"Soccer" is destroying America!

[TAFKA Castroneves]

The thing I primarily like and subsiquently "hate" about soccer (when it happens to my team) is the way the majority of the world's leagues are set up with promotions/relegations to differing leagues. I must be honest my knowledge on American sports isn't great. I enjoy NFL now and again and other bits but the lack of a "ladder" structure does put me off a bit, a lot of that is to do with the size of the country I know but I'm sure i'd enjoy a lot more American sports if that dynamic was there. There is nothing more devistating in sport for me than having the difference of one goal (as it was for my team Leicester last season) over a 46 game season costing you a place in that league next season.

[Jerichoholic23]

The relegation thing doesn't bother me so much. I don't like that there is no playoff system and you win the championship for finishing first. Maybe cause I don't follow soccer much but it seems like the season never ends or there really isn't much of an off season.

[Marcos]

The relegation thing doesn't bother me so much. I don't like that there is no playoff system and you win the championship for finishing first. Maybe cause I don't follow soccer much but it seems like the season never ends or there really isn't much of an off season.

Wait, you don't like the fact that the team who win the league are the team that finish first? I thought the whole point of a league system was to find out who the best team were to win the Championship. Finishing first makes you (on most occasions) the best team in the league, meaning you should be the winners. I don't get what you mean with the season never ending, with the MLS ending in November with the MLS cup before going on a pre-season till March.

[Jerichoholic23]

I dont follow soccer here either so I didnt know that. Finishing first usually means you are the best team in the league. I follow hockey and to me being first overall in the regular season doesn't mean much. A lot of times the best team doesn't win it all. If English soccer had a playoff system maybe some of the lower teams might have a chance of a championship.

[HailtotheYo]

EDIT: Also, to point out - the quality of the game in America is DIRE. Absolutely awful, from grassroots up to the international level.

I'm curious as to how you can make that assertation. By no means are we a "football nation" but we are far from "awful" on the international level. 10 of the 17 men currently on the national squad play their professional ball overseas while one plays in Mexico (Pachuca). The national team itself is a bit rollercoaster but has certainly prove since 2000 that it is no longer a joke, or awful. That's secondary to how you could possibly draw the conclusion on our "grassroots" situation. While we don't have the youth involvement or commitment that the UK and plenty of other countries have, it is because of the fact that those types of levels are given to the other sports. But, how is it that you have any clue how the quality of play is underneath the MLS ? If you're using the MLS itself as a measure you're not looking in the right place. A 12 year old league is a pretty small scope to judge by in that capacity.

I'd love to see some MLS sides take on the likes of Hereford, Yeovil, Crewe, Walsall, Huddersfield, or Stockport. I'd jump at the chance to get some kind of true measure of where the teams level of play actually is. Again, we're dealing with 12yrs of professional soccer against well over 100.

[Lowerdeck]

Well the United States can usually make the World Cup, we're good enough to get that far anyway. The problem is usually leaving the first round. So we're like 20-something-th in the world, not too terrible.

As for MLS - I think we're looking at low Championship or high League One. Throw a good MLS side up against Leeds, Leicester, Charlton (what the hell happened to them?), Norwich... I think it might be alright.

[livid]

Separate issues. Dumbing-down on the one hand, Americanisation on the other. Our popular culture is now at least 60% imported from America, and the stuff we create ourselves is incresingly dumbed-down and catered for the lowest common denomintor. I love America, it's a fucking awesome place and I love Americans too, but I do think we should be able to fill our own TV schedules and movie theatres without relying almost exclusively on imports from the USA.

To be fair, it's not like we don't rely on stuff from other countries either. Take "The Office" for example and any other TV show we've hijacked from another country. Not to mention the amount of foreign film remakes Hollywood is doing. It seems moreso that the world in general is suffering from a lack of originality and everything is coming from another country.

And I'm really not going to mention the article because it's just retarded BS from some guy looking for attention.

