It's funny reading people coming from a non-football-playing country talking about football (I guess they would've called it soccer instead of football...) Take this, for example:
In soccer, the off-sides [sic!!!] rule...acts as a speed break. And speed breaks help slower, less talented players...In short, the difference between the best players and the worst players is structurally minimized in those sports.I guess the author of the above quotation and the one who quoted him haven't watched the Leeds United defense ripped apart by Thierry Henry's speed, or in fact, any football at all, ever...the existence of the off-side rule actually became advantageous to the speedy players! BTW, slower does not mean less talented...Should I name some talented but slow footballers? Oh, never mind.
Can one argue that football is "too boring on television", judging by the money television companies are willing to pay for the rights to broadcast matches in Europe? Is it fair to say that football is "too hard to describe on radio" considering a large number of football fans across Asia and South America follow the sport exclusively on the radio (and if football is so hard to broadcast on the radio, please spare your thoughts on the poor fans who follow cricket on the radio or ball-by-ball text update on the web) Even if Freddy Adu turns out to be the greatest player of all time, he might even take the US to a World Cup victory, he is not going to make football any more popular in the US.
"Why is soccer not a major professional sport in America?" - Football isn't popular in North American because it's not easily summarised in statistics. Americans might be satisfied with Shaq O'Neal being reduced to tables upon tables of statistics, but how can statistics capture the flicks and tricks of Roberto Baggio?
Reading the post I linked earlier, maybe it's just a wind-up...surely it's a wind-up???
I think the need for statistics stems from the fact that the popular US sports are designed for the armchair fan. This probably stems from the sheer size of the country - there aren't local derbys on the same scale as European football, and fans don't travel to away games.
I'd suggest that fans who attend US sports do so thanks to the support of those watching on TV. For football it's the other way around.
But things are changing, and football is gaining in popularity. I don't think that the lack of statistics will be a barrier, since the US appetite for celebrity is far greater. Look how Mia Hamm revolutionised the girl's game, and the USA really is an emerging football nation, (at least I hope so!).
If Freddy Adu does make it, and/or the US national team become a dominant force then I can see it becoming very popular BUT the Major League will only ever be a "French-type" breeding ground, rather than a "Serie A/Premiership/La Liga" where the best players end up. The statistics is merely consequence of the cultural factors that presents the sport to an audience understands the facts but not the emotion.
Posted by: AJE | May 01, 2004 at 01:05 AM
The football debate has been continued by Russel Roberts.
A large explanation for the popularity of the game is that the underdog can triumph. Every FA Cup will see giant killing, and World Cups always produce upsets. Almost every fan is excited at the start of a tournament, because anything can happen. But are the results random?
It's hard to suggest that the best teams don't win, since by definition, the best team must have won. Of course there's last minute winners that give a team (Chelsea?) a lucky win, but don't these largely cancel out?
At least to say that an "unsatisfying lack of justice that's unappealing. In both games [Hockey and 'Soccer'], extraordinary performances by a team or an individual are rarely rewarded" goes too far.
Who are the 'best' team in England - the same team that are unbeaten this season. Does the Golden Boot give a reliable indication of the best striker in the league? Yes.
Apparently a red card is unjust because it doesn't give enough of an advantage to the opponants. Instinctively, I'd say that the vasy majority of teams feel it is a disadvantage to go down to 10 men, and the statistics may not take into account the tighter, defensive game that usually results. The fact that a red card can give impetus to the punished team just highlights how finely balanced football is.
I don't think that as more people get TVs, the popularity of football will necessarily fall. (Even taking into account what might be called a current 'bubble' in popularity). Rather, instead of criticising the beautiful game on the assumption that an American audience must be right to reject it, ("
The rest of the world probably finds these aspects of the game frustrating as well, but they've invested in soccer so it's going to take a while for them to come around.") can we not use the undoubtable global popularity as a sign that it is the American audience who are missing something?
Otherwise, I fear we're giving strength to mindless cretins like Sepp Blatter, who wants to do away with the draw.
Posted by: AJE | May 03, 2004 at 03:00 PM
I think you missed my point about soccer.
Of course there are fast players in soccer. Of course those players have an advantage. The issue is how much of those relatie advantges the rules of the sport allow a player to exploit.
When the structure of a sport reduces a player's ability to exploint his talents, you have a problem. Games are less exciting than they might be. The result is that, relative to sports where speed advantages are given full sway, soccer is a less exciting sport. At least for Americans.
I can think of no parallel to the soccer off-sides rule in (American) football or basketball. If you have the speed, you may exploit it to the full. To put it simply, you can run by slower players, receive the ball and score the points.
My broader thesis is that central to the excitment of a sport is that great talents are alowed to bring their great talents fully to bear. To the extent a sport limits the demonstration of those natural advantages, to the extent it forces players towards a mean, it loses interest as a spectator sport. Again, at least in the US.
That is why, I think, hockey and soccer are not as popular as many other sports in the US.
Bob
Posted by: Bob Crosby | May 03, 2004 at 03:43 PM
Thanks for the post Bob, but did you see Thierry Henry against Leeds? Without an offside rule, a striker wouldn't run past a defender because the defender would be closer to his goal.
