Reply With Quote
It's like comparing the NFL with the "Arena football league", only worst 'cause "Showball" are only friendships.
Maybe not, but this is
And it's a lot harder to do than anything NFL related.
It's like comparing the NFL with the "Arena football league", only worst 'cause "Showball" are only friendships.
I think the 'anyone can buy a ball' argument only goes so far. Soccer is by and far the largest sport in England, Spain, France, most of Europe, where they easily have the means to play football. , they have (had?) NFL Europe. It's still not popular.
My dad to this day laughs whenever he sees football on TV. He doesn't see the appeal on men in tights with 'hunchbacks' crashing into each other. You probably scoff at that assessment, but it's all about perspective.
I've played football (soccer), basketball and rugby at amateur and semi-pro levels, so I think I can have a go at it.
I believe that soccer is so popular around the world because in order to play it you just need something that resembles a ball, whether it's an orange, a ball made out of newspapers or almost every other sport ball.
This means that at grassroots levels it can be played from the poorest kids in Africa to the posh parks in London or Paris, from the shantytowns in Rio to the beaches in the Mediterranean. It gives people one of the few (if not the only) ways to express their creativity without any money invested in exchange. It's also a flexible game, you can play it alone (upkeeps), 1v1, 4v4, and so on. You can play it under the blistering sun, in the heavy rain, on grass, sand or pavement.
It's a great game to play with friends, because it's a sport where both the individual and the group are important. It allows personal expression with individual skills, but collective organization and team play is equally important. Thus, apart from helping the kids express themselves, they connect with their neighbours and their local community through it. It's hard to explain the big role football can play for kids living in war or poverty stricken zones. Many African players who made it into the pros and now earn millions playing in Europe don't forget about this and make huge donations to their home communities.
This doesn't mean that only skilled players who perform tricks enjoy soccer. That creativity can be placed on defending or goalkeeping too, which are equally important for a good team. An excellent striker can score 30 goals in a season, but if his defense and goalie are crap, he will lose all games 4-3.
It's one of the least predictable sports. Upsets happen all the time, where much better teams in paper get beaten by dark horses who had their day. A multi-billion dollar squad can fail to achieve success several times (just look at Real Madrid in the Champions League for the last 8 years).
I think that this is one of the aspects that slightly alienates US audiences from it. You can't really measure football with too much stats. Stats can tell you that a team has had 70% possession of the ball, but they can't tell you if that 70% was effectively used unless you have a good understanding of the game. Otherwise, a team can have 25 shots on target, while the opposition only got one, and yet they are losing 1-0. That unpredictable side makes it so interesting, and also levels the field. A team can get a player sent off after a minute of play and then, bang, all the previous strategies change.
Another factor is cultural preferences. Most football clubs where the sport is followed with fervent passion, have already over a century of history. A vast majority of local clubs NEVER change cities like US sport franchises do, even if we're talking about some 4th division amateurs in Belgium or something like that. The clubs helped to give an iden y to many communities and cities in a time when urbanization was developing at fast rates or create new ones in places where immigration was blooming. Nowadays something of that is lost in the top European leagues, where English or Italian teams can field squads with no local players in it. But any given club below the 20 richest in the world still includes a sense of home-grown talent in their squad.
That community aspect is magnified in the international game between clubs and specially between national teams. I've read somewhere that football is an universal language, but spoken with different accents. For the most part of the 20th century each nation developed a style, a trademark of how we play football that attached itself to the national iden y. There's part myth and stereotype, and there's some little truth in it. Here are some examples of the classical stereotypes:
-The Brazilians: are happy-samba-dancing-tricksters who learned to play in the beaches, have a relaxed at ude and care more about playing beautiful than winning.
-The Italians: are a defensive, organized team who everyone else considers dirty and boring. They only look to win by the smallest margins and don't care about the aesthetic side of the game. (Spurs anyone?)
-The Germans: are hard-working, organized, industrious and never give up.