[Hobo]

I think the underlying issue with Football/Soccer (not going to do the whole 'Soccer' thing that the UKers do because in Ireland we have our own football as well, more on that in moment) in America is that it is foreign. It is a European invention that is nothing like the sports that have been imbued in the American psyche as being the 'American Sports'. Soccer I feel at some level represents what America was traditionally a break away from and hence why there is a distrust and belittling of it in some quarters ('Soccer is a girls game' being one). The game is highly non-American. It's mostly associated with England and Europe and Latin America. The fact that baseball is an English invention isn't really a factor here either. The American psyche (I'm talking more a metaphorical scope because there are soccer loving Americans on this forum) cannot accept an infiltrating other coming from outside of its own accepted systems with differing, in someways simpler way of doing things (Soccer does after all allow for draws, the traditional league system leaves it more down to long term performance rather than the play-off style which most American sports have). It is in my view however that no matter what arguments one can make about any facet of soccer in a debate like this it all comes down to patriotism.

Soccer is not part of a traditional American ideal, it is an import, an immigrant and immigrants are not always welcomed with open arms even in the Land of Opportunity. Now I have no reason to state that American Soccer is faltering and terrible. It isn't, it's certainly improving and from my limited knowledge it seems that the MLS is going in all the right directions at the moment. However the perception of soccer as the 'other' 'foreign' sport is going to be hard to over come. Here is where I bring in the example of Ireland. As you may or may not know Ireland has its own national games, Gaelic Football and Hurling being the two most prominent. The Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) was founded in 1886 to preserve these sports and the GAA has really since been slow to change its stance on many issues. A major one being the issue of 'foreign sports'. Rule 42 of the GAA handbook until 1971 forbade its members from even being spectators at foreign games. The longest hold out issue was that of allowing foreign sports be played at Croke Park which is now an 82,300 capacity stadium it (which the Gaelic games don't always draw, but concerts do) was only in recent years that the GAA allowed rugby and soccer be played in Croke Park. Why? Because of fear of these games conflicting with GAA interest. That if the GAA allowed their venues to be used for outside sports that they would lose support for the own protected sports and they would die out. I feel there is a bit of similarity between Soccer in America and Soccer/Rugby in Ireland in relation to the GAA. The game is perceived by some, perhaps unrealistically as a threat from outside on the games most associate with the supposed cultural ideas of the nation and until the there is a change in attitude, which I would hasten to guess may come about within America eventually Soccer will still be seen as the outside danger to set American culture.

Edited March 15, 2009 by HoboObohHbob

[IAceI]

I've never heard anyone use the argument "God gave us opposable thumbs so having a sport when you only kick is stupid" before. I'm not massively surprised as that may be the most moronic thing ever, but definitely never heard it before.

[Captain Kirk]

EDIT: Also, to point out - the quality of the game in America is DIRE. Absolutely awful, from grassroots up to the international level.

I'm curious as to how you can make that assertation. By no means are we a "football nation" but we are far from "awful" on the international level. 10 of the 17 men currently on the national squad play their professional ball overseas while one plays in Mexico (Pachuca). The national team itself is a bit rollercoaster but has certainly prove since 2000 that it is no longer a joke, or awful. That's secondary to how you could possibly draw the conclusion on our "grassroots" situation. While we don't have the youth involvement or commitment that the UK and plenty of other countries have, it is because of the fact that those types of levels are given to the other sports. But, how is it that you have any clue how the quality of play is underneath the MLS ? If you're using the MLS itself as a measure you're not looking in the right place. A 12 year old league is a pretty small scope to judge by in that capacity.

I'd love to see some MLS sides take on the likes of Hereford, Yeovil, Crewe, Walsall, Huddersfield, or Stockport. I'd jump at the chance to get some kind of true measure of where the teams level of play actually is. Again, we're dealing with 12yrs of professional soccer against well over 100.

I have to watch DeMarcus Beasley and Maurice Edu play for Rangers and yes they are "awful".

[Cactus Drags]

I don't usually post about Sports, but Sousa directed me here and frankly there's been a lot of BS spewed.

