USA and the World Cup

[Peebo]

I'd expect him to play on some trick plays and goal line packages this year and then be given the opportunity to win the job from Quinn next year. I expect him to be the starter in two years. I think he really lucked out landing with McDaniels who has proven to be a good QB coach and who will implement some of the Florida Spread offence up in Denver, I wouldn't expect much straight away but in a few years I think he could be a good player.

 

I hate Tebow. That is all.

[Sterling Archer]

I hate Tebow. That is all.

 

 

I hate Tebow. That is all.

 

wow you really do!

[Del1812]

Any American who slates our game is just bitter at the fact no-one outside of the states takes Baseball or American Handegg seriously.

 

Much like your average rugby fan, they're just annoyed that football will always be more important than their own pale attempts.

 

Pish.

 

In Japan and Cuba the biggest sport is baseball. It's also generally liked in Venezuela, Puerto Rico, South Korea, Mexico and Canada. Even in Holland there is a fondness for it.

 

You may claim that this doesn't really count because you may find some, or all, of these countries insignificant. But if you do, seriously, how are you any better than the ignorant Americans you are having a go at?

[poggs]

I believe the term soccer came from the trend at the time to add "er" on the end of words/partial words. At the time, football was know as "Association Football", so some smart arse thought it would be cool to put "er" on the end of Soc (from Association), hence soc©er came into existence.

 

Or..it could be BS..

 

 

Another possibility has also been suggested for the origin of the word "soccer.' The etymology for the word "soccer" leads to its recent common ancestor, "socc." Though this sounds remarkably similar to the word "sock," there is a different connotation suggested. Originally, the word "socc," stemming from the Latin "soccus," referred to a type of shoe and is first mentioned during the 8th century. During medieval times, maps sometimes showed open areas listed as "soceries" and could lend further credibility to this word used by many for the game.

 

Read more: What Is the Origin of the "Soccer" Name? | eHow.co.uk http://www.ehow.co.uk/about_5040445_origin-soccer-name.html#ixzz0rEZW9eXv

[Big D]

Another possibility has also been suggested for the origin of the word "soccer.' The etymology for the word "soccer" leads to its recent common ancestor, "socc." Though this sounds remarkably similar to the word "sock," there is a different connotation suggested. Originally, the word "socc," stemming from the Latin "soccus," referred to a type of shoe and is first mentioned during the 8th century. During medieval times, maps sometimes showed open areas listed as "soceries" and could lend further credibility to this word used by many for the game.

 

Read more: What Is the Origin of the "Soccer" Name? | eHow.co.uk http://www.ehow.co.uk/about_5040445_origin-soccer-name.html#ixzz0rEZW9eXv

 

Why are you suggesting there is any other derivation than the one in the link you posted. Football games were originally played half under rugger, and half under soccer rules. That's why we have half time. Nothing whatsoever to do with anything in the body of your post. Why was the 'glish league called the Football League?

[Gorgiewave]

Surely basketball and ice hockey have the disadvantage, from the point of view of big crowds, of having a much smaller playing surface than football or American football, so that capacities will be much smaller.

[Sharpie]

When I first came to Canada played in a local league. The teams in general had ethnic roots, Croatian, Serbs, these were games you avoided being near as they were more a battle. Italian, Portugese, and of course English and Scots both of whom at that time were sponsored by breweries, my particular team were New Westminster Blues, better known as Labatts Blues. The Fire Department also always had a strong team.

 

Playing field were primarily Canadian football, and baseball, with a token soccer field thrown in.

 

It is quite different now, many schools have dropped their Canadian football programs because of the possibility of injury and thus being sued. Hockey is still popular but more parents are putting their children in real football because it is safer, cheaper, and less demanding for practise times.

 

My Grandson who is in Grade 8 is attending a school that includes a soccer academy. His parents pay $400. for the academy aspect of his education. His coaches are one of the Whitecaps players, and one of the Whitecaps ladies team. There are other coaches but they are the two main staff. Soccer courses are numerous throughout the summer, and there is no doubt the interest in the sport is rising rapidly.

 

By the way as a boy in the 40's I used to get a book at Christmas every year titled The Boys Book of Soccer, this was like a football annual.

[Sydney]

I believe the term soccer came from the trend at the time to add "er" on the end of words/partial words. At the time, football was know as "Association Football", so some smart arse thought it would be cool to put "er" on the end of Soc (from Association), hence soc©er came into existence.

