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

Forums - General - Why is soccer so unpopular in the US?

Escherichia on 09 March 2008

I can't speak for everybody when i say this but I hate, HATE watching sports on TV, nor would I care to actually go to the stadium. I'm just not a spectator. That being said I love soccer, I love footbal, I love baseball, I love basketball, I love tennis, and I love golf. I love playing that is, it's alot of fun. About the only exception I make to this rule is the superbowl and that's because it's a good reason to have a party.

It has been far too long since I played any of these, that's the problem with having a bunch of lazy out-of-shape freinds who'd rather watch TV, play video games, or get drunk. Theres plenty of time for all that good stuff later.

Soccer is not boring, and alot more physically demanding than baseball or football, about on par with basketball if not a little more intense. Baseball is pretty much the least physically demanding, and football, well that's a different story all together, I really don't like tackle football because it's way to easy to get hurt....permanently and my body has to last me a long time, I'm kinda attached to it.

Here is a little phrase for anybody who doesn't think we americans play soccer, soccer moms. 

And by the way Kickball is not Soccer. At least not where I come from. Kickball is like baseball only with a ball that you kick.



Around the Network
Lafiel on 09 March 2008

@ dgm6780 )

I really like, that it's possible for a game to end in a tie in (non-american) football league games, for that makes victories just so much more rewarding.



izaaz101 on 09 March 2008
CaptainPrefrences said:
 

lol. you are so right.

baseball is 20 minutes of action packed into 5 hours of play.

basketball is a good sport but when a player gets touched on his wrist they stop the game for 2 minutes to shoot free throws.

football is very boaring. 20 seconds of play then a 40 second break. and during the 20 seconds of play they barley move up field.

hockey. i hate hockey. (pretty weird for a canadian) but hockey is really a sissy sport cuz they wear mad padding and theres so many players on a small rink which makes it very hard to score.

soccer- soccer for me is amazing to watch. sometimes it gets boaring if your watching to shit teams i.e sheffield united and QPR, but the atmosphere of the crowd the close calls,the amazing saves, and the penalty shootouts make the game great. also when a player scores, its a big relief. wish i could go see a man utd game.

cricket is just an amazing game. i really dont know what to say about this game but its good speically watching it.


Are you seriously critisizing the lack of scoring in hockey, when you are arguing for soccer?

And I'll 2nd gebx's view on diving. Soccer player consistently dive, clutch their legs in pain, get carried off on a strecher of all things, and are running around in 2 minutes. That is a sissy thing to do.



SeriousWB on 09 March 2008
CaptainPrefrences said:

<snip> 

playing the great game called soccer.

<snip>


That's why, because it's called football yaaargh!



Thatmax on 09 March 2008
CaptainPrefrences said:

You have to admit. Soccer is pretty dry in the US. Ive been there sevral times and never ever see anyone playing the great game called soccer.

The top sports in teh US as most oif you know are basketball hockey, football, and baseball.

anyways why do americans hate soccer? mainly because its "boaring" to them. thats what i think. it usually takes them over 45 minutes to score in soccer and a match can produce 3 goals on average.

americans like sports with high scores and ongoign action, but that doesnt make sense because they like baseball..(ahah get the joke?) but thats another topic.

most of you know, Pele came to the states to try and revive soccer, along with players like ccryuff maradona, beckenbaur, and that italian who played for the cosmos (he played striker), and george best. but after these guys left, soccer just became dry again. then theres beckahm. people say he can revive soccer in the us, but i dont think he cant as he isnt as good as pele, best, cruyff etc.

i have to admit the american soccer team is pretty good, but they keep getting raped by teams other than concacaf members. i.e world cup 2006, copa america 2007. the best team they can beat is mexico, although they did beat sweden a month ago.

soccer here in canada is growing specially with immigrants coming from south america italy, spain, portugal, germany, africa etc. but why isnt it growing in america? are the 4 big sports blocking it? does the MLS need to have the same structure as the Premier League?

what do you think.


 OH NO HE DI,NT



Around the Network
Stillwell on 09 March 2008

Because they are Americans. That really is the answer.



ion-storm on 09 March 2008
Kasz216 said:
ion-storm said:
dgm6780 said:
comparing the lack of scoring in soccer to scoring in baseball shows a real lack of understanding of baseball.

averages for 2007

Red Sox 5.3 - 4.0 opponent (lowest in runs allowed)
Yanks 5.97 - 4.79 opponent
Pirates 4.46 - 5.22 opponent
Arizona 4.69 - 4.51 opponent (this was lowest in MLB, 9.2 runs per game)

a 5-4 game isnt in the same realm as a 1-0 or 2-1 game. With a 5-4 game, that means on average, 1 run was scored EVERY inning. and you are comparing that to a game were you wait 45 minutes just to see a scoring opportunity.

and lets not forget the stupidity of playing out an entire game and ending it in a tie. (but hell soccer could go on for days trying to break a tie)
lets also not forget the stupidity of allowing the head referee to decide when the game will end, he adds on time at the end of a game, and the ammount of time added is wholely up to him and it isnt announced.

but you were right about one thing, soccer is BORING. i think the main draw for some Euros is the drinking/chanting/singing/fighting/family tradtitions and nothing do with the actual game.

soccer is popular worldwide because all it takes is a ball, not much equipment and you can play. so poor families, in poor nations can play it from the time they are young. (thats not true for baseball, basketball, or football - they are expensive to play/setup organized leagues)




oh and hockey isnt a major sport here in the US anymore. but atleast they were smart enough to do away with ties. and its not out of the realm that it could become a major sport again - say if they signed a deal to get weekly games on ESPN.