The original article is utter trash, and I'm stunned that 4 pages-worth of posts have dignified it with discussion.

That said, the reason football/soccer isn't big in America is actually socio-political, stemming back to when the sport first took off globally in the late 19th century and the early 1900s, a time when the USA was engaged in a policy so staggeringly isolationist that it was a shock they didn't close their borders. Add that to the inherent differences in the 'psyche' of America compared to not just Europeans but the ENTIRE rest of the world (oh yeah, let's not boil this down to old Europe vs. new America when the rest of the world is also totally enamoured with football) and you're going to have difficulties exporting the game to the USA. It's sad, actually, because a good game of football (despite what people have said, 0-0 draws are often really dull and the phrase 'not a game for the neutral' is widely-used in football journalism) is probably the most exciting sports-related event in the world. I'm thinking of England vs. Brazil in 1970, the 1966 World Cup final, and more recently the Liverpool vs. Milan Champions League final in 2005, classic games that totally dispel the "boring" myths about football. The fact is that basketball and American football have 'higher scoring games' is largely due to the fact that, for example, in basketball you can score 2 or 3 points whereas in football/soccer every goal is worth 1.

It's a question, really, of what you want out of a game - football fans are amongst the most passionate and dedicated in the world, and the concept of 'entertaining football' for me is something straight out of the Americanisation and dumbing-down of British culture. Alas. It's not a sport that would go over well in the States, because the concept of a 'draw' or a game where you can dominate but still lose are completely alien to the modern American popular psyche. Still, it's becoming more popular, and perhaps in 10 years we'll be having a different conversation.

I like how you pick three individual games, from three different decades and say that that's proof that football is the most exciting sport. Bullshit. There are scores and scores of games that are dull as hell, and again we're going to have the problem of people wanting different things from the sports they watch, but for me at least, football is just so pedestrian. I mean sure, there's an ebb and flow to it, but aside from a few games, on the whole it just seems very drawn out. Ice hockey, there's always something going on, American football's the same. And don't discount the American football fans' passion, they were plenty of Americans at Wembley for the Internation series games, they'll follow their teams anywhere.

The thing I primarily like and subsiquently "hate" about soccer (when it happens to my team) is the way the majority of the world's leagues are set up with promotions/relegations to differing leagues. I must be honest my knowledge on American sports isn't great. I enjoy NFL now and again and other bits but the lack of a "ladder" structure does put me off a bit, a lot of that is to do with the size of the country I know but I'm sure i'd enjoy a lot more American sports if that dynamic was there. There is nothing more devistating in sport for me than having the difference of one goal (as it was for my team Leicester last season) over a 46 game season costing you a place in that league next season.

I like the concept of relegation and promotion, but it's not helping football at the moment, who's interested in the same teams pinballing between the top two divisions every year because they're too good for one, but not rich enough for the other? There's probably an arguement there that there's too many clubs in English football, but I'm not well enough versed in it to go into any detail.

[Dynamite]

I think the 0-0's and the 1-0's are something you can only really appreciate when you're a fan of the sport. Either that or when you've played it competitively with a local team or something. With the American systems, it seems to me that the good athletes usually get picked up for the Football or Basketball teams when at school and the non-athletic kids have never really played it at a competitive level so they'll stick to following the popular sports. I can't really ever see that continuous cycle ending and 'soccer' won't reach the levels of the 'Big 4' for a long time if ever.

[naiwf]

If the incredibly successful USA Women's team of the '90s with Mia Hamm, Julie Foudy, Brandi Chastain and others couldn't make the sport a big deal here there's no way it'll ever catch on. There's no real reason to want to be a soccer player here. You won't make as much money as a top player in the other sports and there's little or no recognition for American born players because the league here isn't top flight. Americans can watch the best players in the world in their own cities when it comes to American football, basketball, baseball and hockey. When it comes to soccer, we get guys who CAN'T play in the greatest leagues in the world and that's why this sport is doomed to fail here. When Americans don't have a horse in the race they don't watch it and it's as simple as that really.

