the finals.

The Ontario Soccer Association will review the case to see if any disciplinary action will be taken against the parents - such as banning them from future games - and to see if there is any way the incident could have been prevented.

Sandra Gutierrez, 39, and Sergio Vazquez-Lopez, 41, both face charges of assaulting an officer and assault while resisting arrest.

Gutierrez also faces an additional assault charge.

The incident comes in the shadow of an attack on officials at an Under-20 World Cup match between Chile and Argentina last Thursday.

Also a semifinal match, the heated affair featured several controversial calls by referees, which led to attempts by some of the Chilean players to attack the officials as time ran out.

Though some of the other Chilean players held their teammates back, police were called to intervene.
*


----------



## Ira Lacher

As a referee, I have had a few games where fans -- parents -- stormed the pitch. Since I believe the team is responsible for its fans, I go to the coach of the unruly "supporter's" team and instruct him or her to get that fan off or I will abandon the match.


----------



## purtman

Ira, 
I currently umpire softball. One of the big things I have to do is have the players get back in the dugout. I tell them one player on deck and one in the coach's box. They still wander out. Last night, I had one player say "we're grown. We know enough to stay out of the way." So I said, "Good. Then I don't have to tell you to stay in there." There are some players who will complain about everything. Sadly, there are a lot of parents out there who will too.
My all-time favorite occurred years ago while umpiring a Little League farm-team game. I was 14 as was my friend who was behind the plate. Another friend umpired first. He was 13. Well, there were parents on both sides who just wouldn't shut up. So my friend Doug, who was behind the plate, took off his mask. He pointed at both sides and "Now you (the fans on the first base side) shut up and you (the fans over beyond third) shut up and let the kids play ball." The parents applauded and actually let the kids play.


----------



## James Long

OT for a soccer thread, but here's a story from yesterday:

Girl, 12, dies from softball head injury
A 12-year-old softball player suffered a brain injury when she was hit in the head with a ball during practice, and died a day later, police and family said.

Also this week ...
MLB mourns death of minor league coach
Coolbaugh, 35, died Sunday after being struck in the head by a line drive as he stood in the first-base coach's box during a game in Arkansas.

Stay out of the way ... behind the fence is best.


----------



## purtman

James Long said:


> OT for a soccer thread, but here's a story from yesterday:
> 
> Girl, 12, dies from softball head injury
> A 12-year-old softball player suffered a brain injury when she was hit in the head with a ball during practice, and died a day later, police and family said.
> 
> Also this week ...
> MLB mourns death of minor league coach
> Coolbaugh, 35, died Sunday after being struck in the head by a line drive as he stood in the first-base coach's box during a game in Arkansas.
> 
> Stay out of the way ... behind the fence is best.


Scary part for me is I got a concussion years ago playing softball. I took a knee in the head, right where Coolbaugh was struck. Fortunately, I was eventually okay. I had short-term memory issues for about six weeks. I couldn't remember my girlfriend's name for a couple of minutes and it took me about 20 minutes to remember any of my teammates' names. It was scary then. Now that I see what happened to these two, it's even scarier now.


----------



## paja

Lord Vader said:


> Why do so many Americans dislike soccer? Simple: IT'S *BORING*.
> 
> I can think of better things to do than to watch guys run all over the place trying to kick a ball into a net once a game (twice if they're lucky).
> 
> Watching paint dry excites me more than does soccer.


Couldn't have said it better:lol:


----------



## Chandu

purtman said:


> Very interesting one here. I'll have to see if I can find it. Apparently, last week in the Toronto suburbs, there was another incident of a fan attacking a referee. The scary part is that it was the mom of a player in the eight-and-under league attacking a 14-year-old girl referee. Here is the recount from the Toronto Globe & Mail:
> 
> ....long article cut-and-paste and few other off-topic replies to this deleted...


Unsure what relevance this has with the general topic of the thread. I'm sure I've read stories in the past about idiot parents at little league baseball attacking umpires or coaches, but one wouldn't bring that up in threads discussing professional baseball like Yankees or White Sox or whoever.

(Anyway, I also have a general question/comment about cutting and pasting full articles from outside sources. I thought in general that was not considered cool due to potential for copyright violations, and posting a link to the article instead was the policy?  )

Now that I got that out of the way, I wished to set the record straight for something else and offer an apology. Back when we were not in the most polite form in this thread, I had written this sarcastic post on July 8th:



Chandu said:


> He stated that soccer *DOES NOT* have an overtime to decide a winner. Ever. And so is a stupid sport.
> 
> Did he make such a statement or not?
> 
> I would like either celtipride or you (defender of his post) to list World Championships (or any soccer championship) decided exclusively on penalty kicks *WITHOUT PLAYING OVERTIME*.
> 
> Come on, I'm waiting!!!!


It's ironical that 2 days after making that post, on July 10 Uruguay and Brasil were playing each other in the semi-final of Copa America (South American championships), the score was tied 2-2 at full-time. And instead of playing any extra time, they proceeded directly to penalty kicks and decided a winner!!!!

 ?!?!?! Yes, I was pretty confused too.

There is no other league or major competition in the world which does something as weird as this. But apparently, after golden goal rule in extra time (American translation: sudden death goal in overtime) was eliminated, FIFA left it up to individual tournaments, leagues to decide whether they wanted to play extra time at all, strongly recommending extra time. But it's not mandatory, and apparently CONMEBOL (South American federation) took a radical decision that they will play no extra times for Copa America matches. I think they did it in interest of TV channels which wanted better control over scheduling other content.

I was completely unaware of this exception which only one major competition in the world is following. In fact, Sepp Blatter (FIFA chief) went on record on July 13 stating that he actually likes this way of deciding matches better. His argument is that since golden goal rule in extra time has been eliminated, the point and excitement behind extra time has diminished. Read all about it here:

http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news?slug=reu-copablatter

Now, it is true that Blatter has a habit of spewing out verbal diarrhea and assorted inanities anytime he opens his mouth. So his comments have to be taken with a grain of salt. But my point is that something I adamantly believed doesn't exist in fact does. In the interest of honesty, I wish to apologize for my previous post. Nobody has even brought this point up and forced me to do this, but I think saying pre-emptive sorry for this mistake is the right thing to do.

After having thought more about this, I don't necessarily feel this method of either enforcing an extra-time or completely skipping it would make the sport categorically "STUPID". So I don't even want to go into that line of argument.


----------



## Chandu

HDMe said:


> One of the oddities to me, in American sports... the NFL is recognized as being #1 most popular... and yet every owner says the survival of their franchise depends on a new stadium that has more luxury seating. Not necessarily increased total seating capacity for fans... but more expensive-entry luxury boxes.
> 
> To me that tends to imply either that they know expanding for more fans at regular ticket prices wouldn't gain them money because they don't have enough fans... or that they want to drive away regular fans to make room for more fat-cats.
> 
> Seems kind of counter-productive if the NFL is that popular. To my thinking, if they are the #1 fan favorite sport... and fans are not buying tickets enough to support it that they need more luxury box seating... maybe it isn't as popular as they want us to think?
> 
> Keep in mind that like football, but it is hard to miss this quandry.


I had been giving more thought to this, and one angle which hasn't been considered in discussing this (apart from luxury boxes) is the economics of sports broadcasting. Without a doubt, sports economic landscape has evolved over past 13-14 years radically. Due to big TV revenues, the relative importance of revenue from regular season ticket holder base has diminished.

Tracing back the time line for this a bit:

Around 1992-93 when former First Football Division in England was dissolved and a newly polished "English Premiership" with shiny new stadiums was launched, it needed matching shiny TV coverage. It helped that satellite TV technology and internet were also picking up at the same time. BSkyB, a division of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp made an absurdly extravagant bid for coverage of this new Premiership on their newly launched Sky Sports channels. This bid literally sent shock waves through sports broadcasting business. Most traditional media till that point such as BBC, ITV, Channel 4 were incredulous or openly hostile at such business tactics and declared it arrogant. They were secretly hoping it would be short-lived and eventually fail. They certainly didn't have the financial muscle to fight such new bullies.

Having learnt from this success with English Premiership deal in UK, in 1994 a relatively new US division of same News Corp - Fox Sports - made a similarly outrageous bid for NFL coverage in USA. Once again, same result and this sent shock waves through US media industry - the traditionals CBS, ABC, NBC. What happened past that point is of course history. All of those other networks got drawn into a spiral of making even bigger and bigger bids, guaranteeing big pies of TV revenue to NFL team owners.

Would I specifically blame Rupert Murdoch for having started this trend in mid-90's in UK followed by USA, due to which importance of regular season ticket holder fans diminished? No. Technological changes and other changes to landscape were inevitable. If not Murdoch, it would've been some others who would've started these changes. Whatever it is, one thing is for sure that we're never going back to those days before mid 1990s, when a regular fan meant much more to sports team owners.


----------



## purtman

Chandu said:


> Unsure what relevance this has with the general topic of the thread. I'm sure I've read stories in the past about idiot parents at little league baseball attacking umpires or coaches, but one wouldn't bring that up in threads discussing professional baseball like Yankees or White Sox or whoever.


I just used it as an example in comparison to some of the European soccer matches where refs are attacked.



> (Anyway, I also have a general question/comment about cutting and pasting full articles from outside sources. I thought in general that was not considered cool due to potential for copyright violations, and posting a link to the article instead was the policy?  )


You're right. I should have used the link. I had originally copied it into an e-mail to look at it later on. I couldn't find the link afterwards and that's why I made sure I referenced the Toronto Globe and Mail.


----------



## Chandu

Watching a united Iraq team made up of Shi'ia, Sunni and Kurdish players beating Saudi Arabia for Asian championship earlier Sunday was one of the most amazing Cinderella story in sport I've ever seen!! This is not only a sports story, it's also a human interest story. Simply incredible!!!

What this also means is that USA will now play against Iraq in Confederations Cup in South Africa in 2009. USA qualified by virtue of winning Gold Cup last month, Iraq winning Asian Cup. That will be quite some event transcending beyond sports borders. That has got to generate major headlines.


----------



## Chandu

Considering that Setanta Sports became available today on DISH network (on free preview till early September), it opens up a whole new customer base to be able to watch tons of soccer.


----------



## JohnL

I really do not get how Soccer is considering boring to Americans.

Sure Soccer games are low scoring, but again so are Many Baseball games. Added to that is how a NO Hitter is one of the most exciting occurrences in Baseball.

Let me get this straight a Game where nobody from one Team actually gets on Base is exciting, hmmm.

Scoring can be overrated, case in point Basketball, there is so much scoring each score is almost meaningless. Besides we all know that 90 percent of Basketball games are decided within the last 2 minutes of the game. Why bother watching it until half way into the Fourth Quarter! Question, why does Basketball have 4 quarters since Nothing occurs at the Quarter transition?

Soccer can be exciting, at least each Goal adds some meaning to the game. 

How about Football, Americas most favorite sport. There are games that go 21-7 that means only Four scores happen. I've seen many MLS or other Soccer games have more than 4 scores.

Has our attention spans been so harmed that we can't watch a sport where a score does NOT occur every 5-10 minutes.

John


----------



## djlong

Soccer just can't translate to a small screen - you need to see the whole field to 'get' the strategies. Widening the shot to *do* that means that you can't see the ball or tell one player form another. I think large HDTV sets will help soccer be more popular.

Baseball is another matter entirely. A no-hitter has the drama of the pitcher vs batter duel on EVERY PITCH. It's *extremely* rare (a perfect game even more rare) as well. Baseball has advantages in that there's no such thing as running out the clock. If you can't make the other side spend ALL 27 outs, you don't win - just ask the 2004 Yankees or the 1986 Red Sox about that.


----------



## faspina

The problem with soccer has nothing to do with scoring or lack of scoring. Its simple. 

Between Baseball, Football and Basketball and Soccer very few people played soccer growing up. They cannot identify with those player out on the field. Most people played baseball or softball, football in some form, and basketball. Heck basketball you can play int he drive way or on the playground. In baseball they identify what its like to face a pitcher 

While they might have kicked the ball around, the other 3 sports is what they grew up watching and identifing. In order for soccer to be popular, it will have to maintain focus for many generations. 

Golf on TV is boring, but people that play golf identify with players going out one day and shooting -3 going out the next and shooting +5. IN other words they identify with golfs ability to make someone inconsistent. 

In football, you can play touch in the street, tackle on a field. And between the NFL and college it is very popular. Div 1 college football draws 60k to 100k people for games. Many college can't afford both women and mens soccer teams. 

The fact is there is just no room soccer and something has to give for it to be popular. In my opinion it rates just has high has NHL, very few people play hockey thus very few people watch it.


----------



## Chandu

faspina said:


> Between Baseball, Football and Basketball and Soccer very few people played soccer growing up.


Assuming your background is based on your location in profile (Alabama) - kids didn't grow up playing in AYSO in Alabama?



> They cannot identify with those player out on the field.


It's quite possibly true where you're located. Where I'm, it's not uncommon for kids in spontaneous youth play take up role playing names like Ronaldinho, Henry or even Landon Donovan etc. There are some regional differences in this as well.


----------



## Dolly

More and more children are playing soccer in the U.S. Because for one thing it is a very cheap sport to play. You don't need a lot of special expensive equipment for the game. Me I hate it :raspberry Running around on a big field and kicking a ball into a huge net with only one guy to try to keep the ball from going in that huge net :zzz:


----------



## djlong

Dolly: People have been saying that since I was a kid - all those kids playing soccer (I was one of them for a while). I'm 44 and soccer is marginally more popular now than it was back then (in this country).


