[Jacki]

I'm sure this topic has been discussed before, but I'm not a regular at the Water Cooler.

As an Olympics junkie, I found myself watching USA vs Canada in a Soccer match today. That's what we call it, Soccer, the rest of the world calls it football. Football to those of us in the USA means a pigskin and a lot of muscular guys trying their best to badly hurt another person.

But it got me thinking...and back to the topic.

On any given weekend, Saturday and Sunday, at the local parks you will see tons of 'soccer' games going on with ages starting about 5 years up to the teenagers. Lots of parents and fans, lots of refreshments and noise all around as everyone cheers on their favorites.

But that's it as far as soccer is concerned in the USA. Once the kids get out of high school, soccer is a distant memory except for some community games it seems...it has never caught on as a popular sport as, say, football, baseball and even softball. But in the rest of the world it's a passion.

It's a rare family that doesn't have a kid or two involved in soccer. What happens that we here in the USA don't have the interest in soccer (ok football) as a professional sport?

Jacki

[TimG]

We in the US like:

1) Scoring; and
2) Commercial interruptions.

[barmar]

I think it's a "chicken and egg" problem. Sports don't become really popular unless there's a professional league with enough home teams that people can root for, the games are televised, and the newspapers cover the sport regularly. But the media isn't interested in covering the sport because it's not popular and there are no teams with well known players for them to cover.

When David Beckham moved to the US, I think they were hoping that his celebrity status might be able to bootstrap this process, but it wasn't enough. The media is already saturated with so many sports, it's hard to find time to show more, I suspect. And sports fans already have teams in so many sports to root for.

[Bbradley62]

"They" were hoping the same thing when Pele, Beckenbauer and Chinaglia played for The Cosmos in the 1970s.

[nigel_k]

Easy - because it's boring. In Australia and New Zealand we also call it soccer because we have other forms of football that are more popular.

A harder question to ask is why football, baseball, and hockey are not more popular outside North America. Basketball is not as popular as it could be either.

[jjbrr]

I don't consider myself a huge MLS fan by any means, but in the past three or four weeks I've attended two FC Dallas home games and frankly have found it to be tremendously enjoyable. I suppose as far as Americans go I come from a totally unusual family of soccer fans, but as someone who played soccer fairly competitively for about 15 years and coached for several more and has a mom from just north of Munich who supports FC Bayern pretty strongly I think I offer a fresh American perspective on the game.

Yes, Americans aren't as passionate about soccer as others in the world. I think there are lots of reasons for this, including other sports paying more money to its most elite athletes. I don't think necessarily there is anything wrong inherently with America's best athletes pursuing other more lucrative endeavors, and I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with soccer not getting the spotlight it perhaps deserves.

I can say, though, that if you are a soccer fan and have easy access to one of our bigger cities that 1) there is high level soccer likely available, 2) you can have a lot of fun building an evening around such an event and 3) the argument about not being able to insert commercials into televised soccer games hurts the entire sport tremendously and seems to actually have a lot of traction.

If you enjoy soccer, I suggest you go to a good MLS game. The atmosphere will likely be tremendous, and while the level of play might leave a bit to be desired, I think the pros outweigh the cons.

Just my $0.02.

[mike777]

American football has:


1) lots of gambling in hard core forms
2) lots of gambling in form of office pools
3) lots of violence.


a perfect trifica


I would add the game of american football is only about 12-13 minutes long.....


short...violent...lots of gambling at all levels......what sport matches that?

[blackshoe]

mike777, on 2012-August-06, 23:08, said:

short...violent...lots of gambling at all levels......what sport matches that?

Fight club? Oh, wait, I forgot, not supposed to take about fight club.

[barmar]

jjbrr, on 2012-August-06, 22:33, said:

can say, though, that if you are a soccer fan and have easy access to one of our bigger cities that 1) there is high level soccer likely available, 2) you can have a lot of fun building an evening around such an event and 3) the argument about not being able to insert commercials into televised soccer games hurts the entire sport tremendously and seems to actually have a lot of traction.

If you enjoy soccer, I suggest you go to a good MLS game. The atmosphere will likely be tremendous, and while the level of play might leave a bit to be desired, I think the pros outweigh the cons.

Just my $0.02.

Sports are a big part of the social fabric of many societies. I'm not a sports fan myself, so I find the amount of time people spend on it insane, but I recognize that this is the norm.

So while a soccer fan can go watch games if he wants, and enjoy the cameraderie of the other spectators at the event, there's something missing compared to watching sports that are more popular. When you go out with friends, they'll talk about the popular sports, and you won't have much luck bringing up soccer. The fantastic shot you saw at the game last night won't be a headline on the sports pages of the newspapers today.

Of course, as bridge players we're used to being excited by a pastime that most of society is ignorant of.