[Your Mom]

I just wish Soccer would stop destroying us

[Darloboy]

I dont follow soccer here either so I didnt know that. Finishing first usually means you are the best team in the league. I follow hockey and to me being first overall in the regular season doesn't mean much. A lot of times the best team doesn't win it all. If English soccer had a playoff system maybe some of the lower teams might have a chance of a championship.

But then what's the point of playing out an entire league campaign, managing to finish first only for it to mean nothing?

[Cactus Drags]

The difference is scheduling. The American leagues are split up into conferences and divisions, by location rather than tiers of ability like in English football. So although a team might be top of the league in terms of win/loss record, they probably haven't played every team in the league (or they'll play them once or twice, compared to like four times for divisional opponents in the case of hockey and basketball). NFL teams only play 16 games, and 6 of those are divisional games. So in American leagues, there's more validation for a playoff system i.e. if champion of division a beats the champion of division b, then they're likely better than the other teams in division b, whereas in English football you play every other team in the league twice, so there's not quite the need for a play-off bracket.

[IAceI]

It's all pointless anyways.

America will soon be destroyed by soccer. So you might as well all embrace it before you all get destroyed.

[-A-]

The differences with strategy and how you treat success I can easily accept as a matter of preference. In the NFL, I think the coaches play a far greater part in the strategy - most of the players are far better drilled and the entire team has a clearer idea of what's going to happen at any given moment. In soccer, the players are slightly more uncontrolled in what they do - the strategy is left a lot more with the players. That's a matter of preference, really. If you take something like Aussie rules, the managers can't even communicate with the players because the pitch is so fucking massive so they have to rely on runners to get onto the pitch and shout instructions at people. It's a matter of what kind of play you prefer, I think.

Same with relegation issue. I can see benefits of both. In American football every team has a much better chance of success and with good management you can turn around a poor team in a much shorter space of time. In the English leagues it's nice to know that there is a direct hierarchy linking the professionals with the Sunday league footballer, and you can have true fallen greats like Nottingham Forest and crazy stories like Wimbledon or Wigan coming from nowhere and making it with the pros.

Edited March 15, 2009 by -A-

[Pesci]

Some of the reasons for not liking other sports in this thread are pretty shocking. The only reason you should be watching sports is to be entertained. If a 0-0 draw doesn't entertain you, fair enough, but don't try justifying it through some bullshit about the league system. American football doesn't entertain me because there's too many breaks in between the action and then it's usually over in a couple of seconds when there is action. Baseball doesn't entertain me because it's dull as fuck. I like basketball and ice hockey but they're on TV at stupid times so I'm never really going to watch them.

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

I dont follow soccer here either so I didnt know that. Finishing first usually means you are the best team in the league. I follow hockey and to me being first overall in the regular season doesn't mean much. A lot of times the best team doesn't win it all. If English soccer had a playoff system maybe some of the lower teams might have a chance of a championship.

But then what's the point of playing out an entire league campaign, managing to finish first only for it to mean nothing?

Yeah exactly. Why should you play 38 games of the season, have one or two teams run away as far better teams than the others and then have playoffs and the eighth place team wins a couple of lucky games right at the death to win the "competition" although they lost heavily to the best team twice in the season already. Such postseason playoffs are a horrible idea in a ladder competition.

In an American division setting it's ok cos the best teams are spread out over numerous divisions but when all the best teams are in one league you DON'T need playoffs.

Also having watched baseball a fair amount now I've decided it's horribly formulaic. If the batter doesn't clear the infield then he's out (unless a very rare blunder happens). If he hits to the outfield fielder he'll get onto first base. If he clears the outfield then he'll double up to second. If the outfielder makes a big mistake he may get to third. It's not like he has to judge his waddle around the bases anyway cos he's got a coach telling him if it's safe to run or not.

Cricket has the cool factor of the players having to judge the run themselves and can sometimes get it horribly wrong. Basically when it comes to scoring and runs, cricket has infinite options while baseball is massively limited.

Edited March 16, 2009 by ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster