Two brief responses to Todd's responses to my comments on Americans and soccer. He writes: "Americans don't like soccer because Americans don't like soccer. The sports embraced by a given society/country/culture are largely conventional and traditional."
That's what someone once called "a nice theory, slain by an ugly fact." Within the last 30 years, Asians have gone from being soccer-indifferent to being possibly the most passionate fans on the planet -- FIFA had to disable all incoming traffic from Korea onto its website after Korea was eliminated from the World Cup because it was being inundated by angry fans! And the Thais and Malaysians make the Korena fans look tame. And the same, more or less, has happened in Africa, too.
Second, Todd writes
"it should be skill, not chance that decides games, and this seems to be a universal sentiment. One problem with the World Cup is that the talent levels are so compressed these days that almost every game comes down to a single goal and thus one referee's call (a penalty kick or quetionable red card) can thus prove decisive in a game."
Um, wrong. Two billion people are going to watch the World Cup final; it is a little odd that you talk about the "universal sentiment" here, or the "problem with the World Cup." The final of the World Cup is going to be decided, like all great soccer games, on a combination of incredible skill, team desire, and luck. You don't have to watch, if you don't like it -- fine by me. I think many Americans feel as you do -- that's OK, too. But don't tell me what the universal sentiment is!
I'm outta here -- Brazil-Ghana is starting soon. [If this game were decided on skill alone, 46 people would watch it; the Brazilian team is so skillful they couldn't possibly lose a single game, ever. But in fact, they might lose ... and I will be joined by 500 million folks in front of the TV to see if this is the game in which it happens]
But this might appeal to people for whom luck seems paramount in their real life. Moreover, for many people the key to soccer seems to be more a well played beautiful game than actually winning. This could appeal to those who see little hope of great advance in life but find satisfaction in a well lived life. But Americans are about winning.
And if luck, chance and the occasional corrupt ref should decide games rather than skill, why not just toss a coin?
Diving, on the other hand, really ticks Americans off.
The most popular sport in America by fans and revenue, football, is widely considered to be best viewed on television. Baseball, while extremely fun in person, is also "best" viewed on TV (try determining balls and strikes from the bleachers in right field). Basketball. . .well, it's tough to see all those March Madness games in person.
In contrast, sports like hockey and soccer (both of which struggle, at best, in America) are best viewed in person. The artistry of both sports can only be fully appreciated by watching the flow of the players across the entire field. Goals in both are more exciting when you watch the game unfold. When you see them on TV, however, goals in soccer and hockey seem to come out of the blue. Maybe part of the reason soccer hasn't yet fully caught on in America is because most Americans haven't have access to viewing high-level competition in person, where they can learn to appreciate and love it.
I think one of the reasons that the World Cup has really caught on this year is that this is the first cup contested in the age of widely available high-def, widescreen televisions, which more accurately capture the "entire field" views of soccer that make appreciating it essential. Every bar in New York City that shows the World Cup is playing it on some sort of widescreen plasma TV. Maybe this little piece of technology is responsible for the increased popularity of soccer this year. (Why this isn't working for hockey is anyone's guess. . .probably because the NHL just flat-out stinks nowadays).
With, as I noted in a comment to the previous post, the glaring exceptions of the continent's two dominant nations, India and China (although as I also mentioned, maybe the success of the Chinese women's team will have a coattails effect on the national men's program).
I think the biggest problem with soccer (for americans) is that unless you like running, it isn't very much fun to play. Baskeball has much more to do with shooting ability that physical fitness. Two old fat guys can still shoot hoops. Anyone can play catch. Soccer just degenerates.
I also think the commercial values have been underemphasized. With all the other sports, it doesn't make sense for the broadcasters to emphsasise a game that is difficult to advertise in. I think that is in part why hockey is dropping as well.
Look at the differnces between rugby and it's direct descendant, American football. Rugby features hard hitting continous play, with lots of action, but few complex patterns. It rewards burly generalists who can keep up with constant action. American football involves discrete plays at super-high intensity and complexity that no one could produce/endure over a whole hour - and it rewards specialists.
The difference between baseball and cricket is roughly the same. Basbeabll is more complex, specialized and intense than cricket - even though there's not much going on most of the time.
Hockey is like soccer - continous relatively uncomplex play action by generalists. And like soccer its a niche spart in the US.
Basktball is a hybrid - continous play, but with complex paterns and set-ups. And the college version, which rewards complex play making is much more popular (going by TV revenues) than the suped-up pro game, which rewards lass skilled play.
Yeah, but we have our sports (baseball, football, basketball), which we've built an entire culture upon, and who does the rest of the world think they are to tell us to chage? Out of Canada's sheer nearness and English-speaking-ness, hockey's managed to establish a ghetto location in the American sporting landscape. Let's be real, though. Americans didn't invent soccer, we don't dominate it, and the popular press don't know enough about to care to cover it as anything other than a second-tier sport.
It's gonna happen eventually. If the mind-numbing sport of left-turn driving can catch fire with the populace, so can soccer. Still, I gotta believe that until a male version of Mia Hamm starts scoring World Cup goals, soccer's going to continue to be a sport that 'they' play.
Doesn't know. Hrm.
Brazil. England has a very marginal chance if they gell and rise to the occasion, but that's not happening.