----------



## Chandu

Dolly said:


> Running around on a big field and kicking a ball into a huge net with only one guy to try to keep the ball from going in that huge net


I thought there is something called a back-line, you know fullbacks and centerbacks whose purpose is to keep the ball for the other team from going into goal? Those guys whose job is to make crunching tackles, keep possession and are either goalkeeper's best friends or worst enemies?!?!


----------



## Steve Mehs

> Has our attention spans been so harmed that we can't watch a sport where a score does NOT occur every 5-10 minutes.


Not scoring, but scoring opportunities. Many hockey games end in a 1-0 score, but are much more exciting then any soccer game. Many more scoring opportunities with a lot of action taking place near the net, not the middle of a large field. During the average Sabres game, I only sit down during the commercials, otherwise I'm right in front of the TV yelling and making hand gestures. Hockey is also much more fast paced.


----------



## purtman

Steve Mehs said:


> Not scoring, but scoring opportunities. Many hockey games end in a 1-0 score, but are much more exciting then any soccer game. Many more scoring opportunities with a lot of action taking place near the net, not the middle of a large field. During the average Sabres game, I only sit down during the commercials, otherwise I'm right in front of the TV yelling and making hand gestures. Hockey is also much more fast paced.


As Steve said, low-scoring games can be great. One of the best games I ever saw in all of sports was Game Four of the Stanley Cup finals (I don't remember the year) where Colorado defeated Florida, 1-0, in three overtimes. There were 120 shots on goal (in hockey, SOG are only recorded if the goalie makes a save or it is a goal) before Uwe Krupp finally beat John Vanbiesbrouck. Ironically, the Stanley Cup winning game has not been decided in the third period since 1992. Yet, the finals have been nailbiters, regardless of the series standing or the score. It doesn't have to be great scoring to be a great game.


----------



## Steve Mehs

As far as I’m concerned, there is nothing like playoff hockey. The intensity is unreal, and once you start getting into multiple OTs, that’s when it heats up. 

One of the best hockey games I saw recently went almost scoreless. Sabres Miracle on Ice May 4th 2007. Best birthday present I could have got, other than seeing it in person at the Arena. Rangers/Sabres Game 5 of Round 2. 0-0 at the end of 1, 0-0 at the end of 2, Rangers score with about 7 minutes left to go in the 3rd. Sabres pull Miller at the end. Final faceoff, Sabres score with 7.7 seconds left. In OT Sabres get on the power play pretty early, they fail to convert, Sabres get another power play Afanaganov scores about 6 minutes into the period. Game over, 2-1 Buffalo. Sabres tied up a game against Ottawa in Round 3 about a week later with 6.2 seconds left in the game, but that didn’t have such a happy ending.


----------



## Chandu

Absolutely fabulous level of publicity provided to DC United mad-as-hell fanatics by their local newspaper Washington Post this week. They had a picture to this story on the front-page of the paper as well as big amount of coverage in Style section.










Article

Audio and tons of great fan atmosphere picture gallary

Cool video documenting these fanatics


----------



## DawgLink

Steve Mehs said:


> As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing like playoff hockey. The intensity is unreal, and once you start getting into multiple OTs, that's when it heats up.


----------



## Steve Mehs

I feel the same way when it comes to that 'sport' called soccer.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I think it's because Americans don't know how to properly say "GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL!!!"


----------



## texasmoose

Soccer players feign injuries too much......................

And like hockey there is not enough scoring................


----------



## Chandu

Meanwhile in Toronto, Ontario (Canada, the land where sport of ice hockey was born according to most historical accounts), the crazy fanatic supporters of Toronto FC set the benchmark for the best fan atmosphere in all of MLS!!! Of course, these are not "Americans (as a whole)". But they're North American no less, and are raising the bar for fan support for rest of American fans of MLS teams.





















Trans World International story:





 Skip to 4:26 mark in the video if only interested in fan support story.

Various post-match revelry:
















Showing in incredibly good numbers on an away trip to Toyota Park, Chicago, outsinging Chicago home supporters:






Very well done to these die-hards up in Toronto, keep that fantastic spirit!!!










Not to be outdone, in Houston, Texas fans called Texian Army for Houston Dynamo (a team which happened to be bitterly hijacked from under our noses in San Jose, but I'm finally able to get past my personal grudges now that we've got our team back next year) in their best spirit:

Mocking David Beckham in a chant in first video:
















Section 8, fanatic supporter group of Chicago FC in Toyota Park:






Timbers Army in Portland, Oregon and these guys don't even have an MLS team. They only have a USL team (consider it minor league), but they live and breathe for it. Tons and tons of kudos, guys!!!



















There, we have some of the best documented fanatic supporters in Washington, DC, Toronto, Chicago, Houston, and growing and growing elsewhere in USA and hopefully Canada. It's irrelevant who the "Americans (as a whole)" who dislike the sport as long as this die-hard fanatical segment keeps growing. Which it is. And that's all that matters for the suit-and-tie business people involved with this sport in this country.


----------



## purtman

texasmoose said:


> Soccer players feign injuries too much......................
> 
> And like hockey there is not enough scoring................


-1

Soccer's not my favorite sport, but I've seen my share. I can't say I have see a lot of players feign injuries.

For that matter, hockey has its moments where scoring is low. I certainly wouldn't say overall that that's the case.


----------



## purtman

Chandu, I'm not sure I would consider Toronto as being a true North American representation. It's a blend of citizens from so many different areas. I'm sure Houston has its share of Mexicans. However, Portland, Washington, and Chicago have a pretty good representation of Americans. I'd have to say you have some pretty valid points.


----------



## Chandu

purtman said:


> Chandu, I'm not sure I would consider Toronto as being a true North American representation.


Why is that?

Toronto is the New York of Canada. As Toronto turns, so does rest of Canada. That's where the biggest finance and media centres (note the correct Canadian spelling) of Canada are located. It's a true melting pot just like New York. I love Toronto, always have. You cannot disregard Toronto to be not North American like, just because it is such a blend. By that equation, you would have to disregard New York when talking about things USA, something you wouldn't seriously do. Toronto and New York are huge metropolis in Canada and USA respectively, and what happens there is important for those 2 countries.


----------



## purtman

Chandu said:


> Why is that?
> 
> Toronto is the New York of Canada. As Toronto turns, so does rest of Canada. That's where the biggest finance and media centres (note the correct Canadian spelling) of Canada are located. It's a true melting pot just like New York. I love Toronto, always have. You cannot disregard Toronto to be not North American like, just because it is such a blend. By that equation, you would have to disregard New York when talking about things USA, something you wouldn't seriously do. Toronto and New York are huge metropolis in Canada and USA respectively, and what happens there is important for those 2 countries.


Good point. Let me reword this. The New York soccer fans are fans who still have more of an allegiance to their native countries. I listen to several New York sports stations every day at work and the people who have been there for a while rarely call in for that. I think folks from Toronto still carry more of their ethnic heritage.

By the way, I did notice the Canadian spelling for "centre". My grandparents were from Canada so I got use to a lot of those spellings (center, harbour, etc.) growing up.


----------



## Chandu

Meanwhile: Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!! 66,237 in attendance tonight in New Jersey for an incredible MLS match - and purely for an MLS match between NY Red Bulls vs. LA Galaxy only, in which high quality 9 goals rained in all! No other gimmicks like combined with Mexican national team or Mexican super-club, no other international friendly, none of that!! This sort of attendance is approaching Manchester United or Bayern Muenchen territory!!!!

Here, attendance in box score at bottom:

http://web.mlsnet.com/scoreboard/game.jsp?match=08182007_LANY

And the best part was that, this was not 66,237 of ice-cream or hot-dog eating, occasionally clapping mom and pop with kiddies, dog-and-pony-show kind of attendance. This was 66,237 with majority hardcore fans of the sport (they may not have been NY Red Bulls or MLS fans, but might become after tonight), singing, reveling, taunting, great atmosphere a professional sporting event should have.

This is SIMPLY INCREDIBLE!!!! Yes, this is coming from me, someone who has followed this sport in USA for 20+ years and is most times quite conservative when making observations about it. Some of the best players did lay everything they've got on the line, rising to an occasion like this - Juan Pablo Angel, Josmer Altidore, Clint Mathis, David Beckham, Landon Donovan. This was simply remarkable!! If MLS keeps recruiting proper talent and emphasizes matches to be played with such intensity level they will be laughing their way to the bank. All this while Americans (as a whole) keep disliking the sport?!?!?!?


----------



## Chandu

purtman said:


> The New York soccer fans are fans who still have more of an allegiance to their native countries. I listen to several New York sports stations every day at work and the people who have been there for a while rarely call in for that. I think folks from Toronto still carry more of their ethnic heritage.


I absolutely agree with you - 100% and more.

The biggest difference in Toronto compared to New York is that the owners of this new team Toronto FC learned from the mistakes of other MLS teams. Instead of trying to sell it to the kiddie soccer and their parents crowd, they went around in all soccer pubs in the city. They sold their team to the kind of crowd who were busy watching English Premiership, Portuguese Superliga, Italian Serie A etc. And there are thousands of them in Toronto every weekend morning during European club seasons. Of course they didn't have to sell them the sport as a professional product, they're dyed in the wool with it. They didn't have to teach them the way to support, the singing and reveling, drumming, confetti, none of that. It's already in their blood. They didn't dilute their product with gimmicks appealing to kids, like organ music over PA piped in the middle of action, selling cheap juvenile merchandise for kids on speakers before corners or free kicks are taken, none of that. Also, having a brand new stadium dedicated to their team on opening day, with a prime downtown location right in front of CN Tower, that also helped grabbing interest of hardcore fans of the sport. (As far as how they managed to achieve such an amazing feat, it is a long story. Ask me separately, if interested.) Somehow, unlike New York, in Toronto those people immediately took allegiance to the MLS team. They did it without discarding allegiance to whatever other teams they support in foreign lands.

BTW, talking about New York, notice my earlier update about the historical MLS match in New Jersey tonight. I'm by no means claiming all those people will suddenly take to their NY Red Bulls MLS team or MLS in general. However, there is strong precedent for it. One by one, MLS is definitely taking the right steps.


----------



## purtman

Chandu, I agree with you about the MLS taking the right process "step by step". That's the only way to do it. Taking the game to the true lovers of the sport is the only way to do it. You said you used to live in New England. I don't know if you recall, but Foxboro Stadium (or whatever it was called at the time) used to hold international soccer games. Those games used to draw pretty well.


----------



## Chandu

purtman said:


> Chandu, I agree with you about the MLS taking the right process "step by step". That's the only way to do it. Taking the game to the true lovers of the sport is the only way to do it. You said you used to live in New England. I don't know if you recall, but Foxboro Stadium (or whatever it was called at the time) used to hold international soccer games. Those games used to draw pretty well.


Yes, I remember it and even now internationals involving Mexico, USA or other big name countries draw big attendances in all of USA. I used to live in central Maine in those days, too far from Foxboro. Also as a student, I was too poor to drive such a long distance or pay for an international.

Anyway, it is a bit unfair to compare attendances of internationals with regular season games of any league. As a rule, internationals are one-off events in a city with novelty factor. They are pre-planned, and have dedicated marketing behind them. None of that applies to regular season league games.

Outside of NFL, German Bundesliga and AFL in Australia, I don't know of too many top level pro leagues in the world that draw big attendances week in, week out. In case of NFL, there are very few regular season home games per season, and result of every individual game has enormous implications. Same thing is true for AFL as well, and the AFL matches are played in Australian cricket grounds with huge capacities. (Melbourne Cricket Ground which is considered the home of football and hosts large percent of regular season matches has a capacity of just over 100,000.) In case of Bundesliga, the reason attendances are so good is because the Germans have intentionally maintained lower ticket prices to favor bigger crowds. They openly encourage standing-only terraces and singing for hardcore supporters for cheaper ticket prices. I read somewhere that in some German stadiums, it is possible to attend top level Bundesliga matches in standing-only section for only 15 Euros!! After the re-construction of stadiums for big teams in 1990s, such low prices would be inconceivable at Premiership matches in England. Given the supporter friendly culture in Germany, it is little surprise that Bundesliga stadium atmosphere comes out looking so much better. For most big teams you see seas and seas of crowd in one color, e.g. Borussia Dortmund is one big yellow sea, Stuttgart or Bayern Muenchen are sea of red, Werder Bremen is a sea of green, Schalke is a sea of blue, etc.

What does all this mean for MLS? Simple. They need to keep realistic expectations about average season attendances. Given their modest stadium capacities, it is a given that they'll be nowhere close to NFL or Bundesliga levels. Obviously these stadium capacities are part of the step-by-step process. Attendances like yesterday won't be the norm, because they won't be holding majority of events in stadiums like Giants Stadium.


----------



## Chandu

Saturday's NY Red Bulls vs. LA Galaxy video highlights are up, this one was an instant classic. Everything MLS executives could have ever hoped for, and more. Just the crowd atmosphere there was amazing, something MLS guys hadn't been used to so far:

mms://a1503.v115042.c11504.g.vm.aka...1504/2007/open/gp/08/081807_lagrbn_gp_350.wmv

For those who can't bring up Windows media player, a bit poorer quality for same video in YouTube version:


----------



## purtman

OK, Chandu. I'm looking at the times of your posts and wondering, "Does he ever sleep?" :lol


----------



## DawgLink

Steve Mehs said:


> I feel the same way when it comes to that 'sport' called soccer.


Eh, I am not even that big of a soccer fan.

But Hockey? Did 99% of the country even know it started and finished this year? :lol:


----------



## purtman

DawgLink said:


> But Hockey? Did 99% of the country even know it started and finished this year? :lol:


Just those of us with electricity. Did you guys in Louisiana get it yet?:lol:


----------



## Chandu

purtman said:


> OK, Chandu. I'm looking at the times of your posts and wondering, "Does he ever sleep?" :lol


Huh. Let's just say I'm in a different timezone or perpetually jet-lagged. 