You might want to check up on that little fact :)

You can have a good game without lots of goals. Fast paced end to end action with some great skill. Appreciate the skill, watch the action, don't assume a 0 - 0 game has to be boring.

 

@Rocketpig

You should really be comparing american football to rugy as the two sports have more in common than with "soccer". Rugy plays are massive as well. Also run just as fast if not faster, don't take ridiculous amounts of breaks and don't wear the same vast quantity of pads.

http://www.rugbygamers.com/home/2-articles/5-Fastest%20rugby%20player?tmpl=component&print=1&page=

That said. Everyone has their own preference of what they like to watch. I like football (soccer), rugby and ice hockey.

 

For a real hardcore game try hurling. Take a hard hard ball, get stick, hit at person height with stick at up to 90mph. Now try being the goal keeper with no pads :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurling


Rugby players also take much less contact. The only one getting hit at full speed is ususally the guys with ball. In Football everyone is going to be taking heavy contact on most plays. (aside the QB unless your team sucks.)

Here is a good example that explains why American Football is actually pretty brutal in comparison to Rugby despite the pads.

http://wesclark.com/rrr/pads_and_helmets.html

I'll accept that about the contact and pain part. But it also causes the main problem I have with it. Too many breaks in the action.



Yes

rocketpig on 09 March 2008
dgm6780 said:
a 0-0 tie with the best moves/action/saves/tackles/passes EVER is still really stupid. to be a great sporting moment/event you got to have a winner and a loser. PERIOD

i brought baseball scoring into because someone (rocket i think) wondered/mocked how baseball could be popular when it doesnt have scoring or action either.

soccer IS popular in America as a active participant sport, for youngsters (13 & under) its probably the most popular sport for girls and top 2 or 3 for boys. Soccer just isnt popular as a spectator sport. and since it isnt popular as a spectator sport, there isnt BIG money in it. And without BIG money we dont have soccer at an elite level. (i know we have pro soccer, but I mean like getting the best players money can buy - like the NBA/MLB)

No offense but don't ever challenge me on fucking baseball again. It is far and away my favorite sport. In fact, I operate the largest Twins-only fansite on the internet.

...

I'm done now. I just had to clear my point on that. Diehard baseball fan here. I will argue OPS+, RS/27, and all the obscure shit that 99.99% of baseball fans don't even know exist.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

rocketpig on 09 March 2008

@Rocketpig

You should really be comparing american football to rugy as the two sports have more in common than with "soccer". Rugy plays are massive as well. Also run just as fast if not faster, don't take ridiculous amounts of breaks and don't wear the same vast quantity of pads.


Show me a rugby player that is as large, as fast, and as tall as Shawne Merriman.

Again, I'll repeat: 6'4", 272 lbs, 4.61 40.

Show me a rugby player that can even touch that and I will completely retract anything I said.

...

They don't exist. I guarantee you that if the NFL put a cross section of linebackers, defensive backs, and safeties on a rugby field and spent a year teaching them how to play rugby, they would not only beat every team in the world, they would annihilate them in the fashion of the Dream Team. 




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

rjs_252 on 09 March 2008
rocketpig said:
 

Show me a rugby player that is as large, as fast, and as tall as Shawne Merriman.

Again, I'll repeat: 6'4", 272 lbs, 4.61 40.

Show me a rugby player that can even touch that and I will completely retract anything I said.

...

They don't exist. I guarantee you that if the NFL put a cross section of linebackers, defensive backs, and safeties on a rugby field and spent a year teaching them how to play rugby, they would not only beat every team in the world, they would annihilate them in the fashion of the Dream Team.


I can think of one off the top of my head (granted kidney replacement has changed him now and his trying to make a comeback):

Jonah Lomu: 6'5", 260 lbs, 100m - 10.89s (dividing by 10 and multiplying by 4 for the 40m time gives us: 4.36s) Thats assuming that someone runs at a constant speed (not blatantly true) but a good indicator. Either way he was certainly in the ball park of Merriman, wouldn't you think?

Granted, plays like Lomu come along rarely in rugby, there are a helluva lot of players who are slightly smaller smaller (weight wise, around 16 stone and still in the range of "feck I wouldn't want him running into me at full pelt) but still run the 100m in under 11s - something I'd like to see proof Merriman could do (we don't use 40m as a speed measuring distance in rugby really, all results are usually of the 100m variety).