Well... from a market point of view I would suggest the bulk of those populations dont exactly have a buffet of sporting options to choose from. If soccer is the only sport your nation competes in at an international level, of course it will be huge. Half a billion Soviet's were reading Pravda, i dont know that that is proof it was a fantastic newspaper.
Whoever said soccer isnt that interesting on television is dead on. Thats' really its only problem aside from not being that interesting to watch live.
(In Asia, there seems to be a lose correlation between countries that play cricket and those that embrace soccer. Is it caustive? Who knows?)
In this day and age it really doesn't matter. Between cable and satellite, you can pretty much see any sport you really want to see. If enough people want to see a given sport, the various outlets will even offer pay-per-view packages.
(Superbowl fanatics have claimed world wide viewship of 1 billion, but that number has been skewered.)
(1) Zywicki didn't say that what people like can't change - he just said what they like isn't based on any identifiable reason, such as low scoring. Post's example makes Zywicki's point, it doesn't contradict it. If someone had said 40 years ago that Asians don't like soccer because it is low scoring, they would have been wrong - they didn't like it because culturally, as Zywicki said, "they didn't like it."
(2) The fact that people watch the World Cup doesn't mean that they like the bad parts of it. That's like saying that because so many people watch football here, they must like lousy pass interference calls; or that because people watch baseball here, they like the steroid epidemic. This, one would think, is self-evident.
It seems as if Post didn't realize that (a) Zywicki wasn't disagreeing with anything Post said and (b) seems to be a soccer fan himself.
And yet that is not the case in soccer. Since 1930, the WC has held 17 championship games, and thus 34 teams playing for the cup. During that period, 20 of those 34 slots have been held by just four national teams -- Brazil (7), Italy &Germany (5) and Argentina (3). In fact, only eleven nations have made it to the championship game in WC history. Hardly sounds like luck is a major factor.
And the way the 2006 WC is progressing, I would think that the teams playing in the championship match will have been there before.
Personally, I hope soccer never becomes a major spectator sport in the USA -- who needs the greedy owners and the soccer equivalents of Daryll Strawberry, Lawrence Phillips or Allen Iverson?
Looks like someone’s been reading Jonathan Chait:
Indeed.
Except that China is obsessed with soccer. Yes, the men's team didn't make it to the WC but the discussion here is about the popularity of the sport among FANS, not about participation (lots of US kids play soccer). 10,000 Chinese students rioted at their university last week because the school hadn't yet extended the hours of available power for the exam period and thus they couldn't watch late night WC games. I've lived in China during past WCs and trust me, the level of enthusiasm is greater than overall American enthusiasm for the Superbowl.
It is a sport invented by "Native Americans," it has lots of rough physical contact, it is a team endeavor, involves a ball, requires lots of running and endurance.
If you disagree, we shall meet in the octagon!
Let me introduce you to Malcom Glazer and Roman Abramovich, David Beckham, Roberto Carlos, and more...
In domestic leagues, the dominance of the best teams is even greater -- the twelve-or-so years of the English Premier League have seen only four winners, and Blackburn was a one-off. In 2003-04, Arsenal went undefeated for the entire league season. (If anything, soccer can be too predictable in this respect, like baseball.) If soccer really were that random, then the best teams wouldn't do nearly as well.
In the UK, gambling on soccer is huge. Win, loss and draw are 3 separate outcomes and can be bet like that at various odds, which is how baseball is mostly bet in the USA; since it's low-scoring, you can bet on the exact final score, because there are relatively few reasonable outcomes; and when I lived there, decades ago, they had the football pools, where the idea was to pick, from the several dozen matches on a given Saturday, ten or so that would be a draw. And there is indeed over/under betting, at least on Tradesports. See here for more.
I believe that such an innovation is especially needed in the case of Baseball, where a association of "club" owners enjoys a Congressional charter and, with that charter, effective competition is excluded.
As long as we're reforming, the creation of European-style clubs, with teams at every level of play from amateur to top professionals, would create the opportunity to remove intercollegiate athletes from their present status as subjects of what can only be called affirmative action. (And a form of affirmative action with terrible yields in terms of graduation and carreer placement at that).
In comparison, while watching football in the US, you have constant breaks to discuss the game, possible strategies, how your kids are doing in school, and so on. While you're watching a soccer game, you can't really do anything *but* watch the game.
Soccer is about the only sport that every country really plays. The World Cup is a truly unique event, drawing the best athletes, best resources, and most fan interest in nearly every nation on earth. Winning the Cup is the most prestigious achievement in sports. I look around at the quality of athletes the U.S. produces in all other sports, at the amazing facilities, at the monstrous sponsorship deals, and I think "if only we cared this much about soccer!" I'm not insecure (in this, anyway) or a "sissy communist", I just want to win.
(Oh, and I want to watch soccer on Sportcenter too.)
I like baseball, I like basketball, I Love soccer. I like Mexico (my mom is Mxn), I like El Salvador (My dad is Salvadorian), I Love America.
USA winning World Cup someday... That WILL be an awesome day for many Americans like myself! Talk about the Ultimate Achievement in Sports History.
It could be National Ultimate Sports Achievement Day.
USA Day!!!
PEACE!