By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sports Discussion - Why USA never jumped the soccer bandwagon?

Mostly due to competition from the firmly entrenched American sports of baseball and football, which cover fall to winter, and spring through summer.

There isn't much space in between the two and the other American sport of basketball tends to pick up most of the slack.

The interesting thing is most kids in the suburbs play soccer, not football in the fall although baseball is the most common team sport played in the summer. This probably has more to do with the amount of equipment required for football as well as a designated field with goal posts and yardage markings and the contact nature of football more than anything else though.



Around the Network
WoodenPints said:

Because they can't make a domestic football league and call themselves world champions :P

That certainly wouldn't stop us. We call our baseball championship the "world series" despite Japan frequently having better teams than us.



Johnw1104 said:

 

To be fair, reports of our "nationalistic" tendencies are somewhat overblown. To begin with, our war for independence was fought not because we felt we were different or superior, but rather because we weren't granted the rights and privileges that proper British citizens received. There were few who desired independence before the long string of grievances (proclamation of 1763, stamp act, Townsend acts, intolerable acts etc); rather, they wanted to be properly integrated.


After becoming an independent nation the U.S. has certainly had an independent streak, but I don't feel they were any more "nationalistic" than most western nations. Unlike many, from the start they wanted to reduce the popularity of mercantilism and open the world to trade, and the wealthy trade relations established between the U.S. and UK almost immediately following independence, it being more lucrative to the British than when they owned the territory themselves, was an early model for less restrictive trade going forward.


Otherwise, the U.S. also overcame its own strong, powerful prejudices towards other cultures and religions in allowing unprecedentedly large legal waves of immigration. Really, I marvel at the idea that in 2015 the very idea of accepting a few thousand refugees is meeting such resistance in many modern, enlightened European countries, considering the U.S. in a bygone era (1830-1920) accepted over five million Irish Catholics (given that's nearly my entire ancestry I'm glad for it, and don't underestimate the Protestant hate for Catholics in this era). 


They were obviously treated terribly for the first few generations, but the idea that just one group of migrants, possessing a different culture, religion, no money, and even often language (Gaelic was not uncommon) was allowed in to the number of over five million simultaneous to many other groups, I think, is quite remarkable. To this day we still legally accept slightly over a million migrants annually (too few in my opinion), far make than any other nation, and still make the same fear-based complaints about said immigrants that have been spouted since Ben Franklin worried aloud that we might soon be speaking German.


I think, then, that this is a misappropriation of the term "nationalist". We've not had nationalistic tendencies since we were fighting for our independence, and even then it was in pursuit of political rights that had been denied. The USA has long been a messy country that is, essentially, inventing itself on the fly. Our politics, demographics, and economy is in a constant state of flux, though politically we've largely seen more stability than most nations since the end of the Civil War. There is no real unified and readily accepted concept of what "America" is here quite like there often is for older nations whose population has hardly changed over the centuries.


Otherwise, your example of us not adopting the metric system is the result of convenience, not obstinacy. The U.S., with its geographical size, over 310 million people, and 50 states, is like an EU unto itself. Unlike the EU where cooperation and conformity were enormously beneficial for the shared trade, roads, and highways of a great many countries, no such need exists here. We have two neighbors and the borders are not open.


It simply makes little sense to make the switch. In all matters science the metric system is used and it is taught in our schools, but the public is familiar with the old imperial system and uses it in their everyday lives. There's just little reason to convert for the average day activities. Consider, for instance, how costly and time consuming it would be to replace all the signs of the world's longest (by far) network of roads with metric measurements, and then retrofit all the dashboards with km/hr to avoid confusion in a nation with more cars per person than any other spare the micro states of Monaco, San Marino, and Lichtenstein. Who, really, would even benefit from that? It would simply be a waste.


Really, we have less a sense of ourselves than just about any country, and we've not gone nearly so far down the road of true nationalism as many countries did throughout the 20th century. People just look at us and see that our measurements are different, our sports are different, that we often place greater significance in what the constitution says than an international body (to the point that we'll propose something like the League of Nations and not even join it lol), and they think these are deliberate attempts at doing the opposite of the rest of the world. This, of course, is largely untrue; the idea that we could so come together on any idea as to be capable of pulling off a grand plan like that is silly. Rather, the US simply grew from the ground up as a nation with few anchors in the past, no real rivals or puppet-masters in the region (especially as they approached the 19th century), and few connections to the old world. That it wound up looking different from other countries should not come as a surprise.

^^^^^^

Read this and also Soccer is very boring, low scoring and full of diving. 

Settle down and accept that the US created its own sports along with Candada. We are original. 



Football (i.e. soccer) becoming big in America will happen, in time. America has a very unique sports culture, and the difficulty with football is that it doesn't jig with it. It is low scoring. It is perhaps not as alpha as a sport like gridiron. It isn't an American creation. Most importantly of course, it doesn't lend itself well to TV adverts every 20 seconds like gridiron and baseball. The keys to football taking off in the USA then, would be sustained success for the national team, and the MLS finding a way to adapt football (or at least the image of football) to American tastes. It could be a very slow process, but it will happen. Football is taking over everywhere, and to think that your particular country, whether it's the USA or somewhere else will be the one that resists the trend is naïve.

Oh, and as an unrelated addition, being low scoring doesn't make football boring. On the contrary, it just makes goals a lot more special when they do happen.



Cream147 said:
Football (i.e. soccer) becoming big in America will happen, in time. America has a very unique sports culture, and the difficulty with football is that it doesn't jig with it. It is low scoring. It is perhaps not as alpha as a sport like gridiron. It isn't an American creation. Most importantly of course, it doesn't lend itself well to TV adverts every 20 seconds like gridiron and baseball. The keys to football taking off in the USA then, would be sustained success for the national team, and the MLS finding a way to adapt football (or at least the image of football) to American tastes. It could be a very slow process, but it will happen. Football is taking over everywhere, and to think that your particular country, whether it's the USA or somewhere else will be the one that resists the trend is naïve.

Oh, and as an unrelated addition, being low scoring doesn't make football boring. On the contrary, it just makes goals a lot more special when they do happen.

So basically you are equating Soccer to an unstoppable force that can  take over everything in it's path. It is like a bacteria, or virus spreading it's pestilance to to every victim. No one can stop it. For it is a plague. It is the ultimate, and absolute and we should all bow before the one sport soccer.

 

That is basically what you wrote. 



Around the Network
Cream147 said:
Football (i.e. soccer) becoming big in America will happen, in time. America has a very unique sports culture, and the difficulty with football is that it doesn't jig with it. It is low scoring. It is perhaps not as alpha as a sport like gridiron. It isn't an American creation. Most importantly of course, it doesn't lend itself well to TV adverts every 20 seconds like gridiron and baseball. The keys to football taking off in the USA then, would be sustained success for the national team, and the MLS finding a way to adapt football (or at least the image of football) to American tastes. It could be a very slow process, but it will happen. Football is taking over everywhere, and to think that your particular country, whether it's the USA or somewhere else will be the one that resists the trend is naïve.

Oh, and as an unrelated addition, being low scoring doesn't make football boring. On the contrary, it just makes goals a lot more special when they do happen.


No one is being naive.Soccer will never dominate the USA like the other sports.All 3 sports are billion dollar leagues with just the US mainly supporting them.No Soccer player will ever be a Michael Jordan type star.David B was only known from that bend it like Becham thing and not for the sport he played in over here.That is the only Soccer player that I can name.

That is not a good sign whenpeople know tons of nascar drivers,tennis players,golf players and baseball players without even following the sport.ESPN is the leading sports network in the US and they barely cover Soccer like the other sports,which gives exposure to the casual sports crowd.Success has nothing to do with it as US sports fans support their favoite team even though they are trash,Just ask the Browns or Lions fans.

As I said,college basket ball and football are also billion dollar leagues and many fans recognize the players from their area/schools once they go pro.LeBron James and Kobe Bryant were both stars already before they left high school and Jordan was famous from his college years.So they already had a following in which the media and fans watched them enter the league.Tim Tebow and Andrew Luck had huge following in college as well and that attention carried over into the NFL.Socer does not have and never will have that type of star power here.



Cream147 said:
Oh, and as an unrelated addition, being low scoring doesn't make football boring. On the contrary, it just makes goals a lot more special when they do happen.

I find the idea of it being low scoring odd anyway. In NFL there are only 3 or 4 touchdowns a game if that on average, maybe a few field goals, in the amount of time a single game takes the amount of 'goals' scored in both sports is probably pretty even I'd say. Maybe football should have each goal as 7 points...



Hmm, pie.

Metallox said:
John120219 said:
Because our actual National Soccer team is terrible. Well our Men's National team is terrible, our Women's National team is amazing.

The men's team is the best in the CONCACAF. How is that a terrible team? 


Mexico is actually.

Also, average attendance for an MLS match is higher than that of an NBA basketball match.



Leagues in the US tend to be more profitable than the rest of the world, but the MLS is no where near as profitable as the NBA. Do you even have a source showing what you say as true.

LeagueSportCountrySeasonTeamsRevenue
(€ million)
Rev. per club
(€ million)
Ref
National Football League American football USA 2014 32 10,005 (US$11.2 bn) 313 [1]
Major League Baseball Baseball USA/Canada 2014 30 8,040 (US$9 bn) 268 [2]
Premier League Association football England/Wales 2013–14 20 4,696 (£3.3 bn) 235 [3]
National Basketball Association Basketball USA/Canada 2014–15 30 4,580 (US$4.8 bn) 152 [4]
National Hockey League Ice hockey USA/Canada 2013–14 30 3,390 (US$3.7 bn) 110 [5]
Bundesliga Association football Germany 2013–14 18 2,275 126 [6]
La Liga Association football Spain 2013–14 20 1,933 97 [7]
Serie A Association football Italy 2013–14 20 1,699 85 [6]
Ligue 1 Association football France/Monaco 2013–14 20 1,498 75 [6]
Nippon Professional Baseball Baseball Japan - 12 980 (JP¥140 bn) 81.7 [8]
Campeonato Brasileiro Série A Association football Brazil 2012 20 919 (R$3 bn) 45.9 [9]
Russian Premier League Association football Russia 2012–13 16 896 56 [6]
Football League Championship Association football England/Wales 2014–15 24 620 25.8 [10]
Süper Lig Association football Turkey 2012–13 18 551 30.6 [6]
Liga MX Association football Mexico 18 509.2 28.3(£22.6 m) [11]
2. Bundesliga Association football Germany 2011–12 18 458 25.4 [12]
Eredivisie Association football Netherlands 2014–15 18 442 24.5 [13]
Major League Soccer Association football USA/Canada 2014 19 414.3 (US$461 m) 23 [14]


These things tend to come down to what the country is good at. China is good at ping pong. It wouldn't even be thought of any more a real sport than subbuteo if countries who were good at it didn't want it thought of as a real sport.

Likewise female volleyball is big in china... not mens. Female volleyball is the first sport china ever beat the world at so they love it. When the uk does well in a random olympic sport, like triple jump, suddenly it's talked about all the time and it's treated in the uk media as a noteworthy sport. People in the uk took up cycling in big numbers when Bradley Wiggins did well.