Objectively speaking, soccer is an inferior spectator sport...

[Dauphin]

Its amazing what an 11pm last orders law can do for speed drinking.

[Starchild]

You're a girly man if you can't down an entire pint in one go.

[Dauphin]

Try the yard.

[Agathon]

You guys are missing the point. Until fairly recently, and it's still not that completely screwed, Association Football was not really a business oriented sport. Teams are still dominated by local support and strong regional rivalries. In North American leagues teams can move cities. I cannot recall that ever happening with a soccer team -- it's almost unthinkable.

American sports leagues are cash cows designed so that the owners can vampirically suck money from fans with little or no risk. They are designed to maximize television advertising over the game.

The other big difference between the various European leagues and North American leagues is relegation. If your team is the worst in the league, then you get relegated to a lower division, and again and again if you suck (or are Sunderland AFC). You don't get the luxury of a high end draft pick, you get screwed. And that is as it should be. Rewarding success is important in sports, but punishing failure is equally important. North American sports do not punish failure adequately.

The opposite happens. A team can rise from obscurity and make the Football League, and then advance through the divisions of that league to the Premier League. It happened with Wimbledon, and now again with Wigan.

American football is a joke. Any game with that many rules is simply silly. An American football game is a 3 hour beer commercial with an hour's break for the actual game. It's basically an inferior form of rugby where the players get a rest every 30 seconds and wear armour instead of taking it like men. American football reminds me of the consumer sports in Brave New World.

Association football is an extremely simple game. The only rule that is difficult to understand is the offside rule. That's it. The rest is common sense. It's also a working class game, and they are always the best (which is why baseball retains its unique character among American sports).

This is why soccer as you so quaintly call it has taken over the world. The US is no different. Immigrants and globalization will ensure that it will take over there as well. American sports have tended to be popular outside North America for the clothes rather than the game.

The only American sport that has moved successfully elsewhere is baseball. Again, the reason is simple. You only need a field, a ball, a stick and some coats (for the bases) to play it. Soccer is the same: you need a ball and some coats, and you're away...

American football is really only a spectator sport. It requires too many resources to get a proper game going amongst kids. Hockey is better, but if you don't live in a cold country you are SOOL. Rugby is easier, but if you don't live in a country with soft ground you are again SOOL (don't try playing rugby on hard ground, you will break limbs).

Soccer will be the dominant world sport for the forseeable future. In those places where it already dominates it is entrenched. In those few countries where it doesn't yet, it has made massive inroads in the last 30 years (when I was a kid, I was the only person who followed the game and wore a strip - now you see them everywhere). It's inevitable and there's nothing you can do about it.

If you don't like it, that's fine. Perhaps your kids will like it. But your kids' kids will love it.

And if you think it is boring, try watching tapes of the Brazil team from 1970 or 1982. That is football elevated to an art.

[Asher]

The other big difference between the various European leagues and North American leagues is relegation. If your team is the worst in the league, then you get relegated to a lower division, and again and again if you suck (or are Sunderland AFC). You don't get the luxury of a high end draft pick, you get screwed. And that is as it should be. Rewarding success is important in sports, but punishing failure is equally important. North American sports do not punish failure adequately.

So you agree the Leafs shouldn't be in the NHL?

[Imran Siddiqui]

American sports leagues are cash cows designed so that the owners can vampirically suck money from fans with little or no risk.

You are missing the point that this was also a fairly recent development. Until the 80s, sports franchises were NOT cash cows. The money-coming-out-of-the-ass NY Yankees were LOSING money when CBS owned them, which is why they sold it to the Steinbrenner for like $10 million in the early 70s.

And American football was making less than baseball until Pete Rozelle transformed the league, but even that took to until the 80s, when he could make the NFL into the US's most popular sport in some masterful planning.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Footie Mad


You have to give football recognition for being so loved and widely watched across the world as it is. There must be something about the game then that attracts people. If everything people wanted was speed they could watch hand ball.

Probably has to do with the fact that soccer is easy and inexpensive to organize at local levels where money is tight. Football takes a lot of money and a lot of planning to pull off if you want to do it right. Unless you go for flag football which is still more exciting than soccer. I think Sava pretty much hit the nail on the head regarding soccer in the US. It's great for 5-7 year olds.

[Sprayber]

I think I'd rather watch a good dodge ball match than to watch soccer.

http://www.dodge-ball.com/

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's great for 5-7 year olds.

http://www.nike.com/nikesoccer/dtom/manifesto.pdf

Perhaps a bit preachy, but it captures my mood to those kind of statements good enough,

[Sprayber]

Just because Nike says it doesnt make it so. If I had a son or daughter playing soccer than I'd go to every match but I wouldn't pay to see it otherwise. Baseball is another one I can't watch on TV. I loved the game as a kid but it bores the hell out of me to watch it. Now this summer I went to three minor league games in Iowa and I must say I enjoyed them a lot. Then again, I think sitting behind home plate helped a lot to.

When it comes to sports everyone has their favorites.

I love pro Football but up until 6 years ago, I hardly ever watched College Football. With basketball it was the other way around. Can't stand NBA ball but I will sit down and watch a good College game.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Sprayber]Just because Nike says it doesnt make it so.[/q]

[q=Imran Siddiqui]it captures my mood[/q]

[Urban Ranger]

I think football is better because it is a very fluid game. The ball keeps moving until there is a foul or when it goes outside. This means that all the players must concentrate and think quickly as the game develops, hence the term "football wisdom." Individual creativity is very important.

