Forums - Sports Discussion - Why football failed to catch on in certain countries

I find a brain for breakfast and he explained why football failed to catch in some countries.

Interestingly, many countries where it's not the most popular sport were formerly part of the British Empire:  United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India.

I'll summarize them.

Ireland: Due to Anglophobia, native sports such as curling and Gaelic football were promoted by Irish nationalists.
Canada: The cold climate lead to ice hockey becoming the dominant sport.
United States: Baseball was the first major professional sport, American football became the dominant sport and basketball became the urban sport of participation.
India: Cricket became popular in India due to consistent competition with commonwealth countries such as England and Australia from their test nation status.
Australia: Due to Australia's physical isolation, the native sport of Australian rules became popular. Cricket remained popular due to a similar reason as India.

I know he didn't explain Japan in the video, but baseball became the dominant sport there because Americans brought the sport there and baseball became the main game at university campuses.

Last edited by HomokHarcos - on 23 July 2018

Around the Network
HomokHarcos said:

I find a brain for breakfast and he explained why football failed to catch in some countries.

Interestingly, many countries where it's not the most popular sport were formerly part of the British Empire. United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India.

Perhaps because the british are A lousy team since the creation of the game.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Wow, that video title is some next level clickbait.



It's more surprising that it's as popular as it is in the world in general. When being a spectator, the main draws of a game are the ability to tell a narrative and for excitement to build with a climax. Of the five biggest sports in the United States I'd rank them as follows.

1. American Football: Easily the best narrative of any sport. The game can be sub-divided into three separate categories mini-dramas on almost every play. The need to get 10 yards in 3 plays to continue a drive, the narrative builds as the make-or-break 3rd down approaches. Where the team is on a drive, the closer to scoring the team is, the more exciting the play, and the overall score within the game. And, of course, there are big plays that happen within the narrative that scramble the whole story.

No other sport comes close to this level of narrative brilliance, and that's why it has eclipsed the others.

2. Baseball: Surprised to see this so high? You shouldn't be. Baseball is highly underrated as a spectator sport. Like football, it has a rising narrative and multiple dramas within each pitch. The tone of the game changes based on whether the count is 0-1 or 3-1. Whether someone is on base, how many outs there are. It's more nuanced than football, so it requires a bit more knowledge, which drops it well behind the other sport.

Tied for 3rd: Basketball and Hockey:

Ironically, these are the two fastest-paced games of the five, but they both have huge deficiencies in their design.

Basketball's flaw is that a goal is worth so little. You could watch a player make the most amazing play ever, and it'll still only be worth two points. Roughly 1/50th of what's needed to win a game. You get a lot of them, but there's more of a feeling of watching whose point total can go up faster than a sense of who is really doing better. If a team wins by a typical score of 105-95. What does that make them? 10% better? A few, almost random makes and misses that seemed meaningless when it happened and that score is overturned.

Hockey might well be my favorite, but its flaw is that the scoring feels almost random. It's hard to know when a goal is going to be scored or the goalie is going to make a save. There are a decent number of goals per game, which is good, but outside of powerplays, it's hard to know when to expect them. Spectators are left to cheer when something happens instead of expecting something to happen and occasionally being blindsided by a big play. Instead it's all or nothing.

5. Soccer: Oh boy, this is bad. Take all of hockey's flaws, make the game slower, lower scoring, and toss in the dumbest rule in sports, the soccer offsides rule, which inspires bad defense so that the ref can bail them out (toss the rule out once they get to the top of the box guys), grown men crying on the ground for minutes at a time as a delaying tactic, and a weirdly all or nothing penalty system. 90 minutes and pretty much nothing can happen until it randomly does. Because the goals are spaced so far apart and come so out of the blue, there's really no edge of your seat excitement until just moments before it happens. So you're watching a long, boring game, punctuated by a few moments. It's the worst of all worlds and by far the least exciting sport to watch as a spectator.



NightlyPoe said:
the dumbest rule in sports, the soccer offsides rule, which inspires bad defense so that the ref can bail them out (toss the rule out once they get to the top of the box guys)

lol



Around the Network
NightlyPoe said:
It's more surprising that it's as popular as it is in the world in general. When being a spectator, the main draws of a game are the ability to tell a narrative and for excitement to build with a climax. Of the five biggest sports in the United States I'd rank them as follows.

1. American Football: Easily the best narrative of any sport. The game can be sub-divided into three separate categories mini-dramas on almost every play. The need to get 10 yards in 3 plays to continue a drive, the narrative builds as the make-or-break 3rd down approaches. Where the team is on a drive, the closer to scoring the team is, the more exciting the play, and the overall score within the game. And, of course, there are big plays that happen within the narrative that scramble the whole story.

No other sport comes close to this level of narrative brilliance, and that's why it has eclipsed the others.

2. Baseball: Surprised to see this so high? You shouldn't be. Baseball is highly underrated as a spectator sport. Like football, it has a rising narrative and multiple dramas within each pitch. The tone of the game changes based on whether the count is 0-1 or 3-1. Whether someone is on base, how many outs there are. It's more nuanced than football, so it requires a bit more knowledge, which drops it well behind the other sport.

Tied for 3rd: Basketball and Hockey:

Ironically, these are the two fastest-paced games of the five, but they both have huge deficiencies in their design.

Basketball's flaw is that a goal is worth so little. You could watch a player make the most amazing play ever, and it'll still only be worth two points. Roughly 1/50th of what's needed to win a game. You get a lot of them, but there's more of a feeling of watching whose point total can go up faster than a sense of who is really doing better. If a team wins by a typical score of 105-95. What does that make them? 10% better? A few, almost random makes and misses that seemed meaningless when it happened and that score is overturned.

Hockey might well be my favorite, but its flaw is that the scoring feels almost random. It's hard to know when a goal is going to be scored or the goalie is going to make a save. There are a decent number of goals per game, which is good, but outside of powerplays, it's hard to know when to expect them. Spectators are left to cheer when something happens instead of expecting something to happen and occasionally being blindsided by a big play. Instead it's all or nothing.

5. Soccer: Oh boy, this is bad. Take all of hockey's flaws, make the game slower, lower scoring, and toss in the dumbest rule in sports, the soccer offsides rule, which inspires bad defense so that the ref can bail them out (toss the rule out once they get to the top of the box guys), grown men crying on the ground for minutes at a time as a delaying tactic, and a weirdly all or nothing penalty system. 90 minutes and pretty much nothing can happen until it randomly does. Because the goals are spaced so far apart and come so out of the blue, there's really no edge of your seat excitement until just moments before it happens. So you're watching a long, boring game, punctuated by a few moments. It's the worst of all worlds and by far the least exciting sport to watch as a spectator.

Seems like you don't understand soccer at all if you can't get the expectation of the game at every play.

Also one of the few sports where upsets are so common.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

mZuzek said:
NightlyPoe said:
the dumbest rule in sports, the soccer offsides rule, which inspires bad defense so that the ref can bail them out (toss the rule out once they get to the top of the box guys)

lol

Any rule where the defense runs to let the offensive player behind them and then gets rewarded is stupid.  Any other sport, that's called bad defense.

I understand the need to eliminate cherry-picking, but once you're passed a certain point on the field, there's no reason this should exist.  It's a ridiculous rule that could be fixed easily, and would never be implemented if it weren't already a part of the game, but persists merely due to how long it's already been there.



DonFerrari said:

Seems like you don't understand soccer at all if you can't get the expectation of the game at every play.

Also one of the few sports where upsets are so common.

I'm aware you can watch a play develop.  You can do the same in hockey, which, as I said, might well be my personal favorite, and almost any sport where you wish to put an object into a goal past a keeper.  And in pretty much all the other ones, the pace is faster and there are more goals.

My point was that the outcome is binary.  Either a goal is score, or an effort is wasted.  Usually an effort is wasted and maybe there's a corner kick as a consolation prize.  So when a goal is scored, it's a near-sudden thing that doesn't have the same build-up as third and goal or getting a hit with runners in scoring position.  Yes, baseball has its instant offense with a homerun and football has pick sixes that come out of nowhere, but that potential is a spice, not the whole game.  There's a ratcheting up of the narrative that doesn't exist in soccer.



