Talk:Soccer in the United States

Overhaul Reorganization

Sorry to intrude, but I didn't want this comment to go unnoticed. I think the one and only image on this page needs to be either 1) replaced with an image of adults playing the sport and moved to a corresponding area describing the sport's popularity among youth or 2) removed altogether. Articles for American Football, Basketball, Baseball, and Ice Hockey all include introductory images of adult participants and/or professional stadiums. This image only perpetuates the stereotype that soccer is merely a child's sport in the U.S. --Amavel 18:55, 22 June 2007

MLS attendance record

After doing a Google search and looking through Major League Soccer's history timeline, I was unable to find any sources to back up the claim that "MLS broke its all-time record for attendance at a regular-season match, which saw over 92,000 spectators fill the L.A. Coliseum" and let alone in 2006. Perhaps the contributing author confused this statement with the double-header match on 16 June 1996 between the national teams of USA and Mexico and later a MLS matchup between the Los Angeles Galaxy and the now defunct Tampa Bay Mutiny. The doubleheader had 92,216 in attendance. Source: http://www.mlsnet.com/about/. --Amavel 19:20, 22 June 2007

The editor is probably referring to the Aug 6, 2006 match between Chivas & New England which drew 92,650.[1] This match was the first of a double header that also featured Guadalajara vs. FC Barcelona. --D. Monack | talk 21:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Soccer's unpopularity in the U.S.

I don't really like these sentences:

Among many Americans, there's a preference for high scoring, time-outs, and individual performances. In addition, many "anti-soccer Americans" view it as too simple and claim that the reason why it's so popular worldwide is that "most countries can't afford to play anything else" (which is a not too accurate comment; the national sport of Third World countries Nicaragua, Cuba, & the Dominican Republic is baseball, and ice hockey is popular in relatively under-developed Eastern Europe).

I don't think fans of other sports like timeouts. I think what they like are sports that go in fast bursts rather than slower, more marathon-like sports. It just happens that "timeouts" (actually, "stoppages of play" would be a better term) are one reason why most American sports go faster than soccer does. It's not the only cause. In the case of ice hockey, unlimited substitution allows fresh legs to be on the ice all the time.

Secondly, I don't think a preference for individual performances has anything to do with it. Soccer has plenty of individual performances, and American football tends to play down individualism.

I think if you ask most Americans what they think of soccer, they would say, "It's boring." Why Americans think soccer's boring and other people don't is beyond me, but I would guess it has something to do with the speed of play as discussed above.

I also would cut the unattributed statement about Americans attributing soccer's popularity in other countries to economic factors. I have never heard anyone say that. -- Mwalcoff 03:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. That last big paragraph is crap. I deleted that first line all together. I agree with everything you have written above. I wouldn't throw the boring bit into the article because that will cause a big to do over nothing. If no one lese chimes in for reason why this paragraph should remain as is i am going to chop a big chunk of it tomorrow

Some people say that Soccer is one of the few professional sports where 0-0 ties are by no means rare ;-) AnonMoos 03:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

How about this: Many writers have speculated on why soccer is not as popular in the U.S. as it is in other countries. Theories include that other sports cornered the market before professional soccer could prosper; that soccer is a "foreign game" [see history for link]; that Americans do not dominate the game; that there are too many draws; and that there is not enough scoring [see history for link].

A common complaint among Americans is that soccer is "boring." In the "big four" major American team sports of American football, baseball, basketball and ice hockey, the action is considerably faster than that of soccer, although it is punctuated by many stoppages of play.

Mwalcoff 04:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not link to the original URL http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/story/0,6903,1270849,00.html instead of a redirect to Google cache? AnonMoos 04:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Because I'd hate for the Guardian to get the hits :) -- Mwalcoff 01:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the paragraph you have put together. It is alot more objective than I could have written. I'd say post it. If only there was a way to mention that watching Italian, Spanish & South Amereican player drop like they were hit with a shotgun after someone bumps into them is completely foriegn to our culture. If you are carted of the field and you come back on in two minutes your career would be over. I'll give the EPL and their fans credit because the don't play that game but Spanish and Italian professional soccer matches are almost unbearable to watch because of the faking of injuries. Shameful. I'll get off my soapbox now.

Avoiding an edit war

User:D Monack has twice removed the sentence about American sports being faster than soccer, which I had included in trying to explain why so many Americans find soccer boring.