You won't see too many posts from me during the morning hours in this timezone.

Anyway, I just watched a pretty good interview from Lew Wolff, the owner of Oakland A's baseball team in which he presented his plans for building a brand new stadium for San Jose Earthquakes MLS team. His hope is to have it open in 2009. I'm pretty stoked.


----------



## Steve Mehs

DawgLink said:


> Eh, I am not even that big of a soccer fan.
> 
> But Hockey? Did 99% of the country even know it started and finished this year? :lol:


Don't give a damn what anyone thinks or knows. Same could be said for soccer. Like I said in this thread a few weeks ago, I'm not Chandu. I'm not here to try to talk anyone into liking or following hockey or impress with numbers. I enjoy it, and that's all that matters and it is a way of life here in Buffalo, along with Detroit, Minneapolis and others. If it's not your thing that's cool.

Soccer numbers don't impress me. Just because there's good numbers doesn't mean the sport is any good. NASCAR numbers improve every year, and that has turned into crap. The sport was better when next to know one followed it.

33 Days until the first Sabres Preseason game, 47 days until the season opener.


----------



## purtman

Steve Mehs,
Here's the deal. Many people like football because of the "action" . The average NFL game has between 12-14 minutes of action. The NHL has 60 minutes of action. When I was playing hockey regularly I was 6-3 1/2, 245 solid. Add another inch or so for skates and another 20 pounds for pads. On top of that, if I hit a guy full speed, that's close to 25 mph. When somebody hits, he doesn't land on grass. He lands on solid ice. If he's near the boards, they do give a little bit but not much. I love football, but the action in an NFL game doesn't come close to rivaling an NHL game.
You said you are a Sabres' fan. Just think of how many people you know who didn't like hockey and then went to a game. Usually blown away, aren't they? Those who say they love the action in football and rag on hockey are just missing out.


----------



## DawgLink

purtman said:


> Just those of us with electricity.


Outdoor Life Network? Nobody watched, Nobody cared



> "You look at the playoff [ratings] numbers, and they have been beaten pretty soundly by poker and *bowling*," said Paul Swangard, managing director of the Warsaw Sports Marketing Center at the University of Oregon.


Bowling people....BOWLING


----------



## Steve Mehs

I think both the NFL and NHL are action packed, just in different ways. Baseball, well it's more anticipation and suspense. I throughly enjoyed the Tigers/Yankees game this afternoon. One thing I like about hockey, and this applies to basketball and soccer as well, is they play to the end. Not like in football where if the team in the lead has the ball they'll take a few kneels.

I got out of hockey for a few years and when I got back into it I forgot how much action is involved and how close things actually are. I haven't been to a Sabres game in a few years now, but this year I'll be going to a few games. And I should be at the Titans/Bills preseason game this Friday to support my Titans. 

DawgLink, ratings don't mean jack to me. The Stanley Cup finals could be lower ratings then a ping pong match and that wouldn't mean anything to me. I don't need numbers to back me up and make me feel important, I like what I like. I hear American Idol is the #1 TV show in the country, you couldn't pay me enough to watch amatures ripping off other peoples songs. 

As for no one caring, no one may care in Katrinaville but I invite you up here to SabreNation next month. Or next April when it comes playoff time, you can't drive a 1/2 a mile without seeing business having Sabres banners and signs on their buildings supporting the team. Hockey like soccer will never be accepted as a huge national sport in America or all of America, but who the hell really cares.


----------



## DawgLink

Steve Mehs said:


> DawgLink, ratings don't mean jack to me. The Stanley Cup finals could be lower ratings then a ping pong match and that wouldn't mean anything to me. I don't need numbers to back me up and make me feel important, I like what I like.


I don't really care if they mean anything to you. I just wanted to show all these Pro-Hockey people how little their sport is looked upon in this country. Just as soccer is looked upon so lowly in this country even with Beckham playing.

Another year on a channel nobody knows exists and you may be fighting the WNBA for ratings.



> As for no one caring, no one may care in Katrinaville


Are you actually trying to insult me by mocking New Orleans with Katrina?

I have lived in Detroit. Been to Buffalo. I have seen the Hockey craze...still don't care nor was that impressed by any of it. Been to a Red Wings game, Been to a Capitols game, Been to a Devils game....almost feel asleep at all of them and judging by the TV ratings....the entire country feels the same way.


----------



## Steve Mehs

> I just wanted to show all these Pro-Hockey people how little their sport is looked upon in this country.


Thank you for stating the obvious. Hockey fans realize their sport isn't accepted on a national level, Soccer fans like Chandu do not.



> Are you actually trying to insult me by mocking New Orleans with Katrina?


Uh, no. It comes from the new Fox show about New Orleans, K-Ville, in which the K stands for Katrina. You have a problem with it talk to the folks at Fox Broadcasting or News Corp. And please explain to me how I'm running away from the fact when I've clearly said "Hockey like soccer will never be accepted as a huge national sport in America or all of America, but who the hell really cares". You need to read and comprehend better. And you also need to understand the NHL is regional in the US, just like soccer. Just because you know of no die hard fans, doesn't mean they don't exist.


----------



## Steve Mehs

> I have lived in Detroit. Been to Buffalo. I have seen the Hockey craze...still don't care nor was that impressed by any of it. Been to a Red Wings game, Been to a Capitols game, Been to a Devils game....almost feel asleep at all of them and judging by the TV ratings....the entire country feels the same way.


That's you're opinion and I respect that. I wish you could wake up and return the thought. You can't expect everyone to like the samething. But it doesn't mean anything to me personally. I like a lot of things others don't, and others like things I don't. I'm not going to get upset about it, it's called life.


----------



## DawgLink

Steve Mehs said:


> You can't expect everyone to like the same thing.


My marriage attests that I don't feel that way.


----------



## Chandu

Steve Mehs said:


> Like I said in this thread a few weeks ago, I'm not Chandu. I'm not here to try to talk anyone into liking or following hockey or impress with numbers.





Steve Mehs said:


> Hockey fans realize their sport isn't accepted on a national level, Soccer fans like Chandu do not.


Alright now, I've stayed out of all these hockey related punch-bags I couldn't care less about one way or another. But since you keep dragging my name into this, and since you're giving advice of "read and comprehend better" to others, I feel a reverse dose is in order here.

Here, right from this thread itself:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=900587&postcount=80



Chandu said:


> Which is exactly why soccer is going to remain a niche sport in USA for a long time.


http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=900591&postcount=81



Chandu said:


> The reverse argument applies to a young league like MLS as well, which is only in its 12th season. Anyone here remembers when NBA was in its 12th season? I don't expect MLS to be able to break out of the niche barrier even after 10 years.


http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=997685&postcount=172



purtman said:


> Chandu, Soccer will never be a major sport here...





Chandu said:


> You mean, I don't know that already? Nothing in my posts has given that away by now?....I couldn't care less if even one more person takes interest in the sport as a result of anything I write. That's none of my concern.


Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## Steve Mehs

You're correct, I read it, but didn't comprehend. I was wrong.


----------



## DawgLink

FYI, I will be in one of the first episodes of K-Ville 

Being serious though


----------



## jcurrier31

I think it has to do with one simple thing in America. GAMBLING!! 

American sports are ran by the sports book!! Any sport that can end in a tie doesn't get too much attention. Take hockey for instance, I don't mean to offend the countless Hockey fans on here but you are few and far between in the US. The only place that gets enough snow and ice in the U.S. is the upper Midwest and the upper east coast. That makes up about 25% of our population. Kids in the rest of the U.S don't grow up playing it, don't even grow up knowing about it. So when you grow up and start to gamble, Hockey is not very attractive, Lack of point spread, end in a tie. and so on. 

While soccer is ready available for every kid in the U.S. to play, you play for a couple of years, don't really have anyone to look up to and by the time you get to high school, Baseball, Basketball and Football are the choices for most. I played into my mid teens, even played on some very advanced traveling teams but when it became time, my true blue blood came out and Football, Basketball and Baseball became priority. (Notice being from California, i didn't even mention Hockey even though the Sharks started playing 10 miles away when I was in my teens)

When kids are forced to make a choice in High school between Baseball or Soccer, in America, it's a no brainer. So that just leaves GAMBLING, and no interest in soccer.

Just my humble opinion!! (I am just about 30 years old)


----------



## jcurrier31

Chandu said:


> Meanwhile: Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!! 66,237 in attendance tonight in New Jersey for an incredible MLS match - and purely for an MLS match between NY Red Bulls vs. LA Galaxy only, in which high quality 9 goals rained in all! No other gimmicks like combined with Mexican national team or Mexican super-club, no other international friendly, none of that!! This sort of attendance is approaching Manchester United or Bayern Muenchen territory!!!!
> 
> Here, attendance in box score at bottom:
> 
> http://web.mlsnet.com/scoreboard/game.jsp?match=08182007_LANY
> 
> And the best part was that, this was not 66,237 of ice-cream or hot-dog eating, occasionally clapping mom and pop with kiddies, dog-and-pony-show kind of attendance. This was 66,237 with majority hardcore fans of the sport (they may not have been NY Red Bulls or MLS fans, but might become after tonight), singing, reveling, taunting, great atmosphere a professional sporting event should have.
> 
> This is SIMPLY INCREDIBLE!!!! Yes, this is coming from me, someone who has followed this sport in USA for 20+ years and is most times quite conservative when making observations about it. Some of the best players did lay everything they've got on the line, rising to an occasion like this - Juan Pablo Angel, Josmer Altidore, Clint Mathis, David Beckham, Landon Donovan. This was simply remarkable!! If MLS keeps recruiting proper talent and emphasizes matches to be played with such intensity level they will be laughing their way to the bank. All this while Americans (as a whole) keep disliking the sport?!?!?!?


This is an anomaly, I can't believe you would even post this!!

37,540 Guess what this this number is? oh give up? It was the total of the last 3 games attendance put together for your beloved NY team. Where were all those die hard screaming soccer fans then.

The David Beckham craze will wear off and you will be back down to 12,000 people a game again!


----------



## Steve Mehs

NHL games no longer end in ties. Although I do think it's dumb the losing team still gets a point if the game goes beyond regulation. The NHL should do away with the points system and go with the raw record.



> FYI, I will be in one of the first episodes of K-Ville


Cool. when it comes closer, post what scene your in and I'll keep a look out. While his character was a prick, I thought Anthony Anderson was great in The Shield and I'll be watching K-Ville.


----------



## Chandu

jcurrier31 said:


> This is an anomaly, I can't believe you would even post this!!


Your post is an anomaly, I can't believe you would even post it!!



> ...your beloved NY team.


Clearly shows you're mouthing off without reading any of my posts. Let me go take a shower now, after having read that comment.



> The David Beckham craze will wear off and you will be back down to 12,000 people a game again!


Again, clearly shows you're mouthing off without reading any of my observations in this thread about MLS attendance expectations in general (before and after that post of mine which you quoted).

P.S. Posting about a historic MLS match on the night it happened in a thread titled "Why do Americans (as a whole) dislike Soccer?" ? How odd of me!!! Whatever would come over me to post something off-topic like that? Maybe I should've posted Ozzie Guillen or whatever his name is, his batting averages instead.


----------



## Chandu

djlong said:


> Dolly: People have been saying that since I was a kid - all those kids playing soccer (I was one of them for a while). I'm 44 and soccer is marginally more popular now than it was back then (in this country).


Somehow, this post had slipped by me the first time.

Depends on how you measure "marginal" and what expectations one would have to define acceptable levels of popularity. If the expectations were to equal or surpass popularity levels of other mainstream sports, you're certainly correct.

My personal opinion is that that's an unfair barometer for measurement.

If on the other hand, it was observed in isolation without bringing in other sports into the equation, the scale of growth and popularity for the sport is astronomical over the last 20+ years. I've already listed multiple points elaborating this in the past in this thread. But just to summarize a few of them:


thriving pro league for 12 years with improving financial bottom-line with every single year, a number of teams being in profit
many new stadiums going up dedicated specifically for this sport all over the country (and 1 in Canada)
corporate sponsorship for the league, individual teams as well as stadium naming rights increasing at an astronomical rate
seriously loaded billionaire team owners who have tons of sports business background in mainstream American sports or international sport outside USA, and more business folk waiting in line to join the ranks
profit making TV rights package for league coverage on multiple channels
TV ratings for specific World Cup matches exceeding TV ratings for specific NBA Finals or baseball World Series games
TV ratings for local confederation championship (Gold Cup final) on cable exceeding TV ratings for Stanley Cup final on network TV by 41%
successive years of pre-season tours by multiple big name clubs in Europe (as well as Latin America), all of them selling out very fast each year and being profitable
3 independent channels dedicated to the sport 24/7, not to mention too many other channels not necessarily dedicated to the sport but covering events in it respectably
amount of TV coverage for the sport increasing year by year, now covering even obscure competitions which would've been inconceivable 15 years ago
national team becoming stronger and stronger with very respectable worldwide status (at one time ranked as high as #5 on FIFA rankings - OK, FIFA rankings can get bogus, but it's not USA's fault FIFA ranked them so high. An honest estimate of #10 would've been more accurate.), qualifying for 5 World Cup finals in a row, dominating CONCACAF region in World Cup qualification, making quarter-finals of 2002 World Cup, winning confederation CONCACAF championship repeatedly
player pool for national team becoming deeper and deeper due to elite academies funded by corporate sponsors, depth of youth national team skyrocketing, leading to impressive wins against powerhouse countries in Youth World Cup
recruitment for American pro players in top level leagues in Europe going up at an astronomical rate, a large number of them actually being starters - not just bench-warmers or reserves - at big clubs

and so on and so on and so on....