 

Or..it could be BS..

 

i believe you are correct - and it was regularly called soccer in the UK until the 1960s

[Kyle]

Any American who slates our game is just bitter at the fact no-one outside of the states takes Baseball or American Handegg seriously.

 

Much like your average rugby fan, they're just annoyed that football will always be more important than their own pale attempts.

Is this the part where I make baseless generalizations attacking straw men regarding the "average" football fan based on the above message board comment? I think I'll refrain.

 

Baseball is the most popular sport in Japan, South Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Taiwan and the Dominican Republic. There are year-round professional leagues in Mexico. In addition to the aforementioned nations, the Netherlands, Australia, Panama and Canada are also producing Major Leaguers. The most watched sporting event in both Japanese and South Korean history was the Japan-South Korea finals of the 2009 World Baseball Classic (baseball's equivalent of the World Cup).

 

I'm not in any way putting forth the claim that baseball's global reach is anywhere near that of football, but to state that Americans are the only folks who care about baseball is ignorant. Shunsuke Nakamura isn't a tenth as big a name in Japan as Ichiro.

 

Football was spread by the British empire. That a former colony who won their independence via a revolution, separated by an ocean before transatlantic travel and communication were quick or cheap would develop their own sporting culture in isolation doesn't seem particularly shocking. The effect of that distance seems to have also shaped the degree to which sports developed somewhat independently Australia (Aussie rules). Certain sports spread across North America just like football spread across Europe (and elsewhere British ex-pats took it with them). There wasn't a lot football had to compete with in the sporting landscapes of Africa and South America upon its introduction to those continents. Finding things a bit more crowded, it's taken longer to establish itself to the same level of prominence in other countries (Japan, the United States, Australia, Canada).

 

Satellite television and the internet have done wonders to close that gap and are now giving Americans more access than ever before to football played by world class athletes, whereas our own don't play football. Being able to watch the Euros, the World Cup, the Premier Leagues in England and Scotland, the Bundesliga, Serie A and the Spanish first division are starting to win more converts because there's finally coverage available of football played at its highest level. I'm sure there'll be more growth to come. Hopefully many of my countrymen don't follow Eckauskas and slag off a sport they don't understand upon being introduced to it properly for the first time. If the television ratings are any guide, it doesn't look like they are doing so.

 

 

Clue's in the name, like.

If you're going to knock my countrymen as somehow dense for our use of the word football, you too might want to figure out what you're talking about before posting. The term football originated in the elite private schools in England to differentiate it from other games played on horseback.

 

American football still involves people running around on foot, does it not?

 

When different schools got around to codifying rules for football, some schools allowed for carrying of the ball (most namely the Rugby School) and some didn't. Those that didn't formed an association, and the term soccer is shorthand for association football.

 

We may use very old terminology, but we did not brand football soccer ourselves (that would, again, be the English), and we're not incorrect in calling our game football or the English game soccer. It just dates the introduction of the game into the American vocabulary.

 

Club baseball runs spring to fall, club football runs fall to spring. I for one couldn't be happier. And God bless the World Cup. There's now sports worth watching at 6:30 and 9:00 AM every day.

[MacDonald Jardine]

Surely basketball and ice hockey have the disadvantage, from the point of view of big crowds, of having a much smaller playing surface than football or American football, so that capacities will be much smaller.

 

Yes and they're indoors.

I'd have thought the average crowds can't be far off capacity.

[Ben Dover]

I think the movies / tv may tell us something about the growth of FOOTBALL in the states. In many films TV progs ( rom-coms etc ) it's becoming more usual to see somebody bounding up wearing shorts and bouncing a size 5 football than throwing an 'Egg' 40 yds to a colleague

Also kids are often been driven to soccer training rather than little league baseball.

I could be talking keek though

[gavinderbayne]

Hey guys I wanted to give you a slice of life here when it relates to the world cup. I work in a large office with about 1000 employees a good mix of cultures and ages. Every TV in the place is on ESPN constantly at the moment and people are genuinly interested in the games. However, I have to sit and explain what is going on, as they have little understnading of the concept of the world cup.

 

One guy I'm friendly with actually said, "so where is this game being played", when I replied "South Africa" he kind of sneered and asked"Well how come the other game that was being played today was also in South Africa". He didnt get the fact (even thought USA has recently hosted the even) that the world cup is in fact the world cup finals and is hosted in one nation.