Is there really any doubt that while the ball is in play, American football, baseball, basketball and hockey are much faster than soccer? -- Mwalcoff 01:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

First, I'll concede that ice hockey is the fastest sport followed by baseball. As for the others, it depends on how you judge. If you go by the speed of the players, all pro athletes a equally quick on their feet. As for ball speed, soccer's top speeds are just as fast as American football and probably faster than basketball. I just don't think speed adequately explains most Americans' indifference to soccer. --dm ^(talk) 02:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... First let me say that I'm not trying to diss soccer here. However, I think that it's inevitable that the average speed of gameplay in soccer is much slower in soccer than in American football or basketball, simply because of the paucity of stoppages of play and substitutions. In football, the players run at full speed, then stop, then run at full speed again, then leave the game until called upon again. In soccer, most players are on the field for more than 90 minutes with only halftime as a break.

Regardless of which sport is the fastest, it certainly seems to many Americans that soccer is slow. That's Bob Novak's complaint in the Crossfire transcript I link to. This American writer says she's heard "a million and one complaints" about soccer being slow and boring. -- Mwalcoff 02:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The line I took out read, "In the "big four" major American team sports, the action is considerably faster than that of soccer, although it is punctuated by many stoppages of play." It says nothing of Americans' perceptions and is inaccurate. While it's true that many Americans perceive soccer to be slower than other sports, their perceptions are only that. Also, only a few football players are running at full speed on any given play. Bob Novak is hardly a sports expert and the second writer is using hyperbole when he says he's heard "a million and one" complaints.

I believe most Americans call soccer boring or slow as an excuse because they don't understand the sport and they have no interest in learning more about it (as is their right). Soccer at the professional level is just as fast, on average, as any NFL game and definitely faster than the NBA. --dm ^(talk) 04:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

How about if I put the sentence back but add the word "seem" before "considerably faster?" -- Mwalcoff 04:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems to whom? It doesn't seem that way to me. To say that soccer seems slow to some Americans would water down the sentence to the point where it is meaningless. The same could be said of any sport. I suspect that most people who say that soccer "seems slow" have never actually seen professional soccer. --dm ^(talk) 05:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to explain why so many Americans think soccer is "boring," especially since sports fans in most other countries think it's the most exciting thing ever. In my experience, American soccer-haters think soccer is boring because it seems slow. If you do a Usenet search on "soccer slow boring," you'll find lots of Americans who say soccer is slow and boring (and lots of soccer people saying American sports are slow and boring). I admit that I'm one of those people to whom soccer does seem slow and boring -- perhaps because I don't appreciate the game. I mean, to my eyes, you turn on a soccer game, and nine times out of ten the players seem to be jogging around, kicking the ball back and forth to each other, and when they do kick the ball down the field, it seems to float in the air for an eternity. This seems slow, because I'm used to watching baseball games, where the ball goes 100 MPH, or football games, when the players ram into each other at full speed on every play. -- Mwalcoff 05:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this article should analyze why Americans find soccer boring. That's a psychological question that no one can answer definitively. I assure you that people unfamiliar with football and baseball find those sports just as boring. Akin to your comment about soccer being merely "kicking the ball back and forth", football seems to many soccer fans to be little more than a bunch of overweight men running into each other and falling down. Also, I think speed has little to do with how interesting a sport is. NASCAR is far faster than anything we've discussed, but many people, myself included, find it duller than dishwater. Golf is one of the slowest sports there is, but it is more popular than soccer in the U.S. I think it would be wrong to imply that any sport is inherently boring. --dm ^(talk) 06:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