NightlyPoe said:
It's more surprising that it's as popular as it is in the world in general. When being a spectator, the main draws of a game are the ability to tell a narrative and for excitement to build with a climax. Of the five biggest sports in the United States I'd rank them as follows.

1. American Football: Easily the best narrative of any sport. The game can be sub-divided into three separate categories mini-dramas on almost every play. The need to get 10 yards in 3 plays to continue a drive, the narrative builds as the make-or-break 3rd down approaches. Where the team is on a drive, the closer to scoring the team is, the more exciting the play, and the overall score within the game. And, of course, there are big plays that happen within the narrative that scramble the whole story.

No other sport comes close to this level of narrative brilliance, and that's why it has eclipsed the others.

2. Baseball: Surprised to see this so high? You shouldn't be. Baseball is highly underrated as a spectator sport. Like football, it has a rising narrative and multiple dramas within each pitch. The tone of the game changes based on whether the count is 0-1 or 3-1. Whether someone is on base, how many outs there are. It's more nuanced than football, so it requires a bit more knowledge, which drops it well behind the other sport.

Tied for 3rd: Basketball and Hockey:

Ironically, these are the two fastest-paced games of the five, but they both have huge deficiencies in their design.

Basketball's flaw is that a goal is worth so little. You could watch a player make the most amazing play ever, and it'll still only be worth two points. Roughly 1/50th of what's needed to win a game. You get a lot of them, but there's more of a feeling of watching whose point total can go up faster than a sense of who is really doing better. If a team wins by a typical score of 105-95. What does that make them? 10% better? A few, almost random makes and misses that seemed meaningless when it happened and that score is overturned.

Hockey might well be my favorite, but its flaw is that the scoring feels almost random. It's hard to know when a goal is going to be scored or the goalie is going to make a save. There are a decent number of goals per game, which is good, but outside of powerplays, it's hard to know when to expect them. Spectators are left to cheer when something happens instead of expecting something to happen and occasionally being blindsided by a big play. Instead it's all or nothing.

5. Soccer: Oh boy, this is bad. Take all of hockey's flaws, make the game slower, lower scoring, and toss in the dumbest rule in sports, the soccer offsides rule, which inspires bad defense so that the ref can bail them out (toss the rule out once they get to the top of the box guys), grown men crying on the ground for minutes at a time as a delaying tactic, and a weirdly all or nothing penalty system. 90 minutes and pretty much nothing can happen until it randomly does. Because the goals are spaced so far apart and come so out of the blue, there's really no edge of your seat excitement until just moments before it happens. So you're watching a long, boring game, punctuated by a few moments. It's the worst of all worlds and by far the least exciting sport to watch as a spectator.

Football and Baseball are definitely the best, but the reason they aren't so popular is simple. The chance to pick up and play. Football and Baseball takes a lot of strategy and players, so it is harder to understand for viewers.

In terms of ease it goes like this:

Tied for first: Soccer and Basketball. Can 1v1 and it is still the same or 2v2, 5v5 and etc. for a full game. Just find a field/urban landscape to put 2 goals in.

3rd: Hockey, similar to Soccer and Basketball but requires more equipment.

4th: Football, Requires more people than a 1v1 to actually play football, otherwise you just throwing it back and forth.

5th: Baseball, Similar to Football, but requires more equipment.



NightlyPoe said:
mZuzek said:

lol

Any rule where the defense runs to let the offensive player behind them and then gets rewarded is stupid.  Any other sport, that's called bad defense.

I understand the need to eliminate cherry-picking, but once you're passed a certain point on the field, there's no reason this should exist.  It's a ridiculous rule that could be fixed easily, and would never be implemented if it weren't already a part of the game, but persists merely due to how long it's already been there.

It doesn't reward defensive play, in fact it's quite the opposite. By allowing teams to play with a high defensive line, it gives them room to be offensive while still compact - otherwise, teams would have to either be spread all over the pitch, thus hindering team play in general, or close together all in their own half, leading to extremely defensive play, because if anyone dared play a high line, it would automatically mean dumb easy long balls for the opposing team. It also means strikers need to be smarter about making their chances.

But well, what am I doing trying to explain football to an American.