 

They also do not get the concept of having group play for the first three games and then a knock out tournament. They dont get the concept of games finishing in a draw or a Tie as they insist on calling it.

 

 

I think the funniest thing about the coverage over here is the fact that they have Steve "Scouse Tink" McManamahan(Spelling!) as their English football correspondent. Where all he does is claim how great England are and try to start arguement with the US guys about everything.

 

This counrty has some ways to go to catch up to the rest of the world in relation to its interest and understanding of the game, but its definitely changing. People are way more interested now than they were 10 years ago.

 

I dont know how anyone else feels, especially if any of the other North American Hearts Supports have spoken or thought about it, but we reckon that if the USA was to successfully bid for the world cup for sometime in the next 8 - 16 years it may have a serious chance of popularizing the game here and taking it to a new level.

[albishop]

Hey guys I wanted to give you a slice of life here when it relates to the world cup. I work in a large office with about 1000 employees a good mix of cultures and ages. Every TV in the place is on ESPN constantly at the moment and people are genuinly interested in the games. However, I have to sit and explain what is going on, as they have little understnading of the concept of the world cup.

 

One guy I'm friendly with actually said, "so where is this game being played", when I replied "South Africa" he kind of sneered and asked"Well how come the other game that was being played today was also in South Africa". He didnt get the fact (even thought USA has recently hosted the even) that the world cup is in fact the world cup finals and is hosted in one nation.

 

They also do not get the concept of having group play for the first three games and then a knock out tournament. They dont get the concept of games finishing in a draw or a Tie as they insist on calling it.

 

 

I think the funniest thing about the coverage over here is the fact that they have Steve "Scouse Tink" McManamahan(Spelling!) as their English football correspondent. Where all he does is claim how great England are and try to start arguement with the US guys about everything.

 

This counrty has some ways to go to catch up to the rest of the world in relation to its interest and understanding of the game, but its definitely changing. People are way more interested now than they were 10 years ago.

 

I dont know how anyone else feels, especially if any of the other North American Hearts Supports have spoken or thought about it, but we reckon that if the USA was to successfully bid for the world cup for sometime in the next 8 - 16 years it may have a serious chance of popularizing the game here and taking it to a new level.

 

Agreed (mostly), however I am not sure that having the WC over here is essential to increasing the popularity. I think that a lot of kids are growing up with soccer and will watch/play until they are adults, passing this love for the game on to their kids, and so on.

 

The ignorance of the sport is most prevalent in the redneck areas, where it is not considered a 'mans game'. It's going to take a while for the US to get over these stereotypes, but, in time, it will happen.

[Tasavallan]

Yes, 100,000+ sell outs are the norm for quite a few teams. And college football absolutely dominates the TV schedules every Saturday during the season. I detest it. The vast, vast majority of games are like shooting fish in a barrel for the big teams. They hand pick their opponents, effectively. The likes of the Longhorns or Crimson Tide only play about 2, possibly 3, games a year that they have any realistic chance of losing.

I've just come out of an 6 hour meeting with 2 Texans who only wanted to talk about The Aggies - their old alumna - my fault as A&M's colours are maroon + white.

College football is a far bigger crowd puller than the NFL but I find it a total bore.

 

 

 

 

[albishop]

I've just come out of an 6 hour meeting with 2 Texans who only wanted to talk about The Aggies - their old alumna - my fault as A&M's colours are maroon + white.

College football is a far bigger crowd puller than the NFL but I find it a total bore.

 

 

 

 

 

I find it weird that grown men follow college 'football' and seem to have an in depth knowledge of the kids on the team (parents/studies/history etc). Especially the ones who didn't attend the college they follow.

[Heaven98]

Hey guys I wanted to give you a slice of life here when it relates to the world cup. I work in a large office with about 1000 employees a good mix of cultures and ages. Every TV in the place is on ESPN constantly at the moment and people are genuinly interested in the games. However, I have to sit and explain what is going on, as they have little understnading of the concept of the world cup.

 

One guy I'm friendly with actually said, "so where is this game being played", when I replied "South Africa" he kind of sneered and asked"Well how come the other game that was being played today was also in South Africa". He didnt get the fact (even thought USA has recently hosted the even) that the world cup is in fact the world cup finals and is hosted in one nation.