But sure, that's only due to marginal increase in popularity (over what, 30+ years?) by your estimation. I'll take this "marginal" increase in popularity, let it keep coming!


----------



## purtman

jcurrier31 said:


> I think it has to do with one simple thing in America. GAMBLING!!
> 
> American sports are ran by the sports book!! Any sport that can end in a tie doesn't get too much attention. Take hockey for instance, I don't mean to offend the countless Hockey fans on here but you are few and far between in the US. The only place that gets enough snow and ice in the U.S. is the upper Midwest and the upper east coast. That makes up about 25% of our population. Kids in the rest of the U.S don't grow up playing it, don't even grow up knowing about it. So when you grow up and start to gamble, Hockey is not very attractive, Lack of point spread, end in a tie. and so on.
> 
> While soccer is ready available for every kid in the U.S. to play, you play for a couple of years, don't really have anyone to look up to and by the time you get to high school, Baseball, Basketball and Football are the choices for most. I played into my mid teens, even played on some very advanced traveling teams but when it became time, my true blue blood came out and Football, Basketball and Baseball became priority. (Notice being from California, i didn't even mention Hockey even though the Sharks started playing 10 miles away when I was in my teens)
> 
> When kids are forced to make a choice in High school between Baseball or Soccer, in America, it's a no brainer. So that just leaves GAMBLING, and no interest in soccer.
> 
> Just my humble opinion!! (I am just about 30 years old)


Sad but true. Gambling is one of the big reasons so many (not most) follow football.

Hockey rarely ends in ties any more, but football could also end in a tie. The big difference between growing up 10 minutes form a rink for you is that there were no real stars when you were younger. Now Joe Thornton is there. Also, when I was a kid, if there was a 30-below wind-chill and the school buses wouldn't start, we'd go to the pond and play hockey. I'm sure you've never seen 30-below temperatures in San Jose. If you ever grew up playing the game, it's just incredible how it gets in your blood. Years ago when I was out of work, I would go to the local rink for stick time at lunch time. Guys in their 40s and 50s would take long lunches to play hockey during that time. They were skilled and also realized it wasn't the NHL. There was no need to nail somebody who was also out there to have a good time.

Soccer clearly would be a tough game to bet on because it also allows ties.


----------



## purtman

jcurrier31 said:


> This is an anomaly, I can't believe you would even post this!!
> 
> 37,540 Guess what this this number is? oh give up? It was the total of the last 3 games attendance put together for your beloved NY team. Where were all those die hard screaming soccer fans then.
> 
> The David Beckham craze will wear off and you will be back down to 12,000 people a game again!


I think that many of those die-hard fans who want to see a special player will be out to the stadium on those nights. Not everybody can get season tickets so they pick and choose the games they can attend. It's like I mentioned in an earlier post, if you get some of the international games over here, those fans will all show up because they don't get to see the games at home.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned (at least not that I've read) and I'm surprised Chandu hasn't mentioned this is that there are many war veterans who follow the British soccer leagues and have passed it on their sons. When I worked as a sportswriter, we would get many calls from people wanting to know some of the British scores. Now, of course, there's the internet so they don't need to call. But those people will turn out to see somebody who played over in England just because it's one of the better players from what they're used to, not necessarily that it's David Beckham.


----------



## djlong

By "marginal", I meant that it's somewhat easier to FIND the sport.

Ratings for all sports are going down due to a variety of factors. THat soccer is getting up to those lowered numbers speaks well of the sport and poorly of the "established" leagues.

And don't get me wrong, it's good that today's leagues are in better financial shape. I think one of soccer's problems has been the 'albatross' that seeing 60K+ in a stadium for Pele in the 1970s only to watch the league fold shortly thereafter has done. The NBA is the youngest of the 'modern' leagues and it's over 50 years old. The NHL traces it's roots back beyond the 1920s. The NFL similarly goes way back. Major League Baseball tops them all with the National Leage going back to the mid *1880s*.

MLS may very well be here to stay. I remember the NASL, MISL and a few others that are by the wayside. Wikipedia has a long list of defunct soccer leagues.

But, then, it's also easier to find POKER on television these days.

My personal belief is that HDTV is the best thing to happen for soccer. It's a lot more exciting to *play* soccer than it is to watch with the traditional wide-shots on a 4:3 19" tv. Big hi-def widescreens will allow the game, provided it's shown properly, to "show off" more of the skill and tactics.


----------



## Chandu

djlong said:


> I think one of soccer's problems has been the 'albatross' that seeing 60K+ in a stadium for Pele in the 1970s only to watch the league fold shortly thereafter has done....MLS may very well be here to stay. I remember the NASL, MISL and a few others that are by the wayside. Wikipedia has a long list of defunct soccer leagues.


There is a day and night difference in soccer climate in USA when there were those 60K+ in a stadium for Pele and 66K+ for Beckham on Saturday. What were the conditions for each of the items in the bullet list in my previous post when Pele was playing in NASL?

I would like all those who repeat Pele and the NASL which folded thereafter like rote (and this doesn't mean just you personally, djlong; I'm referring to the talking heads in media like Kornheiser, Mariotti who issue categorical directives about things they don't have a clue about) to make an intelligent argument about the state of USA national team at that time and today. Specifically, I would be interested in hearing about what percent of NASL player pool comprised of American kids developed from youth ranks. I would like to hear how many of those Americans in NASL could make the USA national team, and what that USA team would be capable of. I would like to hear how many clubs in top leagues in Europe would be interested in recruiting those American kids in NASL, and the names of those clubs and players.

MISL is not soccer. I know the "S" in MISL stands for "soccer", there are few crossovers of players between leagues of the 2 sports, but that league and whatever sport it plays has got absolutely nothing to do with soccer.


----------



## Chandu

purtman said:


> One thing that hasn't been mentioned (at least not that I've read) and I'm surprised Chandu hasn't mentioned this is that there are many war veterans who follow the British soccer leagues and have passed it on their sons. When I worked as a sportswriter, we would get many calls from people wanting to know some of the British scores. Now, of course, there's the internet so they don't need to call. But those people will turn out to see somebody who played over in England just because it's one of the better players from what they're used to, not necessarily that it's David Beckham.


Thankfully purtman, the segment you talk about above is very small and of insignificant importance for the big picture. And you're exactly correct. In the age of internet, satellite TV and the like, it just doesn't matter that much any more. Large chunk of people in those stories/videos of die-hards or crowding in the summer exhibitions for pre-season tours of European clubs are ordinary American people who rarely set foot outside USA. Maybe not even going back to 2-3 generations. They're not hopelessly dependent on some "holier than thou" British or British indoctrinated war veterans to teach them what it means to be a "true fan".

As a general observation, I've found soccer knowledge of diehard American fans to be far better than many "so called fans" in countries where it is a mainstream sport. Simply because it's not a mainstream sport in USA, diehards here go out of their way to find out information and sometime overdo it, even researching most obscure information. In countries where it is a mainstream sport, since the people there are bombarded with information about it all the time in media (print, radio, TV and now internet), masses of people have an effect of filtering out bunch of information, only paying attention to "sensational" stuff.


----------



## djlong

Chandu - I can relate to some of that. Being a soccer fan in the US is like being a NASCAR fan in New York City in the early 1970s (except we didn't have the internet back then)


----------



## agreer

Chandu said:


> [*]TV ratings for specific World Cup matches exceeding TV ratings for specific NBA Finals or baseball World Series games


First, it isnt that soccer has became more popular, the issue is that the MLB and NBA have been ba$tardized in the last decade...here is a short list
*steriods
*player strikes because 10-100x the salary of the average fan isn't enough
*Nascar taking the limited entertainment time/money of families away from Baseball
*NBA becoming a "gangsta" league doesnt exactly make it marketable outside of a few inner cities
* the rise of console games in the mainstream home, whatch 4 hours of baseball or play Halo? I know my vote
One last minute addition:
*NO HEROS...who is on the front of the sports section? Barry Bonds? Koby Bryant? Michael Vick? When I was a kid, it was Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, The Fab 5 (Michigan hoops) Brett Favre and the like that got on the front pageof the sport section...kids have no one to look up to in sports outside of Payton Manning and Tony Dungy

The MLB and NBA are self destructing, as much or more than soccer is rising.

Also, the reason that sports are all falling off: the reason is that greedy owners forgeing the first rule of showmanship: leave them wanting more. everyone and their uncle has a sports channel, hell, most of cable tv any more is fox sports, espn, outdoor channel, speed, VS, NFL NET BigTen net, tons of RSNs, it seams like every pro team has a 24/7 cable channel, they are saturating the market so much that the nation as a collective group doesn't bother gathering round to watch the "game of the week"

Dare I say that Sportscenter and the clones killed Monday Niight Football on ABC


----------



## Chandu

agreer said:


> First, it isnt that soccer has became more popular, the issue is that the MLB and NBA have been ba$tardized in the last decade...


How do you know it is exclusively due to decline of MLB/NBA and for sure "isnt (sic) that soccer has become more popular"? What kind of measurement would you have to be sure about it? Neither me nor you have such a measurement to be sure.

I had stated that I would like to "observe soccer in isolation without bringing in other sports into the equation". Unfortunately there is no way for me to do that with the item you quoted as well as comparison of Gold Cup ratings with Stanley Cup finals. This is the only kind of data I had, so I left it in there. There is just no way to do a fair comparison for these from the time Pele was in NASL to now. Prior data for it doesn't exist or isn't applicable at all. You can't compare ratings numbers from 30 years ago to today. There was no such thing as Gold Cup back in those days.

(Rethinking about this: Could a prior non-existent Gold Cup be shown as a sign of progress for soccer in isolation without talking about Stanley Cup? Also there was pretty much non-existent World Cup coverage during Pele's time here. You could say that it had ratings of 0 before. So maybe it doesn't matter that ratings across 30 years ago can't be compared. Rating of 0 taken 30 years ago is same as rating of 0 today. Maybe I should have put it that way without bringing in any comparisons with NBA Finals, baseball World Series or Stanley Cup final. It just wouldn't have sounded as dramatic. Hmm. Anyhow, sorry about the mixup.)

Anyway, funny that you could quote only that one bullet item in my post to make an argument that soccer hasn't really become popular. How could you be sure that soccer really hasn't become popular at all when talking about rest of bullet points in my post (except that one comparison with Stanley Cup)?

Just take the last bullet point. Could you possibly have cases of players like Tim Howard, Carlos Bocanegra, Clint Dempsey, DaMarcus Beasley, Brian McBride back during Pele's NASL time? To literally quote djlong's words, these are "all those kids playing soccer (I was one of them for a while)". They all developed from the US youth ranks. They couldn't have possibly made that kind of progress without any increase in popularity for the sport. If someone expected American players of 30 years ago to be in that status, they would have been considered clinically insane. (Even Landon Donovan is another kid playing in youth structure back when Pele was in NASL. He himself represents enormous progress. But he doesn't fit my last bullet point for completely unrelated reasons, which is a separate topic all by itself. Eddie Johnson is another great success story, but doesn't fit last bullet point criteria either.) Just zooming in on DaMarcus Beasley - here is a kid who developed from youth ranks of Indiana/Illinois area. He came as close as playing in Champions League semi-final for PSV Eindhoven against AC Milan few years ago. At the last moment, he couldn't participate due to unfortunate injury at the worst possible time. Had he not had such back luck, he could've made history as the first American to have played at that level.

I'll partially concede you your point. There definitely has been bunch of decline in other sports. It's not necessarily a problem with those leagues specifically, it also has to do with bit of moral decline in the society in general. Anyway, popularity of soccer in comparison with popularity of mainstream American sports is not necessarily a zero sum game. So, you couldn't possibly be sure that "it's not that soccer hasn't become popular".


----------



## Chandu

A very cool article in today's Toronto Star about the latest passion of Billy Beane, general manager of Oakland A's baseball team. He is world famous in international sport circles for his innovative techniques for financial optimizations in sports business.

http://www.thestar.com/Sports/article/248165



> For a man paid to unravel the mysteries of baseball, Oakland Athletics general manager Billy Beane spends a lot of time thinking about soccer for free.
> 
> There are as many as five - count 'em, five - hours each day spent listening to soccer podcasts ("on long walks with my dog and during my commute"). There are TiVo'd Premiership games and the heartache that comes with a devotion to Tottenham Hotspur.
> 
> Then there is the nightly tug-of-war with his wife.
> 
> "She wants to watch the baseball highlights on (ESPN's) SportsCenter. I want to watch Fox Soccer Channel," Beane said.
> 
> His interest was piqued during a 2003 trip to England to watch the rugby World Cup finals. While there, Beane couldn't help noticing that nation's other game - football - and something else.
> 
> "I saw the passion, but I also saw emotion. And where there's emotion, there is an opportunity."
> 
> Beane came home with a new curiosity, which he shared with colleagues and A's owner Lew Wolff.
> 
> Last summer, Beane, Wolff and the rest of Oakland's top brass skipped out on their day jobs to travel to Germany for a week during the World Cup. The fever really took hold then.
> 
> "I've become a rabid, passionate fan," Beane said.


And of course, this passion is going to transpire into the new team in MLS, San Jose Earthquakes which is owned by Lew Wolff as well.

Very, very cool indeed.


----------



## jcurrier31

"I've become a rabid, passionate fan," Beane said. 

I wish that would transpire in Baseball.


Billy Bean is a cheapskate and a Racist. I have been an A's fan for all my 30 years and it discussed me to even watch them anymore. He has failed in signing or keeping some of the greatest talent in Baseball over the last 7 years not to mention the white washing. He will always keep a token African American on the team though. ( see Shannon Stewart)I hope he doesn't have anything to do with the soccer team, they will be doomed from the start.