The off side rule forces defences to move up the pitch, creating space between a defence and the goal. Hence, a nice through ball from a midfielder results in a simple running race between striker and defender.
The off side rule gives an advantage to quicker players. Without it, the advantage would be for long ball teams, and target men (or goal-hangers as you'd say in the playground...).
Again, I find it hard to accept that football doesn't maximise the natural advantages of the best players.
Posted by: AJE | May 03, 2004 at 04:23 PM
There are two "sports" I know that do not "limit the demonstration of [their participants'] natural advantages", neither is legal in the "Western" world, they are bare knuckle boxing and cock-fighting.
Posted by: SL | May 04, 2004 at 02:43 PM
Hmmm. An interesting debate. To state that Americans care only for statistics is a gross generalisation. They love the aesthetics of their sports as much as we do, and derived as much pleasure, I am sure, from watching Michael Jordan cut through the defence of an opposing NBA team as we do from watching Thierry Henry demolish, well, everyone. To say of the country that produced such greats as Pete Sampras, Michael Johnson and Mark Spitz that everything is geared toward the 'armchair fan' is erroneous. The existence of films such as Field of Dreams gives further credence to the fact that Americans have a love affair with their sports. And Britain is, of course, home to Cricket, a statisticians wet dream.
Why hasn't Football taken off in America? The same reason that American Football failed to get a grip in the UK. Culture. Baseball, Ice Hockey, Basketball and Gridiron are as much ingrained in their society as Football is in ours. And any pretender to the crown must be something special indeed. The USA don't think that soccer is something special, despite all the money being thrown at it (the only logical reason for the World Cup to be held in the States in 1994 was to 'break' the American market. 10 years on, the experiment can be considered a failure).
The only way that Freddy Adu can become the 'greatest player of all time' is to come and play in Europe. Which will result in the American public forgetting about him.
Posted by: wyska | May 05, 2004 at 03:21 PM
I'm sure that if you explore what you mean by culture, you'll arrive at the same place I did.
The popularity of movies about sports in the US underlines my point! When was the last film about football/ rugby/ cricket/ Aussie Rules? We're too busy playing them on a saturday afternoon to go to the movies and watch films about them.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mean 'armchair fan' as a slur, suggesting they don't love their sports. Footie is subtle, cruel, (but ultimately rewarding) and passionate. Characteristics which don't lend themselves well to outsiders.
Posted by: AJE | May 05, 2004 at 04:11 PM
Yes, footie is subtle and cruel, but no more so than any other team sport. I'm sure that watching your favourite NBA side lose to a last second three-pointer is just as gutting as an injury time winner.
Try these sports films:
Football: When Saturday Comes, Fever Pitch, Escape to Victory
Rugby: Up and Under
Cricket: Wondrous Oblivion (on general release in the UK at the moment)
None nearly as good as Field of Dreams or Raging Bull, but they do exist. Don't know about Aussie Rules.
This all seems like a bit of blatant Yank-bashing. I don't think that their sporting crimes are nearly as bad as their current foreign policy or their attitudes towards foreign workers.
Posted by: wyska | May 07, 2004 at 12:38 PM
Excellent discussion, I just want to add a reply to wyska comment that "10 years on, the experiment can be considered a failure" regarding the 94 World Cup in the US. If you consider it a failure, then you had some ridiculously unrealistic expectations of what the World Cup would do for soccer in the US. Ten years on, any US soccer fan in the US will tell you that it has laid a solid foundation for the sport for decades to come. At the beginning of the decade, the US was pretty much a soccer wasteland. Ten years on, we have a stable, professional league (notice I don't say profitable) and a national team that can play with the best.
Posted by: Oscar Merida | May 26, 2004 at 03:57 PM
All our products are covered by an unconditional 60-day money-back guarantee.
[b][u]FREE DOWNLOAD ADOBE ACROBAT 8 PROFESSIONAL update[/b][/u]
[b][u]FREE DOWNLOAD ADOBE ACROBAT 8 60 PROFESSIONAL cracks[/b][/u]
[url=http://www.4softsite.info]FREE DOWNLOAD CHEAP ADOBE reader download[/url] - DOWNLOAD CHEAP ADOBE PHOTO SHOP elements 8.0
[b][u]DOWNLOAD CHEAP ADOBE ACROBAT professional[/b][/u]
[url=http://www.4softsite.info/manufacturer-Adobe.html?session=146011198080532]DOWNLOAD CHEAP ADOBE PHOTO SHOP CS[/url] - DOWNLOAD CHEAP ADOBE ACROBAT FREE download
[url=http://217.23.49.238/phpBB2/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=9151&sid]FREE DOWNLOAD ADOBE ACROBAT 8 60 PROFESSIONAL sn[/url] - FREE DOWNLOAD ADOBE ACROBAT 8 60 pro warez
[url=http://www.coresoftware.es/foro/viewtopic.php?p=17008#17008]FREE DOWNLOAD ADOBE ACROBAT 8 update[/url] - FREE DOWNLOAD ADOBE ACROBAT 8 60 94fbr
Posted by: AllAdobeOEMSoftDownload | February 13, 2008 at 05:14 PM
Thanks for sharing. This website is to I too have to help. Very good.
Posted by: Cheap Jordan 1 | October 01, 2011 at 05:59 AM