 

They also do not get the concept of having group play for the first three games and then a knock out tournament. They dont get the concept of games finishing in a draw or a Tie as they insist on calling it.

 

 

I think the funniest thing about the coverage over here is the fact that they have Steve "Scouse Tink" McManamahan(Spelling!) as their English football correspondent. Where all he does is claim how great England are and try to start arguement with the US guys about everything.

 

This counrty has some ways to go to catch up to the rest of the world in relation to its interest and understanding of the game, but its definitely changing. People are way more interested now than they were 10 years ago.

 

I dont know how anyone else feels, especially if any of the other North American Hearts Supports have spoken or thought about it, but we reckon that if the USA was to successfully bid for the world cup for sometime in the next 8 - 16 years it may have a serious chance of popularizing the game here and taking it to a new level.

 

Are you actually watching the same tournament as me over here?

 

I haven't met one American who doesn't grasp the concept of the group stage.

 

McManaman has been excellent and has so far laid into England's woeful performances at every opportunity.

 

And as for that last comment....how much more "poularizing" do you want? It's already the biggest participant sport in the US.

[Peebo]

wow you really do!

 

My parrot shares my opinion of him.

[Peebo]

Are you actually watching the same tournament as me over here?

 

I haven't met one American who doesn't grasp the concept of the group stage.

 

McManaman has been excellent and has so far laid into England's woeful performances at every opportunity.

 

And as for that last comment....how much more "poularizing" do you want? It's already the biggest participant sport in the US.

 

I am wondering the same thing myself. With regard to McManaman in particular, he is an excellent summariser, and has most definitely not been talking up Engerlund.

[HMFCjamieHMFC]

Any American who slates our game is just bitter at the fact no-one outside of the states takes Baseball or American Handegg seriously.

 

Much like your average rugby fan, they're just annoyed that football will always be more important than their own pale attempts.

 

Baseball is huge in East Asia and in the other North American countries.

[Del1812]

Is this the part where I make baseless generalizations attacking straw men regarding the "average" football fan based on the above message board comment? I think I'll refrain.

 

Baseball is the most popular sport in Japan, South Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Taiwan and the Dominican Republic. There are year-round professional leagues in Mexico. In addition to the aforementioned nations, the Netherlands, Australia, Panama and Canada are also producing Major Leaguers. The most watched sporting event in both Japanese and South Korean history was the Japan-South Korea finals of the 2009 World Baseball Classic (baseball's equivalent of the World Cup).

 

I'm not in any way putting forth the claim that baseball's global reach is anywhere near that of football, but to state that Americans are the only folks who care about baseball is ignorant. Shunsuke Nakamura isn't a tenth as big a name in Japan as Ichiro.

 

Football was spread by the British empire. That a former colony who won their independence via a revolution, separated by an ocean before transatlantic travel and communication were quick or cheap would develop their own sporting culture in isolation doesn't seem particularly shocking. The effect of that distance seems to have also shaped the degree to which sports developed somewhat independently Australia (Aussie rules). Certain sports spread across North America just like football spread across Europe (and elsewhere British ex-pats took it with them). There wasn't a lot football had to compete with in the sporting landscapes of Africa and South America upon its introduction to those continents. Finding things a bit more crowded, it's taken longer to establish itself to the same level of prominence in other countries (Japan, the United States, Australia, Canada).

 

Satellite television and the internet have done wonders to close that gap and are now giving Americans more access than ever before to football played by world class athletes, whereas our own don't play football. Being able to watch the Euros, the World Cup, the Premier Leagues in England and Scotland, the Bundesliga, Serie A and the Spanish first division are starting to win more converts because there's finally coverage available of football played at its highest level. I'm sure there'll be more growth to come. Hopefully many of my countrymen don't follow Eckauskas and slag off a sport they don't understand upon being introduced to it properly for the first time. If the television ratings are any guide, it doesn't look like they are doing so.

 

If you're going to knock my countrymen as somehow dense for our use of the word football, you too might want to figure out what you're talking about before posting. The term football originated in the elite private schools in England to differentiate it from other games played on horseback.

 

American football still involves people running around on foot, does it not?

 

When different schools got around to codifying rules for football, some schools allowed for carrying of the ball (most namely the Rugby School) and some didn't. Those that didn't formed an association, and the term soccer is shorthand for association football.