How about the SJ Sabercats people helping them out, they have been a very successful organization. 

It will be great to have the Earthquakes back in SJ.


----------



## Chandu

jcurrier31 said:


> Billy Bean is a cheapskate...


Now that, I've heard many people say before. But it's his organization laughing their way to the bank as well as putting up consistent results year after year.



> ...and a Racist.


Now that's the first time I'm hearing an accusation like that. The way I understand his statistical methodology, it is very cut-throat and mechanical. It doesn't care if the player result from his software turns out to be white or black or pink or green. He goes with what his software tells him and it just works for him. Could it be that for whatever reason, not many black players are output by his software? (I'll take your word that A's don't sign many black players, I have no expertise to talk about it.)



> How about the SJ Sabercats people helping them out, they have been a very successful organization.


I know absolutely nothing about who runs them or anything about them in general. The big plus about Lew Wolff right now is that he's a fantastic sports businessman, a very shrewd real estate guy in San Jose and extremely passionate about Earthquakes and soccer in general. The guy is simply fantastic. I had the chance of hearing him speak in couple of parties he threw, one for opening of Earthquakes LLC office in San Jose, another when MLS actually awarded Earthquakes back to San Jose. He knows the ins out outs of local San Jose real estate politics (which is a very complicated subject) and has got the expertise to get Earthquakes a new stadium built. Very few business people from outside would venture into that complicated political mess without understanding it.

I honestly don't think Earthquakes need any help from Sabrecats right now, they'll be in very good shape with Lew Wolff. As an aside, the Earthquakes operation will be a lot more high profile than Sabrecats. They will also be involved in scheduling international soccer friendlies, maybe bringing Superliga, some USA national team qualifiers, bunch of stuff outside of MLS (over and above MLS Cup, All Star game) to the new stadium. I don't believe Sabrecats have got the expertise to do bunch of those things.



> It will be great to have the Earthquakes back in SJ.


Absolutely!!!


----------



## jcurrier31

This one is titled," A's Whitewashed by Beane."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070625/ai_n19322465

This one," Milton Bradley Thinks the A's Might Be Racist."
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/08/04/milton-bradley-thinks-the-as-might-be-racist/

After living 4 freeway exits away from the Coliseum all my life, I really picked this feeling up a couple of years ago, it's just now coming to light.

I am not so sure Lew Wolff is the messiah you make him out to be. Sure he is a smart Real Estate person, but he is a Very Cheap owner. The A's have maintained one of the Bottom 5 lowest payrolls in Baseball over the last 10 or so years. It is just amazing we are able to keep competing. Every good player always leaves or gets traded around the time for a good contract once they have proven themselves for pennies.

Getting the stadium includes getting condos right around it along with retail space both in which he will get the contract for. That is why the A's couldn't make a deal with the city of Oakland, he was not going to get his Condos so he decided to move to Fremont where he could get his Real Estate venue.

San Jose has about a 60% Hispanic population and getting the voted for a new soccer venue (including his Real estate kickback) would be no problem.


----------



## Chandu

jcurrier31 said:


> This one is titled," A's Whitewashed by Beane."
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070625/ai_n19322465
> 
> This one," Milton Bradley Thinks the A's Might Be Racist."
> http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/08/04/milton-bradley-thinks-the-as-might-be-racist/


Hmm. Pretty radical claims. Every side has 2 stories, so I won't make any judgment one way or another about something I don't know very well.



> The A's have maintained one of the Bottom 5 lowest payrolls in Baseball over the last 10 or so years. It is just amazing we are able to keep competing. Every good player always leaves or gets traded around the time for a good contract once they have proven themselves for pennies.


So as a fan, I'm trying to understand your basic complaint. Is it that due to too much turnover, there is no long-term allegiance to specific players by the fans (and vice versa)? Rather it's just an allegiance by fans to a piece of laundry with words "A's" written on it?



> San Jose has about a 60% Hispanic population and getting the voted for a new soccer venue (including his Real estate kickback) would be no problem.


The deal he is proposing to San Jose would involve no public vote or direct use of public funds in any way. He is requesting the city council to rezone bunch of industrial land he owns to residential, sell the converted land to other residential developers, put all of profits due to rezoning into the stadium and let city of San Jose own that stadium. It's an extremely complicated mechanism and I'm quite possibly making a mistake in describing it or oversimplifying it.

Only a real estate genius (or a non-Messiah according to you  ) like Lew Wolff could come up with such a contrived solution. Whatever it is, he managed to convince the city council to at least look into it. It hasn't been approved yet and it may quite possibly get rejected. But using that city council alibi (and some other backup plans of his) as stadium assurances, he managed to convince MLS commissioner Don Garber to bring the team back. After having listened to all city council people as well as San Jose mayor and bunch of other MLS executives, they all were quite impressed with Lew Wolff's negotiation skills and his bizarre, maverick way of thinking. One San Jose city council member openly declared that after having spent decades in local real estate, he wouldn't have thought about this kind of wacky proposal.


----------



## Chandu

And moving onto something slightly different:

By now, it's common knowledge that comedian, host of "Price is Right" and multi-multi-millionaire Drew Carey is a soccer crazed maniac. He goes all over the places talking about him being many years of MLS season-ticket holder, his trips to many countries following USA national team etc. He even contrived with Travel Channel to get paid for attending "Barcelona vs. Real Madrid" (the biggest club match in the world by my estimation) and report a "travel documentary" on it!!!! Hey, I would love to have a job like that!! :lol: He claims that he plans to purchase a new MLS team in Cleveland, Ohio. I have no idea if he will actually be successful building a new stadium in a place like that, no matter how much loaded with dough he is.

Anyway, here was the latest piece of interesting video on him when he went on David Letterman about 3 weeks ago, talking up MLS and soccer. As with Billy Beane's soccer craze, pretty cool!






His visit to Jimmy Kimmel show showing all his soccer photography:


----------



## Chandu

purtman said:


> Soccer clearly would be a tough game to bet on because it also allows ties.


What are you talking about? Soccer happens to be one of the biggest sport bet on internationally.

http://www.ladbrokes.com/football-betting.html

http://site.sports.betfair.com//tournament/LoadZoneHome.do?ti=1&origin=HFBF

https://www.bwin.com/betsnew.aspx?SportID=4

Also, it's not just the final score which people can place bets on. Bets can be placed on some of the stupidest obscure match facts. For example, spread at halftime, first team to win free kick, first player to pick up yellow card, time of first goal/second goal, time of first substitution, first player to get substituted etc. - all kinds of weird crap.

Of course, by volume it is nowhere as big bet on sport in USA compared to other sports. But it is very easy to place bets on things like English Premiership matches and other tournaments in Las Vegas. I doubt they accept many bets on MLS, it must be very low volume of interest.

http://www.vegasinsider.com/soccer/odds/las-vegas/

As for asking me personally? I hate it. I hate all forms of betting on sports. As a die-hard fan, I would never bet on a sport event. I feel people who bet on sport are only interested in any personal gain for them. They couldn't possibly love the sport by itself with any passion. In fact, I'm averse to all forms of gambling in general. But if someone wants to ruin their livelihood betting on stupid junk like "whether Didier Drogba will score the 3rd goal in the match and before 70th minute", it's their problem.


----------



## djlong

I wouldn't put stock in *anything* Milton Bradley has to say. He's a very talented baseball player but I followed him early in his career when he came up with the Expos. He couldn't handle the pressure *in Montreal*. He was frequently subject to clubhouse meltdowns. I really feel sorry for the guy in some ways because he seems unable to appreciate what he has and it affects him personally.


----------



## jcurrier31

I would tend to agree with you at first take. (Milton Bradly) I have lived here all my life and have suspected this for a while. (I am a white male) This was raised by several people before including a local sports writer, also white male, who was forced to make a public apology after the A's threatened not to let this entity have access to the team anymore. 

All race a side, here a list why I think that Real Estate is the Primary motive of Lew Wolff:
Mark Mulder, Tim Hudson, Jason Giambi, Miguel Tejada, Jermaine Dye, Frank Thomas. Now these are just the names of the Star caliber players that the A's got ride of when it was contract time. Remember most of these players (not all) came up through the A's farm system and had 5 year deals worth less then 750,000 a year. When they earned there contracts where they were to be paid in the millions a year, they were sent packing. There are others I have forgot to mention. With that said, They have Kept NO players with that talent level.

I really would like to see the Earthquakes back, but I want it to be about soccer, with owners that are serious about winning and paying what it takes to attract big name players. I want to see a competitive, championship level of Soccer here. Not some toy project for a rich Real estate mogul trying to make more money.

"It's an extremely complicated mechanism and I'm quite possibly making a mistake in describing it or oversimplifying it"

With this kind of complication, there is sure to be big money in it for Mr. Wolff.


----------



## Chandu

jcurrier31 said:


> I really would like to see the Earthquakes back, but I want it to be about soccer, with owners that are serious about winning and paying what it takes to attract big name players. I want to see a competitive, championship level of Soccer here. Not some toy project for a rich Real estate mogul trying to make more money.
> 
> "It's an extremely complicated mechanism and I'm quite possibly making a mistake in describing it or oversimplifying it"
> 
> With this kind of complication, there is sure to be big money in it for Mr. Wolff.


There is nothing wrong with being involved in pro sports and wanting to make big money (either through the vehicle of sports team or other ventures) AS LONG AS players and fans of those teams are not mistreated. Sometimes people tend to make out "wanting to make big money" as a vice, but in a capitalistic society there is nothing wrong with those intentions, PROVIDED public money is not swindled. Lamar Hunt was one of the biggest visionaries of pro sports and he had his "big money" ventures in oil drilling or silver mining or whatever. Bob Kraft is the owner of New England Patriots and New England Revolution has his big Gillette empire. And there are many more examples. Of course, none of these people are necessarily "saints, bastions of virtue". They didn't become so rich by being nice guys to everyone. But I'm probably not interested in knowing everything personal about all of them, as long as in the big picture they're not hurting sports, players, public community and fans. Based on the Oakland A's example you seem to imply that's what is happening with the players. Since I don't know much about it, I'll research a bit more on it, and take your word for the time being. I'll still take a wait and see attitude with Earthquakes, simply because I don't have any prior knowledge to go by.


----------



## Chandu

An interesting article from Houston Chronicle about last week's Superliga semi-final in Houston, between Houston Dynamo (MLS champions - USA) and Pachuca (Champions of Mexico). While it was an extremely exciting semi-final with great goals from both teams, went into extra time and finally decided on penalties, this article isn't as much about sport. It is more about cultural and society aspects. It's written by a Nicaraguan born American about how international sports like soccer can create local identity, assimilation of immigrants etc.

Soccer game offers immigration lesson - Assimilation of Latinos evident on the face of fans


----------



## purtman

agreer said:


> Dare I say that Sportscenter and the clones killed Monday Night Football on ABC


I would say it was probably a combination of poor games and having people like Dennis Miller on the air. I stopped watching once he came on.


----------



## purtman

Chandu, I was unaware of soccer having high bets internationally, but I can't say I know anybody who has ever bet on a soccer game or anything involving a game. Now when it comes to football, basketball, and baseball, I know plenty of people who have bet plenty of money. The fact that most people bet on the games involving spreads here in the U.S. is what keeps soccer from being bet on here as much as other games. There are people who will bet the non-final-score bets on other sports, but I don't think it's as prevalent here. Plus with the majority of people not being up on soccer here, they won't pick up on the side bets as much as they would here. A lot of people may know who might score the first TD in a Super Bowl, who would rush for 1,000 yards in a season, etc.


----------



## Chandu

purtman said:


> Chandu, I was unaware of soccer having high bets internationally, but I can't say I know anybody who has ever bet on a soccer game or anything involving a game. Now when it comes to football, basketball, and baseball, I know plenty of people who have bet plenty of money. The fact that most people bet on the games involving spreads here in the U.S. is what keeps soccer from being bet on here as much as other games. There are people who will bet the non-final-score bets on other sports, but I don't think it's as prevalent here. Plus with the majority of people not being up on soccer here, they won't pick up on the side bets as much as they would here. A lot of people may know who might score the first TD in a Super Bowl, who would rush for 1,000 yards in a season, etc.


Yes, I'm aware of all of that. I was only refuting the basic premise that soccer is inherently a very difficult sport to bet on, because that's completely untrue.

Now that you bring up this vice of sports betting again, thought I would mention that English Premiership happens to be the most bet on sports league in the entire world. The craze behind betting on English football is highest with extremely high volume in all of Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong. The total turnover is of billions and billions of dollars. In fact, the network behind this is so widespread and complex that in 1997 it was almost threatening to bring the league down to its knees. A number of high profile Asian betting mafia were forcing stadium floodlights to randomly fail in the middle of night time football matches, when the results of those matches were not going in agreement with their expectations. At first, most of the public at the grounds or watching on TV in England had no clue it had anything to do with betting, and with people in another part of the world thousands of miles away. Read up all about it here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sport/football/278086.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/423937.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/426148.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/278245.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/308656.stm

Your statement of "Soccer clearly would be a tough game to bet on" would get laughed at in Asia. Did I forget to mention that I personally hate the system of sports betting?  Not that I would like to see your statement being untrue, I would prefer for "all sports to clearly be tough games to bet on". But unfortunately, that is not the reality.


----------



## purtman

I brought up the original part about the betting as being the reason it wouldn't catch on here. As far as the Asian betting is concerned, I'm sure they would find anything to bet on. I worked with a guy who grew up in Hong Kong. He said betting is very, very big there. I know when I went to Foxwoods Casino years ago, I clearly felt like a minority with many more Asians there than whites. There have also been multiple incidents back in CT with children being left all day while the father has gone to gamble. Unfortunately, each time it was an Asian parent who did it, causing them to lose custody of their children.


----------



## Chandu

purtman said:


> I brought up the original part about the betting as being the reason it wouldn't catch on here. As far as the Asian betting is concerned, I'm sure they would find anything to bet on. I worked with a guy who grew up in Hong Kong. He said betting is very, very big there. I know when I went to Foxwoods Casino years ago, I clearly felt like a minority with many more Asians there than whites. There have also been multiple incidents back in CT with children being left all day while the father has gone to gamble. Unfortunately, each time it was an Asian parent who did it, causing them to lose custody of their children.


Yes, it's very unfortunate how pervasive betting is in East and Southeast Asian culture. It seems urban kids in that culture learn to bet before they learn to count! :eek2: You can probably understand why I hate sports betting so much.


----------



## purtman

Chandu, definitely. I just remember when I went to Foxwoods, I was amazed by the difference in ratio in races. When I asked my co-worker about it, he told me how prevalent it is there.


----------



## James Long

:backtotop - Soccer in America


----------



## Chandu

James Long said:


> :backtotop - Soccer in America


Right.

There is this fantastic article in latest Sports Illustrated which I got a kick out of. It starts with a premise exactly identical to the title of this thread, but progresses to a very interesting conclusion. I found his approach rather funny.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/soccer/06/10/hate.soccer0616/index.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/soccer/06/10/hate.soccer0616/1.html


----------



## ironwood

Interesting thread. I never though of it but its true - commercialization of sports is the main reason. Nobody is gonna change the rules to break the game into smaller portions to accomodate all the commercials.


----------



## James Long

Perhaps they could go "side by side" like ESPN does with Indy Car races?


----------



## Herdfan

Simple. I didn't grow up playing or watching soccer. Too old to get into it now not know who the hell half the players are, the multitude of different leagues and who plays for who.


----------



## DodgerKing

I realize this was posted a long time ago, but I did have to comment on one thing...


jpl said:


> Figured I should move my comments over to this thread. I do have a theory as to why soccer is not as popular here as it is everywhere else. I've heard all sorts of excuses, like:
> 
> It's low-scoring - well, so is baseball


No. Baseball has a higher average score per game than football (not points of course, but actual scoring events).

I do not think it is the lack of scoring that makes soccer boring; it is the lack of something going on between the scoring.

Baseball, unlike soccer, there are exciting events between scoring. Such as stolen bases, strike outs, pick offs, runners thrown out on the bases, highlight defensive plays (remember, in baseball, it is the defense that controls the ball), pitch sequence, working the count, ex...

For example, in football, even if a team does not score, there are still good catches, good sacs, rushes, good drives, good defensive plays. Soccer is pretty much nothing but kicking the ball back and forth. There is literally nothing to get excited about in between scoring events.

In soccer, between the one scoring event, they spend the whole time setting up a play by doing nothing by kicking the ball back and forth.


----------



## kal915

> I do not think it is the lack of scoring that makes soccer boring; it is the lack of something going on between the scoring.
> 
> Baseball, unlike soccer, there are exciting events between scoring. Such as stolen bases, strike outs, pick offs, runners thrown out on the bases, highlight defensive plays (remember, in baseball, it is the defense that controls the ball), pitch sequence, working the count, ex...
> 
> For example, in football, even if a team does not score, there are still good catches, good sacs, rushes, good drives, good defensive plays. Soccer is pretty much nothing but kicking the ball back and forth. There is literally nothing to get excited about in between scoring events.
> 
> In soccer, between the one scoring event, they spend the whole time setting up a play by doing nothing by kicking the ball back and forth.


What about all the great saves a goalie can make? or awesome tricks? Even on the great way that someone tried to score. i could say that in football all there is is throwing the ball and pushing people


----------



## DodgerKing

kal915 said:


> What about all the great saves a goalie can make? or awesome tricks? Even on the great way that someone tried to score. i could say that in football all there is is throwing the ball and pushing people


These occur in between scoring events? The goalie prevents a goal, and most of the time the ball is no where near the goalie.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

In talking about soccer, the old saying "perception is everything" hold true.

Football (American) appears to have a higher score... but consider that a 21-7 game really translates to 3-1 in terms of actual scoring events and it isn't so different.

Add to that... a good "defensive struggle" can result in a low scoring game... and I've seen games where one team went on a prolonged drive and took most of a quarter 10+ minutes for a single drive to score.

While I appreciate good defense, however, I find such games to be boring. I also find baseball to be boring. To me baseball ends up being a lot of standing around doing nothing and then suddenly a flurry of activity that is cool followed by more standing around. Basketball can be good and bad too. A bad basketball game can be painful to watch.

So I'm not surprised that soccer has fans AND simultaneously I'm not surprised it hasn't taken hold here in the US. What does surprise me, though, is how many kids (boys and girls) play soccer in the US... but then do not continue having an interest beyond their own participation.

While soccer has enormous popularity here in the US in terms of participation... it has an equally opposite lack of popularity in terms of spectators. Basketball and Football have lots of fans who go to games and will watch on TV. NASCAR does really well too, and this continues to surprise me...

NASCAR is arguably way more boring than soccer since there is no real "scoring" that happens. Someone wins or loses after driving in a circle for hours... yes there are "points" and a "chase" for a season title... but often the season champion hasn't won many individual races... this would be like determining the NBA champion by average points scored (Lakers would already be crowned champion by this metric) rather than head-to-head competition (Celtics up 3-1 in the series).


----------



## CopyChief

HDMe said:


> In talking about soccer, the old saying "perception is everything" hold true.


I, too, have always found it interesting that soccer is so popular as a kids' team sport but falters in later years and especially on the professional level. I think a lot of it has to do with the nature of the sport and how it is televised.

Think about it: Even with football and hockey, you get lots of player close-ups. You see the hits and the kicks, and there's a lot of emphasis on individual achievement. That's even truer for baseball, where things like strikeouts are all on the pitcher and home runs are on the hitter.

When you watch a soccer game on TV, the view is usually further away. Even when one guy is dribbling down the field, you don't get much of a closeup. Even when goalies make great saves, there's always this feeling of detachment. It's always this team does that or that team does this -- so and so scores for team such-and-such.

Americans, in general, love individual stories much more than team stories.

Sure, the low scores have something to do with it, but those who love a pitcher's duel in baseball might still dislike a 1-0 soccer game.

There is a lot to appreciate in the athleticism of soccer... but it happens more as a team than any focus on the individuals.


----------



## bluemoon737

CopyChief said:


> I, too, have always found it interesting that soccer is so popular as a kids' team sport but falters in later years and especially on the professional level. I think a lot of it has to do with the nature of the sport and how it is televised.


It's (soccer) popular as a kids sport because it doesn't really take much if any skill to "play" the game and therefore it is easy to include almost any kid in the game. Don't get me wrong, to play the game well takes tremendous skill and endurance but to just "play" the game doesn't take much at all. The popular American sports (football, baseball, basketball) take skill to play even at the most basic of levels and therefore a large number of kids get turned off to playing the game but get pulled in to watching the game thanks to their fathers so the spectator aspect is somewhat of a legacy effect.


----------



## spartanstew

It's also the cheapest sport for kids to get involved in. You don't need any equipment and don't even need a real field if you don't have one. Just a ball and feet. 
Parents love when their kids get involved in activities that are cheap.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

bluemoon737 said:


> It's (soccer) popular as a kids sport because it doesn't really take much if any skill to "play" the game and therefore it is easy to include almost any kid in the game. Don't get me wrong, to play the game well takes tremendous skill and endurance but to just "play" the game doesn't take much at all. The popular American sports (football, baseball, basketball) take skill to play even at the most basic of levels and therefore a large number of kids get turned off to playing the game but get pulled in to watching the game thanks to their fathers so the spectator aspect is somewhat of a legacy effect.


I played soccer one year as a kid, and had no skill, so I can attest to that... but I also played some baseball too... no skills there either! I also played football and basketball, but I at least had an affinity for basketball and for football I was at least big and hard to tackle.

Tennis is an example of a sport that requires some skill to play. You can't just pick up a racket for the first time and play. Just serving the ball to start play takes a bit of practice and I never got that far!

Volleyball can be played with little to no skill, albeit poorly.

So I'm not sure what relevance the ease of play has to do with popularity.. because IF true, then kids who play soccer because it is easy to start should get better at it as they play and presumably develop their own interest in it as a result. Kids that play soccer for years and then suddenly lose all interest in it as either participatory or spectator tends to indicate it is a hard sport to cultivate an interest in...

Frankly, I feel almost exactly the same (completely lacking interest) in soccer, baseball, hockey, and racing (NASCAR, Indy, etc.)... and these sports all have similarities and differences.


----------



## Steve Mehs

I've been watching MLS action on a semi regular basis for the third time in the past year or so. I'll catch a match up on HDNet or ESPN 2 HD, haven't watched a whole game yet, but there really is a true lack of excitement factor for me.

Hockey and Football will always be my main two sports, with Baseball third, Basketball a distant fourth (unless we ever get a team back) and Soccer just something to tune into on occasion when there's no Yankee game on, my DVR is empty and there's nothing on the movie channels. I've actually been considering getting into Lacrosse, don't really know much about the game other then our Bandits are this years NLL Champians.



> Football (American) appears to have a higher score... but consider that a 21-7 game really translates to 3-1 in terms of actual scoring events and it isn't so different.


Or it could translate into 3-3. 2 Safety's and a Field Goal are also 7 points. Two Touchdowns w/ 2 Pt Conversions, a Safety and a FG will also get you 21 points. Yeah I know Safety's are a rarity, and 2 Point Conversions are only used in times of desperation, but it still could happen.


----------



## James Long

Hockey is probably the closest popular sport to soccer ... generally low scoring long matches with a lot of setting up between the "action" that some American's crave. Hockey also seems to have the same problem with foreigners that ethnocentric American's get hung up on ... although baseball and basketball seems to be getting more integrated all the time - and that doesn't seem to trip the ethnocentric flags.

When I watch football I prefer to watch it delayed and skim forward to the scoring plays. It has the same problem as soccer as far as a lot setting up ... moving down the field ... and then after a few downs someone intercepts or doesn't make first down and instead of being 20 yards from the next score you're back to 80 yards from the goal line. Plus there is even more time between plays when they are just standing around ... no play going on at all, just huddling or lining up or whatever they're doing out there. between snap and tackle.

Soccer , like Hockey, has constant motion - the ball/puck is in play and always being worked by someone. Perhaps both sports are just too fast moving for "lazy Americans". 

Why do Americans put up with hockey? Is it the chance that a boxing match will break out? There is always a chance for blood (in hockey and football). If there was more head butting and fights would soccer become a more popular American sport? Overseas where "futbol" is more popular there seems to be more of a fight element. Perhaps that is what is missing.


----------



## MrMojoJojo

CopyChief said:


> Americans, in general, love individual stories much more than team stories...those who love a pitcher's duel in baseball might still dislike a 1-0 soccer game... There is a lot to appreciate in the athleticism of soccer... but it happens more as a team than any focus on the individuals.


These are usually the arguements I use with my Baseball/Throwball/Basketball-loving friends.

Sure... the scores may be low, but look at the effort and teamwork that goes into it. Plus, most of those big "stars" in the different leagues are fiercely loyal to their team (unless you have a major event like the Euros where that player goes to play for their home country), because its that _*team*_ that got them to the place they are today.

Completely different than here in the states where some big shot can be offered a few mil more than what his already-exorbitant salary is paying and jumps ship in a heartbeat.

Oh, and P.S.: Beckham doesn't count. That guy was overhyped from the start and when his already-mediocre skills started fading, the American leagues were more than happy to give him the 20-25 million he was asking for so that he could look better than the rest of the players in the league by leaps and bounds.


----------



## Steve Mehs

James Long said:


> Hockey is probably the closest popular sport to soccer ... generally low scoring long matches with a lot of setting up between the "action" that some American's crave. Hockey also seems to have the same problem with foreigners that ethnocentric American's get hung up on ... although baseball and basketball seems to be getting more integrated all the time - and that doesn't seem to trip the ethnocentric flags.
> 
> When I watch football I prefer to watch it delayed and skim forward to the scoring plays. It has the same problem as soccer as far as a lot setting up ... moving down the field ... and then after a few downs someone intercepts or doesn't make first down and instead of being 20 yards from the next score you're back to 80 yards from the goal line. Plus there is even more time between plays when they are just standing around ... no play going on at all, just huddling or lining up or whatever they're doing out there. between snap and tackle.
> 
> Soccer , like Hockey, has constant motion - the ball/puck is in play and always being worked by someone. Perhaps both sports are just too fast moving for "lazy Americans".
> 
> Why do Americans put up with hockey? Is it the chance that a boxing match will break out? There is always a chance for blood (in hockey and football). If there was more head butting and fights would soccer become a more popular American sport? Overseas where "futbol" is more popular there seems to be more of a fight element. Perhaps that is what is missing.


I'm one of the most ethnocentric people you'll find, but I could careless where a player is from. In hockey it's not uncommon to have at least one slaughter and one back and forth game a week where 10-12 goals are score in a game. I could careless about the popularity on a national level when it comes to the NHL, all I know is the Arena is packed with 19K fans here just about every home game and during the playoffs there another 10K outside.

Like I believe I said many months ago in this thread, it's not so much scoring, it's scoring opportunities. In soccer, the field is so large, you can go forever without having zero opportunities to get on the board, in hockey, you can get about 10 shots on goal a period with many other opportunities that unfold. Low scoring means nothing. As I also posted months ago, best hockey game I ever saw went 0-0 for the first 55 minutes or so of the game and ended 2-1. Granted being an extremely pivotal playoff game that went into overtime that involved my Sabres had a lot to do with it.

I'm more pasionate about the Sabres then any other sports team, I'd rather go to a Sabres game then a Bills game, but I'd have to rank Football as my #1 sport only because, I can watch just about any NFL game, no matter who's playing. With hockey I only care about my Sabres, I will catch matchup between their division rivals and playoff games, but I could never sit down and watch a Kings/Coyotes game like I could a Cowboys/Seahawks game.


----------



## Chandu

DodgerKing said:


> I do not think it is the lack of scoring that makes soccer boring; it is the lack of something going on between the scoring.


I think a better restatement would be:

You do not think it is the lack of scoring that makes soccer boring; it is *"what you perceive to be"* the lack of something going on between the scoring.



> In soccer, between the one scoring event, they spend the whole time setting up a play by doing nothing by kicking the ball back and forth.


Once again, restating:

In soccer, between the one scoring event, they spend the whole time setting up a play by *"what you perceive as"* doing nothing by kicking the ball back and forth.

Before this devolves into a back-and-forth "whad-ya-mean?", I simply point you back to "complaint no. 3" within the links I posted in post 303 from mainstream American sports media for reference.


----------



## DodgerKing

Chandu said:


> I think a better restatement would be:
> 
> You do not think it is the lack of scoring that makes soccer boring; it is *"what you perceive to be"* the lack of something going on between the scoring.
> 
> Once again, restating:
> 
> In soccer, between the one scoring event, they spend the whole time setting up a play by *"what you perceive as"* doing nothing by kicking the ball back and forth.
> 
> Before this devolves into a back-and-forth "whad-ya-mean?", I simply point you back to "complaint no. 3" within the links I posted in post 303 from mainstream American sports media for reference.


Perhaps you are correct? Why don't you help us understand what is actually going on between scoring events. I gave a list of items for baseball and football, but you nobody can demonstrate anything similar in soccer.


----------



## Chandu

DodgerKing said:


> Perhaps you are correct? Why don't you help us understand what is actually going on between scoring events.


Certainly. Will do a quick update here, but may post more later in the day when I have more time.



> I gave a list of items for baseball and football, but you nobody can demonstrate anything similar in soccer.




I thought I pointed you to links form a previous post on exact same topic, maybe you never took a look at them? Anyway, for a quick update here it is one more time. It is a good starter.

Take a look at "COMPLAINT NO. 3" in link below:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/soccer/06/10/hate.soccer0616/1.html

Once again, will try to add more later in the day with better time availability.


----------



## steve053

There's a very funny skit by Monty Python about soccer being boring:

*Monty Python - Philosophers' World Cup*

Pretty much sums up why I'm not a soccer fan.


----------



## Chandu

steve053 said:


> There's a very funny skit by Monty Python about soccer being boring:


Great, you most certainly make a very compelling case for why you feel that way!! :biggthump

NOT.

Speaking as a huge Monty Python fan myself personally, I think the point of that sketch is lost on you. It is no big secret that the entire Monty Python cast are (were in case of Graham Chapman who isn't alive anymore) big football-heads. The sport naturally figured into their work through numerous aspects: the sketch you mention, a song dedicated to the sport

http://arago4.tnw.utwente.nl/stoned...aturing-pythons/funny-game-football/main.html

live at Hollywood Bowl.

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_scripts/livebowl.asp



> Eric Idle: Good evening. Tonight on World Forum we are deeply privileged to have with us Karl Marx, the founder of modern socialism and author of the Communist Manifesto, Vladimir Ilitj Ulyanov, better known to the world as Lenin, leader of the Russian Revolution, writer, statesman, and father of modern socialism, Che Guevara, the Bolivian guerilla leader, and Mao Tse-tung, chairman of the Chinese Communist Party since 1949. And the first question is for you, Karl Marx. "The Hammers." "The Hammers" is the nickname of what English football team? "The Hammers." No? Well, bad luck, Karl. It is, in fact, West Ham United. Now, Che Guevara. Che... Coventry City last won the English football cup in what year? No? I can tell no further question. Anybody else? Coventry City last won the English Football Cup in what year? No, I'm not surprised you didn't get that. It is in fact a trick question. Coventry City have never won the English Football Cup.
> 
> Eric Idle: Good! Yes, it is indeed. Well done, Karl! One final question, and that beautiful non-materialistic lounge suite will be yours! Ready, Karl? You're a brave man. Your final question: Who won the English Football Cup in 1949?
> Karl Marx: Uhuh, the workers' control of means of production? The-the struggle of the urban proletariat?
> Eric Idle: Uh, no, it was Wolverhampton Wanderers who beat Leicester 3-1.


Michael Palin has always been an avowed Sheffield United supporter. Later during his "Around the world in 80 days" PBS thing, he kept coming back to the sport numerous times. The most notable one I remember is when he is surrounded by bunch of street-locals in (old name) Bombay (new name Mumbai), India - and wonders to himself: "I wonder if these chaps know the score of Wolves vs Sheffield United".



> *Monty Python - Philosophers' World Cup*
> 
> Pretty much sums up why I'm not a soccer fan.


As with all Monty Python, the sketch is about their irreverent approach towards everything in the world, and not "about soccer being boring" from your imagination.

Anyway, I think it's a good sign if people have to resort to posting absurdly irreverent Monty Python videos to explain that they find the sport boring. Especially when people like Mr. John Skipper are signing media contracts for full HD live coverage of Euro2008 and picking up expensive tabs for Mr. Andy Gray's daily fees. AND 78,000+ showing up for a USA vs. Argentina friendly in New Jersey and so on. These growth signs for the sport are all that matter, irrespective of how much others may "dislike" it. This entire last paragraph is rhetorical speech BTW, no need to respond to it specifically.

http://mvn.com/soccer/2008/06/09/match-recap-argentina-usa-w78682-in-attendance-giants-stadium/


----------



## lobofanina

Soccer lacks hand eye coordination which all other American centric sports utilize to the thrill of spectators, speed is lost through the use of only the feet. Baseball may seem relatively slow paced, but very few people would be willing to stand a few feet away from a change-up thrown at all professional levels, let alone a major league fastball. 

Why are there two different uniforms per team? No other sport denotes a player with special privileges through the use of a special jersey, your fans aren't stupid. 

The most accurate time piece makers in the world, the Swiss Watch Company, design the time pieces/scoreboards for these games yet the actual time on the clock is meaningless because no one knows how much stoppage time the ref is going to add till the game is "over". Americans like well defined endings to their sports, soccer doesn't have one. 

Which brings me to the two worst parts about soccer, shootouts and "injuries". Shootouts are meaningless teams should just flip a coin to decide the winner. The goalkeeper is making an educated guess as to which way the ball will be kicked. I hope my team gets "tails", I mean kicks it to the right so the goalkeeper will miss it. :sure: Rewarding the faking of injuries is pathetic, in every other sport injured players are a liability not an asset.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

lobofanina said:


> Why are there two different uniforms per team? No other sport denotes a player with special privileges through the use of a special jersey, your fans aren't stupid.


What about hockey goalies? And how about the catcher in baseball?



lobofanina said:


> Which brings me to the two worst parts about soccer, shootouts and "injuries". Shootouts are meaningless teams should just flip a coin to decide the winner.


Hockey has shootouts sometimes... American Football has a "sudden death" overtime where first team to score wins, hockey sometimes has this as well... and at least in terms of football the statistics show that the team who wins the coin toss is most likely to win.



lobofanina said:


> The goalkeeper is making an educated guess as to which way the ball will be kicked. I hope my team gets "tails", I mean kicks it to the right so the goalkeeper will miss it. :sure: Rewarding the faking of injuries is pathetic, in every other sport injured players are a liability not an asset.


Just in the past week people were questioning Paul Pierce's injury during the NBA finals where he was carried off the court after a fall and then ran back onto the court minutes later. Basketball also has had a history of poor free throw shooters feigning injury so the coach can substitute a better free throw shooter at key moments. Also lots of flopping to get refs to call fouls that didn't happen.


----------



## maldini

*There are two 24 hour soccer channels now
*ESPN is showing more and more and more soccer
*MLS averaged over 16,700 fans a game last year
*New soccer stadiums are springing up all over the country(Columbus, LA, Dallas, Chicago, Phili, Salt Lake, Denver, NJ, with more and more being planned)
*Microsoft just announced their first major team sport sponsorship and it will be with the new Seattle expansion MLS team next year.
*Numerous billionaires have purchased MLS teams over the past couple of years
*The World Cup draws TV ratings that the Stanly Cup finals would *KILL *for
*Soccer draws huge numbers from Spanish Americans, a demographic that is exploding
*Meaningless exhibition games can regularly sell out NFL sized stadiums (The US Argentina friendly just sold out Giants stadium)

The sport might be a niche sport in the US, but anyone that doesn't recognize how far it has come in the last 10 years is either specifically being biased or is simply ignorant of the facts.

The sport may never be as popular as the big 3, but it has carved out a nice niche for itself and as MLS continues to grow and prosper and the World Cup continues to be a large sporting event that even non soccer fans are drawn too, the sport will continue to not only survive, but thrive.


----------



## maldini

lobofanina said:


> The most accurate time piece makers in the world, the Swiss Watch Company, design the time pieces/scoreboards for these games yet the actual time on the clock is meaningless because no one knows how much stoppage *time the ref is going to add till the game is "over".*


This is incorrect. Many years ago the rule was changed. Total injury time is now reported by the 3rd ref before regulation(90 minutes) is up so every one knows how much is left.

I won't bother with your other mistakes since others have already poked holes in them.


----------



## Chandu

maldini said:


> This is incorrect. Many years ago the rule was changed. Total injury time is now reported by the 3rd ref before regulation(90 minutes) is up so every one knows how much is left.


And it's not even as if the time being kept so accurately for every American sport has that much relevance or something holding interest.

Case in point for American Football - There are tons of times towards the end of these games with a team leading and with possession, they snap the football and the clock keeps running down aimlessly for 20 seconds (or more?). And everyone else on the field purely for theatrical purposes gets their chance to scratch their butts or stare at the sky or whatever while this is going on. Talk about action!!! 

And don't even bother talking about the last 2 minutes of a basketball game which can drag on for 20 minutes. 

To the poster you quoted: Before you go poking holes in some sports, rest be assured that there is scope for reverse holes being poked in other sports too.


----------



## lobofanina

You're incorrect about the goalie in hockey and the catcher in baseball, those two positions might wear extra protective padding, but the don't put on a repugnant yellow jersey(it's not allows yellow I know), they wear the same uniform as their brethren. Goalkeepers on the other hand wear something completely different, just to show that they can use their hands. 

In Hockey the goaltender can protect the entire net that's why shootouts don't bother me in that sport. During penalty kicks and shootouts soccer turns the sport into a game of chance because no goalkeeper can cover the entire length of the net.

When basketball players think they hurt themselves they become a liability instantly, 5 on 4 basketball for the opposition immediately. Soccer on the hand babies their players who fake injuries trying to secure yellow or red cards. It's real problem and you know it. Fakers in others sports are not celebrated, as in soccer, they are in fact reviled.


----------



## lobofanina

maldini said:


> This is incorrect. Many years ago the rule was changed. Total injury time is now reported by the 3rd ref before regulation(90 minutes) is up so every one knows how much is left.
> 
> I won't bother with your other mistakes since others have already poked holes in them.


Good for them, what year did that change? Does the World Cup follow those rules also, who doesn't, or does everyone use that obviously new system.
Does everyone know how much stoppage time will be added or just players? Thanks


----------



## maldini

lobofanina said:


> Good for them, what year did that change? Does the World Cup follow those rules also, who doesn't, or does everyone use that obviously new system.
> 
> When you say "everyone knows" do mean players only or players and fans? Thanks


It has been around for so long, I forget the exact year it came into play, maybe 2002? Someone may know the exact date, I forget.

All professional leagues and international games(including World Cup) use it.

The amount of extra time is held up on a handheld timer some where around the 88th minute for all to see. The cameras pick it up for the TV audience and its usually easy enough to see as a fan in the stadiums although many times it will simply be announced over the loud speakers in the stadium.


----------



## lobofanina

maldini said:


> It has been around for so long, I forget the exact year it came into play, maybe 2002? Someone may know the exact date, I forget.
> 
> All professional leagues and international games(including World Cup) use it.
> 
> The amount of extra time is held up on a handheld timer some where around the 88th minute for all to see. The cameras pick it up for the TV audience and its usually easy enough to see as a fan in the stadiums although many times it will simply be announced over the loud speakers in the stadium.


I'm glad they corrected that, now they can work on the racist gorllia chants and violence that is prevalent in soccer culture.


----------



## Chandu

lobofanina said:


> Good for them, what year did that change? Does the World Cup follow those rules also, who doesn't, or does everyone use that obviously new system.
> Does everyone know how much stoppage time will be added or just players?


If you referred back to this thread (which I admit is a bit long), you would've found information about this very early in the thread in following post, and hopefully not raise a fallacious debating point:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=856147&postcount=21


----------



## maldini

lobofanina said:


> I'm glad they corrected that, now they can work on the racist gorllia chants and violence that is prevalent in soccer culture.


If by prevalent you mean in less than .1% of soccer games world wide, then I would agree with you.

If it happens even once, its too much.

I hope you are not naive enough to believe that similar racist and derogatory things are not said by many drunk US fans for all our sports.


----------



## Chandu

maldini said:


> It has been around for so long, I forget the exact year it came into play, maybe 2002? Someone may know the exact date, I forget.


1998.

It is clear that even if these rules seem so old, there are people with preconceived opinions based on even older information. I wonder how many other such misconceptions are prevalent out there.


----------



## lobofanina

Obviously I missed that, or else I wouldn't have brought it up. At least I knew the proper name for it and didn't call it "extra time".:hurah:


----------



## Chandu

lobofanina said:


> Fakers in others sports are not celebrated, as in soccer, they are in fact reviled.


Really? Care to list the names of official medal/trophy awarded for faking, which leagues recognize these and the list of players awarded them? Has the official governing body of the sport FIFA or any smaller official entities lined up commercial sponsors for these achievements?


----------



## Chandu

lobofanina said:


> ...now they can work on the racist gorllia chants and violence that is prevalent in soccer culture.


So I take it, if these same people in whatever cultures were about to take up completely different sports, say ice hockey or basketball: that would make them magically more racially tolerant or prone to less violence? Got it.

Thanks for mixing up completely unrelated society and culture issues and bundling them with a sport, makes for a very strong argument.


----------



## SPACEMAKER

I don't dislike soccer but I rarely watch it. I am just not interested in it.


----------



## lobofanina

Chandu said:


> So I take it, if these same people in whatever cultures were about to take up completely different sports, say ice hockey or basketball: that would make them magically more racially tolerant or prone to less violence? Got it.


Well all the evidence seems to point in that direction, doesn't it. Racist and violent bigots seem to be attracted to soccer like a moth to the flame, there's no denying it. You might not be a racist violence prone bigot but a lot of your fellow fans are. African-American hockey players are not mistreated by tens of thousands of fans every time they touch the puck the same can't be said for people of color at soccer games when they only get close to the ball. White basketball players aren't called "******" when they touch the rock.

Fix it and it won't keep getting brought up.


----------



## Chandu

lobofanina said:


> Well all the evidence seems to point in that direction, doesn't it.


Really, please do elaborate and fill me in. No, please, spare me.



> Racist and violent bigots seem to be attracted to soccer like a moth to the flame, there's no denying it. You might not be a racist violence prone bigot but a lot of your fellow fans are. African-American hockey players are not mistreated by tens of thousands of fans every time they touch the puck the same can't be said for people of color at soccer games when they only get close to the ball. White basketball players aren't called "******" when they touch the rock. Fix it and won't keep getting brought up.


This writeup of yours above clearly indicates that logical separation of unrelated issues and critical thinking based on them are not your strong points. So, after this last reply I'm done with you. Having said that, here we go.

I cannot believe that when you assert generalizations such as above, you could be missing the elephants (yes, plural) in the room which are following multiple points:

No other sport has as big a global footprint as soccer, which implies that it crosses too many culture, race, religion, language, climate, geography etc.... boundaries. Most of the mainstream American sports you quote do have global exposure, but pale in comparison to soccer in global footprint. Naturally the smaller footprint for them implies somewhat clustered cultural norms. (Which doesn't mean there aren't racial or violence problems associated with them, as someone else quoted above. Come on, you would have to be intentionally dense to not know that. For every Boca Juniors-River Plate or AC Milan-Inter Milan violence news, I could cue for you championship celebration riots with Detroit Pistons or Denver Broncos or Boston Red Sox or whoever, or general thuggery of Oakland Raiders Raider Nation. But in the interest of time, I won't bore listing tons and tons of links. Doing research with google is your friend.)

If hopscotch were to magically become the most popular sport in the world, it would traverse across multiple cultural boundaries, and you would be bound to run into pockets somewhere in the world which are racially intolerant. In that case, such racially intolerant elements wherever they are (and admittedly in small numbers, but gain big notoriety through media like anything negative) would suddenly be drawn towards hopscotch for outlet of their frustrations.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that whatever racial/violence news get reported with soccer have nothing to do with the sport itself, it's a natural outlet for the elements to get drawn to it due to its popularity. Yes, yes, I know about the fascism history links for SS Lazio, Real Madrid or tons of other clubs in Serbia, Hungary, elsewhere in Eastern Europe. But none of that has anything to do with the sport by itself. If SS Lazio were to change from an Association Football to hopscotch club tomorrow, those old links with fascism wouldn't magically go away. With some research, you would be aware that there are racism problems even with other sports such as basketball in some of these places. For example, in Serbia racism problems are not only reported with soccer but also basketball. In Czech Republic or Russia, you're likely to hear about violent thuggery with soccer as well as ice hockey.

With a crazy generalized statement of yours above such as "Racist and violent bigots seem to be attracted to soccer like a moth to the flame": Do you think people are naive to believe that for a soccer match between Norway and Sweden, all in attendance would need to sign some sort of secret racism and violence pact simply because they're attending a soccer match?

The fact that you weren't aware of a rule change made in 1998 clearly exposes that you really aren't all that caught up with various goings on with the sport. Which is perfectly fine, except if you're spouting off mis-characterizations about it without much research. Having said all of culture/sports separation above: Due to undesirable elements misusing a platform of soccer for their dirty deeds, official bodies such as FIFA/UEFA/others took upon campaigns of "Kick racism out of football", provided guidelines for referees to deal with crowd trouble and be able to suspend matches, impose suspensions on players if they're accused of racism (cue Paolo Di Canio case) etc. etc. etc. And they have been doing this for quite a while and it has actually been working, up to a limit. But naturally you wouldn't be aware of any of it, I'll spare you from pedantic details. The bottom line is, no matter how much initiative FIFA or UEFA or whoever take, they can't go on fixing too many cultures in too many places. They can't go around making political decrees. They are a sport governing body, not cultural or political one. If the local laws in Iran or Saudi Arabia prevent women from attending sport events, that doesn't become a soccer issue. It is a cultural issue. FIFA cannot go forcing Iran government to allow women attending an Iran vs. Australia qualifier. They could request the Iran government, but they can't force them to. But again, it is clear none of these issues have anything to do with soccer as a sport by itself. I hope you get the point. Then again, if you don't, I'm done with you.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I think it might be a fair point to mention violence of soccer fans at games, but the racial overtones don't even need to be mentioned as it has nothing to do with anything. I have to say fan violence with soccer seems to me to be more prevalent than other spectator sports... I can't remember the last time I heard of a flare being thrown onto the field of play in any other sport than soccer, for example... but I could sit down and run a list of racial incidents at most major sports so while worth discussion in another topic, it bears no mention in the discussion of why soccer isn't more popular in the US.


----------



## Chandu

HDMe said:


> I have to say fan violence with soccer seems to me to be more prevalent than other spectator sports... I can't remember the last time I heard of a flare being thrown onto the field of play in any other sport than soccer, for example...


A 10 second research brought me back with following. Of course, I'm aware there are tons of other such incidents in basketball and hockey and baseball.

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/16073061/






http://www.nationalpost.com/sports/nhlplayoffs/story.html?id=463718





















Once again I ask, does this really have anything specifically to do with the sports of soccer or basketball or ice hockey or baseball, or are these symptoms of societal ills, excess alcohol consumption, unemployment etc. in whatever locations these things are happening? Seriously, is this issue any different than racism when it comes to deciding if it's a sport issue or cultural issue?


----------



## Chandu

Upstream said:


> The lack of soccer's popularity has nothing to do with how it plays on television. Soccer wasn't popular long before there was television.


This quote is a bit old and I missed it the first time around. But it is most certainly not true.

http://www.sover.net/~spectrum/overview.html

For a period between 1913-1933 (first WW till Great Depression set in), it was extremely popular in USA, even more than American Football in many locations. This was obviously before there was TV. St. Louis, MO, Pittsburgh, PA and even the Northeastern corridor were its hotspots. Commercial sponsorship was very prevalent, especially the steel manufacturing industry in Pittsburgh. Crowds for soccer matches used be regularly about the same, sometimes more than NFL game crowds of those days (~ 10,000 per event). Blue collar working class communities in these industrial belts used to dominate attendances at soccer matches.

It is clear that the onset of depression, later second WW and then arrival of TV led to its niche state. It is difficult to confirm that its decline in popularity had to do with how it played on TV (or rather how it was presented on American TV). Knowing that TVs arrived around the same time in North America and Europe, we know for a fact that it couldn't be due to how it plays on TV. As a matter of fact, it is common knowledge that arrival of TV led to its soaring popularity in Europe, so it does play very well on TV, thank you very much.


----------



## lobofanina

Chandu said:


> Really, please do elaborate and fill me in. No, please, spare me.
> 
> This writeup of yours above clearly indicates that logical separation of unrelated issues and critical thinking based on them are not your strong points. So, after this last reply I'm done with you. Having said that, here we go.
> 
> I cannot believe that when you assert generalizations such as above, you could be missing the elephants (yes, plural) in the room which are following multiple points:
> 
> No other sport has as big a global footprint as soccer, which implies that it crosses too many culture, race, religion, language, climate, geography etc.... boundaries. Most of the mainstream American sports you quote do have global exposure, but pale in comparison to soccer in global footprint. Naturally the smaller footprint for them implies somewhat clustered cultural norms. (Which doesn't mean there aren't racial or violence problems associated with them, as someone else quoted above. Come on, you would have to be intentionally dense to not know that. For every Boca Juniors-River Plate or AC Milan-Inter Milan violence news, I could cue for you championship celebration riots with Detroit Pistons or Denver Broncos or Boston Red Sox or whoever, or general thuggery of Oakland Raiders Raider Nation. But in the interest of time, I won't bore listing tons and tons of links. Doing research with google is your friend.)
> 
> If hopscotch were to magically become the most popular sport in the world, it would traverse across multiple cultural boundaries, and you would be bound to run into pockets somewhere in the world which are racially intolerant. In that case, such racially intolerant elements wherever they are (and admittedly in small numbers, but gain big notoriety through media like anything negative) would suddenly be drawn towards hopscotch for outlet of their frustrations.
> 
> It doesn't take a genius to figure out that whatever racial/violence news get reported with soccer have nothing to do with the sport itself, it's a natural outlet for the elements to get drawn to it due to its popularity. Yes, yes, I know about the fascism history links for SS Lazio, Real Madrid or tons of other clubs in Serbia, Hungary, elsewhere in Eastern Europe. But none of that has anything to do with the sport by itself. If SS Lazio were to change from an Association Football to hopscotch club tomorrow, those old links with fascism wouldn't magically go away. With some research, you would be aware that there are racism problems even with other sports such as basketball in some of these places. For example, in Serbia racism problems are not only reported with soccer but also basketball. In Czech Republic or Russia, you're likely to hear about violent thuggery with soccer as well as ice hockey.
> 
> With a crazy generalized statement of yours above such as "Racist and violent bigots seem to be attracted to soccer like a moth to the flame": Do you think people are naive to believe that for a soccer match between Norway and Sweden, all in attendance would need to sign some sort of secret racism and violence pact simply because they're attending a soccer match?
> 
> The fact that you weren't aware of a rule change made in 1998 clearly exposes that you really aren't all that caught up with various goings on with the sport. Which is perfectly fine, except if you're spouting off mis-characterizations about it without much research. Having said all of culture/sports separation above: Due to undesirable elements misusing a platform of soccer for their dirty deeds, official bodies such as FIFA/UEFA/others took upon campaigns of "Kick racism out of football", provided guidelines for referees to deal with crowd trouble and be able to suspend matches, impose suspensions on players if they're accused of racism (cue Paolo Di Canio case) etc. etc. etc. And they have been doing this for quite a while and it has actually been working, up to a limit. But naturally you wouldn't be aware of any of it, I'll spare you from pedantic details. The bottom line is, no matter how much initiative FIFA or UEFA or whoever take, they can't go on fixing too many cultures in too many places. They can't go around making political decrees. They are a sport governing body, not cultural or political one. If the local laws in Iran or Saudi Arabia prevent women from attending sport events, that doesn't become a soccer issue. It is a cultural issue. FIFA cannot go forcing Iran government to allow women attending an Iran vs. Australia qualifier. They could request the Iran government, but they can't force them to. But again, it is clear none of these issues have anything to do with soccer as a sport by itself. I hope you get the point. Then again, if you don't, I'm done with you.


Struck a nerve obviously, the fact that someone who doesn't follow soccer as enthusiastically as yourself or others has even heard about the racist gorllia chants at soccer games shows how widespread of a problem it actually is. You want to blame racism, hatred, and violence that is prevalent in soccer on a widespread global footprint and ethnic diversity go ahead, you can swallow your own BS, I'm not going to. In a country as diverse and unique as the United States Kobi Jones doesn't hear gorilla noises in the stands when has the ball, why, because in America we don't put up that garbage. Again, fix it and it won't keep getting mentioned.

Chandu, that was cute how you compared violence surrounding other sports to violence that is widespread in soccer "culture". For your next trick compare war with grade-school fistfights, it will be just about as relevant as your current comparison was.

"In July 2, 1994, Escobar was gunned down outside a bar in a GIBBS Medellín suburb. According to Escobar's girlfriend the killer shouted "goal" for each of the 12 bullets fired. Escobar had scored an own goal in a match against the United States on 22 June. Stretching to cut out a cross, he deflected the ball into his own net in the second match of Group A. The USA won the game 2-1, and as a result, Colombia was unexpectedly dismissed from the tournament in the first round.

The murder was clearly a punishment for the own goal. It is not clear whether the murderer acted on his own initiative, or whether he was sent out by one of the gambling syndicates who had bet large amounts of money on Colombia to win the Cup, or at least qualify for the second round.

The BBC issued an apology the following day after its pundit Alan Hansen commented on another match that "the Argentine defender wants shooting for a mistake like that."

Great sport you guys defend, bury your delusional heads back in the sand and chant some drunken retarded soccer cheer, the rest of us don't have blinders on.


----------



## James Long

And on that note ... I believe this thread can sink no lower.
Time to move on.

Closing.


----------