OTOH, US Handmelon is a very static game. The players are basically extensions of the coaches and "strategists" who make the plays. I am sure personal reaction to an unexpected situation can make a difference at times, but those are the exceptions.

[DaShi]

That's a pretty odd definition of individual creativity. Kick to left, kick to right. Just kidding. However, it's very similar to basketball in that respect. A player who isn't moving and paying close attention is useless. However, it is not an individual sport at all. Both soccer and basketball are team sports. Sorry, but Yao Ming didn't beat the L.A. Lakers, as my students claim, the Houston Rockets did.

Now that is a fairly ignorant opinion of US football. US football is more than just an extension of the coaches. Yes, they decide the plays and strategies to use, but the actual situation is far different. Each player must be prepared for any changes in the game plan, which inevitably occur. Each player must be prepared to deviate from the plan when necessary.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon

...
American sports leagues are cash cows designed so that the owners can vampirically suck money from fans with little or no risk. They are designed to maximize television advertising over the game.

They started as small medium-sized businesses, then they became status symbols / luxuries for the rich, and now they've morphed into big businesses. But they aren't completely optimized for this due to their history and generally conservative nature. And even though they are now big businesses they still serve as status symbols for the owners, which means that often seeing them as purely businesses will lead you to make false predictions regrding their behavior.

Originally posted by Agathon
The other big difference between the various European leagues and North American leagues is relegation. If your team is the worst in the league, then you get relegated to a lower division, and again and again if you suck (or are Sunderland AFC). You don't get the luxury of a high end draft pick, you get screwed. And that is as it should be. Rewarding success is important in sports, but punishing failure is equally important. North American sports do not punish failure adequately.

Relegation / promotion is a great system, and sometimes I wish we had it here. Of course we have zillions of local football teams (high school, collegiate, pee-wee etc.), but only two professional leagues of any stature. The one benefit that I see to the way we organize the professional leagues is that there is no talent dilution. We see the absolute best talent every week.

Originally posted by Agathon
American football is a joke. Any game with that many rules is simply silly. An American football game is a 3 hour beer commercial with an hour's break for the actual game. It's basically an inferior form of rugby where the players get a rest every 30 seconds and wear armour instead of taking it like men. American football reminds me of the consumer sports in Brave New World.

The "armor" actually makes the game more dangerous as it is used as a weapon more than as armor. As for the pace of the game I agree somewhat, which is why I watch two or more games at once and switch away whenever there is a break in the action. As for the supposed lack of conditioning your comment tells me that you are no athlete. Every play is a combination sprint / bone jarring collision. They hit so hard that even an athletic man can get injured / cramped by the blow if he is not in football shape. You have to have great conditioning in order to take the abuse and make such extreme exertions so often, and if you are not already very strong, quick or fast there is no chance you will be out there for anyone to comment on your stamina.

Originally posted by Agathon

Association football is an extremely simple game. The only rule that is difficult to understand is the offside rule. That's it. The rest is common sense. It's also a working class game, and they are always the best (which is why baseball retains its unique character among American sports).

Actually football and basketball are as much "working class sports" as baseball. Perhaps moreso.

Originally posted by Agathon

The only American sport that has moved successfully elsewhere is baseball. Again, the reason is simple. You only need a field, a ball, a stick and some coats (for the bases) to play it. Soccer is the same: you need a ball and some coats, and you're away...

American football is really only a spectator sport. It requires too many resources to get a proper game going amongst kids. Hockey is better, but if you don't live in a cold country you are SOOL. Rugby is easier, but if you don't live in a country with soft ground you are again SOOL (don't try playing rugby on hard ground, you will break limbs).

You are ranging very far outside your knowledge here. Football is quite playable with only a ball. I played tackle football well into my 30s and no one ever used pads. If someone showed up in pads we would not have allowed them to play because of the increased danger (see above, pads increase the violence and chance of injury). Also a very fun game can be played with as few as 3 on a team, though 5-7 is ideal. For people who don't want the violence associated with tackle football, touch and flag football are very fun alternatives.

As for the hard ground, your rugby players must be pussies compared to our football players, as many "fields" in the U.S. have artificial turf which is a polite way of saying concrete with a thin indoor / outdoor carpet stretched over it. Every time you hit the ground (which is pretty often) it feels like you fell down in a parking lot.

Anyway I love playing soccer about as much as I enjoy playing football, and enjoy watching it. But it pales in comparison to football as a spectator sport. It does however beat the hell out of baseball in every way.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Locutus
Handmelon: many players are amongst the most fat, unathletic 'sportsmen' you'll find anywhere with no skills of any kind other than running like sissies and/or the use of blunt force. They're sissies who have to wear bulletproof kevlar to protect their sissy arses to boot. The game prominently features men jumping and groping each other, the latent homoeroticism dripping off of it in buckets. Violence is the main attraction, but action never lasts longer than 30 seconds, perfect 'sport' for people with short attention spans. Yes, I agree, objectively speaking Handmelon is the perfect spectator sport for Americans...

There are only two things I hate in this world. People who have no respect for other cultures, and the Dutch.

Nigel Powers (whose sh!t list you're on double)