 

We may use very old terminology, but we did not brand football soccer ourselves (that would, again, be the English), and we're not incorrect in calling our game football or the English game soccer. It just dates the introduction of the game into the American vocabulary.

 

Club baseball runs spring to fall, club football runs fall to spring. I for one couldn't be happier. And God bless the World Cup. There's now sports worth watching at 6:30 and 9:00 AM every day.

 

 

 

Terrific post.

 

One of the biggest problems that some Americans have with football is that they cannot fully devote their attention to a sport where you can play to draw (or tie, as they put it).

 

In America's big four team sports, because of overtime or the nature of the sport, playing for a tie is just not probable.

 

I have no problem with draws and think that, in American football especially, the rules of some American sports should allow them to happen more often, e.g. no overtime in the regular season. However in association football I think a lot of us would appreciate a change where by teams could be dissuaded from playing for a draw.

 

 

[Heaven98]

I am wondering the same thing myself. With regard to McManaman in particular, he is an excellent summariser, and has most definitely not been talking up Engerlund.

 

Pretty useless post, wasn't it? I'm wondering why he bothered.

[Peebo]

Terrific post.

 

One of the biggest problems that some Americans have with football is that they cannot fully devote their attention to a sport where you can play to draw (or tie, as they put it).

 

In America's big four team sports, because of overtime or the nature of the sport, playing for a tie is just not probable.

 

I have no problem with draws and think that, in American football especially, the rules of some American sports should allow them to happen more often, e.g. no overtime in the regular season. However in association football I think a lot of us would appreciate a change where by teams could be dissuaded from playing for a draw.

 

To be honest, I think the draw aspect of it is a bit of a red herring. I think it's simply a cultural thing. Football is not a traditional sport in the US (although I do think that seems to be changing). Loads of people play it. Indeed, demand for indoor football is pretty high, and I play in a league where we sometimes have kick-offs at midnight on Wednesday nights!

 

I don't think the TV stations will every really like the sport, as the split into two 45 minute halves limits time for adverts.

 

As for the spectators, the MLS is starting to get some pretty respectable crowds (and this is with the standard still being pretty poor, in my opinion). However, for a large part of the population, the passion that we have for football in Europe will never really be there. For many, going to a game is about entertainment, not a competitive sport. When I watch Hearts, the only really important thing is the result, and a defeat will actually affect me emotionally.

 

Last night I went to a baseball game. Houston Astros hosting the Texas Rangers. Crowd was near capacity, and this should be as big a game as it gets for both, in terms of rivalry. However, the atmosphere was just a million miles from an Edinburgh Derby: there must have been about 40% of the crowd supporting the away team, people appeared to care more about the Kiss-Cam and very few of the home fans appeared to give one iota of a turd that their team was humped.

 

For a large part of the population here, the notion of fan segregation and congealed mince pies is probably an alien concept. However, America's a huge country, with a diverse population...and, as I said in my original post, I think as a country, they are starting to get it...

[Heaven98]

To be honest, I think the draw aspect of it is a bit of a red herring. I think it's simply a cultural thing. Football is not a traditional sport in the US (although I do think that seems to be changing). Loads of people play it. Indeed, demand for indoor football is pretty high, and I play in a league where we sometimes have kick-offs at midnight on Wednesday nights!

 

I don't think the TV stations will every really like the sport, as the split into two 45 minute halves limits time for adverts.

 

As for the spectators, the MLS is starting to get some pretty respectable crowds (and this is with the standard still being pretty poor, in my opinion). However, for a large part of the population, the passion that we have for football in Europe will never really be there. For many, going to a game is about entertainment, not a competitive sport. When I watch Hearts, the only really important thing is the result, and a defeat will actually affect me emotionally.

 

Last night I went to a baseball game. Houston Astros hosting the Texas Rangers. Crowd was near capacity, and this should be as big a game as it gets for both, in terms of rivalry. However, the atmosphere was just a million miles from an Edinburgh Derby: there must have been about 40% of the crowd supporting the away team, people appeared to care more about the Kiss-Cam and very few of the home fans appeared to give one iota of a turd that their team was humped.

 

For a large part of the population here, the notion of fan segregation and congealed mince pies is probably an alien concept. However, America's a huge country, with a diverse population...and, as I said in my original post, I think as a country, they are starting to get it...