-The English: are fast, no-nonsense, direct, and naive. They also invented the game, but are crap at it
-The Argentinians: are some sort of mix of the Brazilians, Germans and Italians with a local flair touch. A mix of the best and the worst, a magical trick followed by a very violent assault on an opposing player.
-The Dutch: play great attacking football, with incredible flow but they're underachievers and they always implode at the wrong time because of their chaotic chemistry or find someone else to blame for their failure (Suns anyone?)
-The French: are like the Dutch, with less chaos but they surrender easily.
As you can see, many of those stereotypes generally match with those of the nations itself, so that's where football got stuck into the collective self-notion of communities and how they're percieved by other peoples. Which leads me to another point: With football you can start a conversation with anyone, almost anywhere in the world, even if you don't speak a common language. I've been to quite a few places, and if I want to start conversation, I just need to wear my Argentina jersey and someone will approach and say "Maradona, Messi, Batistuta". It's like wearing a t-shirt with Elvis, John Lennon and Bono combined, someone will approach to talk to you.
As already mentioned, in some places also supporting your team is quite an experience, filled with match-day rituals, banners, flags, uniforms, fireworks, chants, etc.. This are the Argentina fans in the last World Cup BEFORE even entering the stadium. All the Argies around attending the match got together in the town square and walked procession-like to the stadium. In football there's a huge tradition of travelling fans, it's like university American Football fans on (a lot of) steroids.
Also in "soccer" to put in understandable terms, foreplay is as important as the act itself. It's not just about goals, but how is the build-up that lead to the goal, or how your team has been able to defend itself from the other team attacking.
I don't buy the "high scoring" argument, otherwise America would be in love with cricket (which is a lamer version of baseball, sorry, I just can't stand it). I think that US audiences are used to watch sport in a completely different way, both in arenas and through the TV. Football doesn't have timeouts, the only commercial break is a 15 minute gap at half time. During World Cup games the water supply companies have to prepare for everyone in the country going to the bathroom at the same time
Anyways, I hope this mess of a post helps people understand it better.
Cheers.
LMAO fail
Official les
- FIFA World Cup:
- Winners (5): 1958, 1962, 1970, 1994, 2002
- Runners-up (2): 1950, 1998
- 3rd place (2): 1938, 1978
- 4th place (1): 1974
- Copa América:
- Winners (8): 1919, 1922, 1949, 1989, 1997, 1999, 2004, 2007
- Runners-up (11): 1921, 1925, 1937, 1945, 1946, 1953, 1957, 1959, 1983, 1991, 1995
Tbh, he didn't say Brazil never won anything just that they don't betray their offensive style in search of results, I would consider that as a compliment.
Although Dunga right now is sure aplying some catenaccio with the NT.
Yeah I guess I kinda misunderstood what he meant if that's the case. But at the same time, you'd be hardpressed to find a squad that loves to win so badly, evidenced by some brasil players shedding tears after winning the confed cup last year, so I still don't agree that we put style over winning
Soccer is a weird mix of appreciating the sublime that leads up to opportunities and seizing those opportunities.
Baseball is way more popular than Football, if you notice its pretty big, not as big as soccer but i would say its almost world wide too, just look at the baseball classic
no, only americans and countries that play the sport are interested, while europe, asia, south america football/soccer is very huge...
i think also when you compare population demographic usa is a huge market to penetrate, but outside of usa you got urself a diverse range of cultures to penetrate ur sport to....
i think soccer in america aint big, but when the national side plays, alot of ppl go out of there way to support them filling up stadiums compared to ur domestic league matches, its the same as down here...some ppl could care less about local comps...
nice summery!Here are some examples of the classical stereotypes:
-The Brazilians: are happy-samba-dancing-tricksters who learned to play in the beaches, have a relaxed at ude and care more about playing beautiful than winning.
-The Italians: are a defensive, organized team who everyone else considers dirty and boring. They only look to win by the smallest margins and don't care about the aesthetic side of the game. (Spurs anyone?
-The Germans: are hard-working, organized, industrious and never give up.