My point was not that soccer is slow and boring but rather that it seems that way to the non-fan. For our purposes here, whether non-fans of baseball and football find those sports boring is irrelevant. I do think that, considering the pecularity of many Americans' thoughts on soccer, it's important to explain why so many Americans think the way they do. To simply say, "A common complaint among Americans is that soccer is 'boring'" and not explain that any further leaves a big gap. -- Mwalcoff 00:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[<--moving leftward]
That's all that can factually be said about it. There are no scientific studies on this. I don't think most anti-soccer people themselves are even sure why they find it boring. Any conjecture on this is the dreaded original research. --dm ^(talk) 01:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Oh, and just for fun: This page says soccer players (other than the goalie) average 7 kilometers per hour during a game. At that speed, it would take an NFL wide receiver 9.4 seconds to run a 20-yard fly pattern and 47 seconds for Dante Hall to run a kickoff back 100 yards. Needless to say, wide receivers on a pass pattern run much faster than the average soccer player. But offensive linemen would be a different story. -- Mwalcoff 05:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course this is apples and oranges. As you mentioned before, even when on offense a wide receiver is just standing around a lot of the time between plays, though the clock is counting down for much of this so one has to count it as game time. Soccer forwards may avg. 7 km/hr over 90 minutes but they are frequently running sprints and plays similar to a fly pattern and midfielders make long runs down the sidelines at speeds similar to a kickoff return. --dm ^(talk) 05:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The average speed is fairly meaningless to the discussion of "soccer = slow/boring vs. fast football". There is less actual game time in a football game, but almost always a great deal more scoring, and the game is very rarely a draw - this is more important than whatever speed the athletes happen to be moving at. Soccer players could be running sprints the entire game, but if the scoring stayed the same, I don't think it would matter. --71.225.229.151 05:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The only things that should be here on why soccer is unpopular in the US are supported statements reported in the media, preferably in the form of a study and not just a throwaway line. It doesn't matter what they say, but right now the article reads as original research. "Another factor... In the decades hence, more and more... The result is..." all need citations. IMO, most of this is bunk psychology anyway, like trying to explain why disco became popular. --Tysto 13:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I just have to add, since this has not been mentioned, but one of the reasons why soccer is so exciting to people outside the US, BECAUSE there are often DRAWS or 0-0 games. This is what creates so much TENSION, and why it makes it so EXCITING when your team scores. Further more, this creates a status when two teams compete, any off them have any chances of winning, even with very large gaps. To put this in parallel to a basket ball, when your team scores, it's like "whoop-dee-doo, big whoop". Or in american football, the scorer does a little dance or something, and then they leave it at that. In soccer, the entire team/stadium will go crazy for like 5 minutes. I really believe it has nothing to do with the speed of the game.(PS, not saying anything is better than anything else here, just wanted to say why I think people find soccer exciting, myself included)Happypal 04:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete David Beckham Section

Half of this article is now dedicated to recent events surrounding the LA Galaxy signing David Beckham; this is not appropriate. The article title is "Soccer in the United States," not "David Beckham in the United States." Yes, its rather big news, but in reality its only a small aspect of soccer in the US. A quick one or two sentence reference is all that is needed. I'd like a few other comments before I delete the section, but much of it is going to have to go. --The Way 17:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The Beckham deal certainly should be mentioned here, but at the most it should be a few paragraphs - and I certainly wouldn't argue with only a few sentences. Cogswobble 17:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

rate

i found this page quite interesting *thumbs up*

Education and Club Structure Questions

Do you think that the educational system of the U.S. has hampered the growth of the game in the U.S. In most other countries, football clubs take in youth players at a young age, but in America, players go through university first. Does this have a significant effect on the game from a youth standpoint? In the 'big four' sports, there are teams for every level of development, but for football, there seem to be teams for small children and adults. Also, I've heard that many schools that have football play a different version to the 'standard' game, with shorter games, etc. In most other countries, schools don't have there own sport teams, forcing students to seek clubs for sport participation. Do the structures of clubs and leagues also harm the acceptance? The fact that most teams are tied to their leagues seems to me to limit the number of clubs that can exist. In America, all sports have franchising, and that leads to a lack of local clubs which is the most common model for football around the world. Is MLS a negative influence on American football? To me, MLS feels artificial, especially the over marketing of the game, such as the matches between LA Galaxy and Chivas USA being automatically important. Around the world, many derbies aren't very important to the clubs. A perfect example is Chelsea-Fulham, They both play in Fulham, but because they haven't always played in the same division, they don't have a heated rivalry. Do true football fans in the U.S. actually watch MLS? I always get the feeling that it tries too hard. In my opinion football happens, it isn't created. Do you think we should add something about the overall structuring of sport in America to the article? It seems worth a mention. I apologize if that was rambling. mpbx 04:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the page in question? This isn't a forum, it's a page for discussing the subject of the article. Batman2005 20:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Soccer as a winter sport in California

I want to make a note regarding this section.

One factor contributing to the relatively slow pace of soccer's growth in popularity is the competitive nature amongst various American youth sports programs, primarily centered around community clubs in the pre-teen years and secondary school teams thereafter. In some regions of the U.S., High School soccer and American football are both played in the fall and a student generally cannot devote time to both. Until the 1980s, most high schools in the U.S. did not offer soccer at all, and youth soccer programs were extremely rare until the 1970s. Thus, older generations of Americans living today grew up with virtually no exposure to the sport.

I went to high school in the San Francisco Bay Area, and most high schools offer soccer programs in the winter, which conflicts with basketball and wrestling. Here are relatively very few high schools that offer ice hockey, and because basketball rosters are limited to 12, there is an opportunity for more students to participate in a soccer team where the roster can be twice as large. Therefore, students in most regions in California can participate in American football in the fall and soccer in the winter (and baseball in the spring).