 

Lots of good points, mate. I watch the Dodgers and the Lakers a fair bit but the atmosphere is nothing compared to an MLS game. Football crowds just get it and the average attendance for a Galaxy game is now larger than Hearts.

 

We'd stuff them though....

[Kyle]

Lots of good points, mate. I watch the Dodgers and the Lakers a fair bit but the atmosphere is nothing compared to an MLS game. Football crowds just get it and the average attendance for a Galaxy game is now larger than Hearts.

 

We'd stuff them though....

Baseball is a different beast. With 162 regular season games (and then there's still the playoffs), teams play between five and seven games a week for six months. Fans would surely go insane if they treated every game with the intensity of a football match.

[I P Knightley]

 

I hate it when Septics go "you do the Math"....Its MathSSSSSSSSSS you idiots, you don't go "my Sum don't add up". Or I am taking Mathematic at school, Its Maths its plural not singular otherwise Math would be taking one parameter and doing fekall with it. It takes one parameter and calculates against another and to create a value, hence more that one = maths, Mathematic fails the spellchecker so point proved even with an American setting. Also mathematic"SSSSSS" is also made up of Trigonometry, Geometry and Algebra (plus Arithmetic?) again more than one. Please everybody slap an American.

 

 

 

 

Impressive rant.

 

I stand shoulder to shoulder with you on this one and always make a point of correcting Americans who use 'math'.

 

 

On topic - I'm surprised to hear that 'soccer' is growing as big as it is in the States. I'm not there very often any more but a few years back, I thought that the sport had little to no profile at all. I suppose having all these global corporations involved in the marketing of tournaments & clubs is supporting the growth.

[topcat]

I believe the term soccer came from the trend at the time to add "er" on the end of words/partial words. At the time, football was know as "Association Football", so some smart arse thought it would be cool to put "er" on the end of Soc (from Association), hence soc?er came into existence.

 

That's right and if you think the word "Soccer" sounds crap remember that the other code got the even less cool nickname of "rugger"

[Greenbank2]

I spend a lot of time in the US and see little difference in the popularity of the game compared with 1994. I don't think football will ever be a "major" sport in the US for the following reasons;

 

1. The existing 4 major sports have seasons which are spaced so that they don't overlap or compete

2. That suits the sponsors who create and maintain brand identity by association.

3. It also suits TV who along with the sponsors have no interest in changing the status quo

4. Football is still mainly watched and supported by "ethnic minorities"

5. Any decent players will always leave for foreign leagues

6. Their whole pro sporting model is based on the franchise which builds no loyalty

7. The size of the country means that the organic growth of the game towards national recognition will never happen without organised sponsorship.

 

and more than all of the above;

 

8. American's hate losing and will never give any kind of status or credance to a sport where they are consistently outclassed by dozens of nations they regard as culturally, economically and morally inferior.

[CalMac]

In Canada we have the 'joy' of John Collins as ace summariser on CBC's World Cup coverage. Still has an extremely punchable face, hopefully he strays into the G20 protests & gets a kicking.

[Hagar the Horrible]

I spend a lot of time in the US and see little difference in the popularity of the game compared with 1994. I don't think football will ever be a "major" sport in the US for the following reasons;

 

1. The existing 4 major sports have seasons which are spaced so that they don't overlap or compete

2. That suits the sponsors who create and maintain brand identity by association.

3. It also suits TV who along with the sponsors have no interest in changing the status quo

4. Football is still mainly watched and supported by "ethnic minorities"

5. Any decent players will always leave for foreign leagues

6. Their whole pro sporting model is based on the franchise which builds no loyalty

7. The size of the country means that the organic growth of the game towards national recognition will never happen without organised sponsorship.

 

and more than all of the above;

 

8. American's hate losing and will never give any kind of status or credance to a sport where they are consistently outclassed by dozens of nations they regard as culturally, economically and morally inferior.

 

I wished I had added that to my previous rant list

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

4. Football is still mainly watched and supported by "ethnic minorities"

 

100 million people in the US are from ethnic minorities. Should be able to get not a bad team from that.

[Sterling Archer]

100 million people in the US are from ethnic minorities. Should be able to get not a bad team from that.

 

And imagine the wage bill

[Heaven98]

I spend a lot of time in the US and see little difference in the popularity of the game compared with 1994. I don't think football will ever be a "major" sport in the US for the following reasons;

 

1. The existing 4 major sports have seasons which are spaced so that they don't overlap or compete - not true. Well into baseball and the NBA playoffs have just finished. The NFL is so brutal, if they played any more games in a season, they're be noone left standing! And Hockey's a minor irrelevance....

 

2. That suits the sponsors who create and maintain brand identity by association - loads of sponsorship that crosses all sports. From your obvious Nikes but now through foods, drinks - whole gamut really.

 

3. It also suits TV who along with the sponsors have no interest in changing the status quo - try telling that to ESPN. They're spending more on this World Cup than any previous outside broadcast. Plus they're heavily expanding EPL coverage next season while the dedicated Fox Soccer Channel has now expanded to five channels including HD.

 

4. Football is still mainly watched and supported by "ethnic minorities" - The massive explosion of proper youth soccer leagues, club teams, more school teams - all are having an effect on crowds. The attendance at a Galaxy or Chivas game out here is an utterly diverse selection of fans.

 

5. Any decent players will always leave for foreign leagues - at the moment, yes but you could say that about half the European and Scandinavian leagues as well - including Scotland. Remember, Americans are not great travelers and as the quality of the MLS improves, more will be tempted to stay.

6. Their whole pro sporting model is based on the franchise which builds no loyalty - I'm not sure I understand. If you mean from a player point of view, possibly. From a fan point of view, that's not true at all.

7. The size of the country means that the organic growth of the game towards national recognition will never happen without organised sponsorship - that's an interesting point and I agree to a poiont that it's a hurdle. There's plenty of sizeable sponsorship for some of the State leagues now and strong youth soccer leagues in virtually every State. But the strength of the club teams are better on the East and West coasts. Some of the heartlands will probably never accept the game entirely, but the size of the country is such that they won't be missed.

 

and more than all of the above;

 

8. American's hate losing and will never give any kind of status or credance to a sport where they are consistently outclassed by dozens of nations they regard as culturally, economically and morally inferior. - I'm not going to bother with that sweeping generalization.

[colinmaroon]

I spend a lot of time in the US and see little difference in the popularity of the game compared with 1994. I don't think football will ever be a "major" sport in the US for the following reasons;

 

1. The existing 4 major sports have seasons which are spaced so that they don't overlap or compete - not true. Well into baseball and the NBA playoffs have just finished. The NFL is so brutal, if they played any more games in a season, they're be noone left standing! And Hockey's a minor irrelevance....

 

2. That suits the sponsors who create and maintain brand identity by association - loads of sponsorship that crosses all sports. From your obvious Nikes but now through foods, drinks - whole gamut really.

 

3. It also suits TV who along with the sponsors have no interest in changing the status quo - try telling that to ESPN. They're spending more on this World Cup than any previous outside broadcast. Plus they're heavily expanding EPL coverage next season while the dedicated Fox Soccer Channel has now expanded to five channels including HD.

 

4. Football is still mainly watched and supported by "ethnic minorities" - The massive explosion of proper youth soccer leagues, club teams, more school teams - all are having an effect on crowds. The attendance at a Galaxy or Chivas game out here is an utterly diverse selection of fans.

 

5. Any decent players will always leave for foreign leagues - at the moment, yes but you could say that about half the European and Scandinavian leagues as well - including Scotland. Remember, Americans are not great travelers and as the quality of the MLS improves, more will be tempted to stay.

6. Their whole pro sporting model is based on the franchise which builds no loyalty - I'm not sure I understand. If you mean from a player point of view, possibly. From a fan point of view, that's not true at all.

7. The size of the country means that the organic growth of the game towards national recognition will never happen without organised sponsorship - that's an interesting point and I agree to a poiont that it's a hurdle. There's plenty of sizeable sponsorship for some of the State leagues now and strong youth soccer leagues in virtually every State. But the strength of the club teams are better on the East and West coasts. Some of the heartlands will probably never accept the game entirely, but the size of the country is such that they won't be missed.

 

and more than all of the above;

 

8. American's hate losing and will never give any kind of status or credance to a sport where they are consistently outclassed by dozens of nations they regard as culturally, economically and morally inferior. - I'm not going to bother with that sweeping generalization.

 

 

 

Agree with all your responses, particularly point 8 - it was a stupid and ill-informed comment which holds no water at all.

 

 

And, by the way, any team that pushes England down the table, sorry, in their place, has to have something "good" about them.