-The English: are fast, no-nonsense, direct, and naive. They also invented the game, but are crap at it
-The Argentinians: are some sort of mix of the Brazilians, Germans and Italians with a local flair touch. A mix of the best and the worst, a magical trick followed by a very violent assault on an opposing player.
-The Dutch: play great attacking football, with incredible flow but they're underachievers and they always implode at the wrong time because of their chaotic chemistry or find someone else to blame for their failure (Suns anyone?)
-The French: are like the Dutch, with less chaos but they surrender easily.
stereotypes sure. but true more often than not.
btw. The Spanish?
a balanced mix of offensive and defensive potential, always ranked among the top favorites, show great potential in the qualifying tournament and group stage and still somehow manage to lose against an inferior opponent in the knockout phase.
(well, this stereotype luckily didn't fit at the last Euro)
When I was a kid my friends and I would play football (touch and sometimes tackle) all the time....I''m sure you did the same. , most American kids grow up playing football at sometime in their childhood. No one had pads, but we had a ball and that was enough.
You previously wondered if they had the 'means' to play. If by 'means' you are referring to a public school system that will provide the students with the proper equipment and fields, I personally don't think it would happen. I would see the money being spent on soccer instead.
It really is just a matter of taste and culture. I don't think money has as much to do with it, as some other posts talk about countries with plenty of money that don't enjoy football. I enjoyed football more than everyone else, but over the past few years soccer has just taken over for me. Football works for America, and that's fine.
Your original question had to do with why soccer is the #1 sport in the world. Do you feel you have a better idea why that is after reading the posts in this thread?
80k+ that show up to watch NFL football every year in London might disagree.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if London gets an NFL franchise before San Antonio does.
, the record attendance at any one NFL game is not even held in a stadium in the US.
difference here in America is that kids also grow up playing in full pads.
In public school systems outside the US, I think the money is mostly spent on education rather than sports.You previously wondered if they had the 'means' to play. If by 'means' you are referring to a public school system that will provide the students with the proper equipment and fields, I personally don't think it would happen. I would see the money being spent on soccer instead.
Our school districts, especially in Texas, spend an ungodly amount of budget money on football.
I think money has a lot to do with it.It really is just a matter of taste and culture. I don't think money has as much to do with it, as some other posts talk about countries with plenty of money that don't enjoy football. I enjoyed football more than everyone else, but over the past few years soccer has just taken over for me. Football works for America, and that's fine.
We can agree to disagree on that.
my opinion of why it's #1 has not changed at all.Your original question had to do with why soccer is the #1 sport in the world. Do you feel you have a better idea why that is after reading the posts in this thread?
I guess it won't at this rate.
Sorry for the confusion, but I live in S.A. and grew up in the Valley. I understand the amount of money school districts spend on Football and that more and more elementary kids are playing in leagues with full pads than in years past.
I think that because football is enjoyed by so many Americans there's a lot of money involved in it. I don't believe that because there's money involved with it that's why Americans like it. The game of Football came first then the money followed...I don't think its the other way around.
It's the end of the day and I'm not even sure I made sense, but we'll agree to disagree.
1) It's not a sport if this fat piece of is able to play it
2) It's not the hardest sport to play. You can up 7 out of 10 times and make the all star team.
Great evidence of the fact soccer is more of a sport is career span. MLB players can play well into their 40's, soccer players peak in their 20's and don't make it much past age 30.
i grew up in washington DC and I played a lot of (american) football and baseball growing up, in the neighborhood and in school. football was a lot of fun, in the neighborhood. but in school it was very boring with the constant timeouts and lineup changes. in the neighborhood, with no refs and no coaches it was a blast. same with watching it- so slow that it sucked all the joy out. whoever said that the highlight of the superbowl is the commercials nailed it.
baseball sucked pretty much no matter what, though it is true that some positions are better than others (pitcher/catcher at least get to do something most of the time). i can appreciate the tradition around it, and the cerebral aspect of pitching/hitting. other than that baseball sucks.
a lot of people have already touched on some of the things that make soccer great and misunderstood by americans, but I'd like to add a couple:
-most american sports have timeouts and the coach can make subs utions as often as he likes. In soccer, there are no timeouts, you only have 3 subs and a subbed player cannot go back. once the game starts, there is very little the coach can do to control the game. The players have to improvise and endure, whereas in american sports there is a lot of micromanagement by the coach and i think american fans enjoy this aspect a lot- it makes for a lot of debate.