[mike777]

soccer has gambling but:


1) it needs more in the common form/not hard core
2) it nees more violence
3_ it needs to be shorter.....much shorter

If American football is about 14 minutes long...it allows....well you know more gambling and sex...food...drink...need i say advert.,,,etc....

[billw55]

While violence likely contributes to the popularity of American football, it can also hinder it going forward. Much data has emerged about long term brain damage and other disabilities related to playing. It has reached the point that, in my opinion, informed and responsible parents should not allow their sons to play football. This is a minority view for now but I believe it is growing. If football sees a long term decline in participation, it is expected that other, less violent sports will expand. Soccer is growing in popularity and awareness and is well positioned to fill this void.

[P_Marlowe]

In short - popularity of soccer is raising, the number of peoble with hispanics / ... background is
raising in the US.
But the majority likes, what their parents did like, and the football has a history in the US, soccer
does not, so the majority likes football.

The following may be interesting, after posting I read Bill55 post, it fits nicely

http://query.nytimes...ef=headinjuries

If this is enough, plus the raising number of hispanics to turn the table one day, ... ask native speakers.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hrothgar]

billw55, on 2012-August-08, 06:55, said:

While violence likely contributes to the popularity of American football, it can also hinder it going forward. Much data has emerged about long term brain damage and other disabilities related to playing. It has reached the point that, in my opinion, informed and responsible parents should not allow their sons to play football. This is a minority view for now but I believe it is growing. If football sees a long term decline in participation, it is expected that other, less violent sports will expand. Soccer is growing in popularity and awareness and is well positioned to fill this void.

Bill raises an important point:

The modern game of football is incredibly dangerous. Between the size of the athletes, the speed of the collisions, and the evolution of tackling into what we used to call spearing. I wouldn't be surprised to start seeing a long term decline in football participation in favor of soccer, lacrosse, rugby, whatever...

[Cyberyeti]

Having played (american) football coming from a rugby background at college level in the UK (I played nose tackle), I found it a much better game without the protective gear (we only got the pads/helmets after I'd played one year). If you're not wearing a helmet, and know how to tackle without leading with your head, it's as safe as rugby. You will find you adjust your tackling to go a little lower unkitted which permits the runner to gain a fraction more ground.

Not having the feeling of invincibility makes a big difference to how much care you take both of yourself and opponents.

[hrothgar]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-08, 07:49, said:

If you're not wearing a helmet, and know how to tackle without leading with your head, it's as safe as rugby.

American players are now taught directly the opposite

Tackle has been redefined as running into someone, head first, as hard as you can...

[TimG]

hrothgar, on 2012-August-08, 08:33, said:

Tackle has been redefined as running into someone, head first, as hard as you can...

I don't think that is quite true. Kids are not taught to lead with their helmet. Probably some, somewhere, but not the vast majority. Leading with your helmet in the NFL leads to a penalty (and possible fines) I believe.

[barmar]

I suspect that kids are "taught" to tackle with their shoulders, but they go ahead and do what they want. That big, heavy helmet seems like a great weapon, so it's natural to lead with it.

[TimG]

When I wore one of those helmets, it didn't seem like a good idea to run into something headfirst. At least not full speed into someone running at you at full speed. But, maybe that's why I mostly stood on the sideline.

But, it doesn't seem to me that the ones getting injured are the ones doing the hitting. It's those that are getting hit. And, the head injuries are more the whiplash variety (because the helmet protects against the blunt force injury).

[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2012-August-08, 09:25, said:

I suspect that kids are "taught" to tackle with their shoulders, but they go ahead and do what they want. That big, heavy helmet seems like a great weapon, so it's natural to lead with it.

Exactly, teach them without the helmets and they learn to tackle properly, but in a litigious culture like the US, one accident and it all goes wrong. You can crash tackle in rugby with the shoulder front on, but it happens so much less these days with the players getting bigger and bigger.

A clip I felt I had to include showing one of the best ever at it from the 70s, there are 3 examples, the ones around 30 secs and 2:20 are the sort of hits that are disappearing due to the size of the players, the one around 1:30 is now outlawed, you have to wrap up with the arms as well as putting the shoulder in.

http://www.rugbydump...to-jpr-williams

A remarkable man, was in the days of amateur rugby, a qualified surgeon too and was a good enough tennis player to win junior Wimbledon.

[barmar]

TimG, on 2012-August-08, 09:52, said:

But, it doesn't seem to me that the ones getting injured are the ones doing the hitting. It's those that are getting hit. And, the head injuries are more the whiplash variety (because the helmet protects against the blunt force injury).

Yeah, I think that's what I've heard as well. And the helmet provavly exacerbates this, since the heavy helmet increases the momentum.

I also think I heard about researchers who want to put accelerometers in kids' helmets, to get some real data about this effect, but cash-strapped school districts are not able to afford them.