-this also affects the commercial/broadcasting aspect which is very important, in soccer you watch 90 minutes of action and it takes 105 minutes of real time. For me this is more intense. most american sports the games take much longer and there is less action, but it is broken down to digestible bits. a 48 minute basketball game takes easy 150 minutes to watch! but in between you can serve a drink, have a bite to eat, go to the bathroom, smoke a cigarette etc. (eh, most of you are too sophisticated for the cigarette but I'll smoke it for you). baseball is the worst, i remember going to orioles games that lasted 4+ hours. sometimes with bball games, I dont even bother to watch the first half, its the 4th quarter that counts. soccer is not like that, 10 seconds at any point can seal the game.
-to further debunk the cost argument- tennis is also a very costly sport, but it is quite popular in south america- chile has had a number 1 and currently (or has he slipped?) top 10 player, argentina has several players in the top 20, brazil has had a number 1, etc. but how many brazillian/argentines are there in baseball and american football? as far as I know the only one was the NFL kicker from argentina.
sons, for those of you that think soccer is boring catch Barcelona vs Real Madrid this weekend...arguably the biggest rivalry in all of sports, with two very offensive teams for whom the current two best players play for. if you dont enjoy that game than you have no hope and have unfortunately been programmed to dislike soccer by the american media.
You mean the once a year NFL event? Of course people will go to that, based on the novelty. The World Cup hosted in the US had the biggest attendance in WC history (I know foreigners contributed, but it was attended by sizable amount of Americans).
Anyways, the three London teams play their home games in front of 60K, 40K, and 25K weekly. Old Trafford (where Manchester United play) has about 70K fans for every home game. So you can see how football still comes nowhere near soccer in England. MLS teams in Seattle are averaging 35K for each league game, which I find at least on par with 80K of a once in a yaer event.
so people will go not because they like it, but because it only comes once a year? that makes no sense unless you are saying they are stupid and will fall for anything that comes along once a year.
the travel isnt as bad as that. NY-LA 2400+ miles, NY-London 3400+ miles. Every 1000 miles in the air is roughly just over 2 hours of flight time. That's nothing.And London isn't getting a team, imagine trying to fly to London to with all that travel and time zone difference doesn't help the cause either.
16 games + preseason + possible playoff, that is maybe 10-11 trips to the US on average for the London team.
Exactly. Foreigners and larger American stadiums contributed.
It's also a different thing when it's a team representing your country.
Why in the world would any Londoner want to see the 49ers play Denver this year? I'm not sure myself, but I bet they get at least 75+k again at Wembley.
No I don't see. How exactly is 35k on par with 80k?Anyways, the three London teams play their home games in front of 60K, 40K, and 25K weekly. Old Trafford (where Manchester United play) has about 70K fans for every home game. So you can see how football still comes nowhere near soccer in England. MLS teams in Seattle are averaging 35K for each league game, which I find at least on par with 80K of a once in a yaer event.
I don't see why this is hard to understand, but I shouldve used a clearer example.
The world football challenge took place in the US last year and featured Chelsea, Inter Milan, AC Milan and Club America. Let's look at the attendance numbers:
81k at Rose Bowl
70k in Baltimore
57k in Dallas
53k in Atlanta
Why would 80k in America want to see an Italian and English team play each other? So do you agree about the novelty aspect playing a role or do you now think that soccer should be the number one sport in America, but just hasn't had a chance at proper exposure?
Don't you think that because it happens once a year over there makes a difference?
Because it's in' awesome.
/thread
You said yourself foreigners contribute to those numbers.
sure, but 80k every year is still 80k
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
