'Soccer'

[BlueCalifornia]

Few things.

Baseball is still immensely popular; it's flatly not true that it only matters in the northeast.

No one on here has mentioned baseball's minor leagues (which are affiliated with major league franchises). In a way they are quite similar to non-elite teams in football/soccer in that obviously they don't have big stars, but they have prospects coming through which helps drum up interest.

The attitude that soccer is a "pussy sport" or whatever is dying away pretty rapidly I'd say. Sure there are plenty of ignorant people in this country, but soccer is the most-played sport in this country, which most people don't know.

And American football isn't universally popular — lots of people, myself included, find it ridiculously boring (10 minutes of play time in an entire game, broken up by constant commercials).

About the MLS, teams do have pretty strong local fanbases, especially those who have newer stadiums. D.C. U*****, my local team, plays in a shithole of a stadium, which depresses attendance. And there are very passionate fanbases — the NW teams, Kansas City, Houston, DC, etc. As a league it is structured so differently than football's (soccer) model, partly because of the universality of college sports.

If you want to take a listen I had the privilege of doing NPR before the last World Cup and I touched on a few things about the growth of football in the United States.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127514062" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =127514062</a>

This has been the most played sport in the U.S. for decades, but there wasn't always a major, professional league to watch and promote the sport. Young Americans usually switched to a 'domestic' sport because there was a possibility of earning a great deal of money and/or pulling girls. MLS is the first league in the United states with both money and stable ownership. My generation (I'm in my 20s) is the first to have grown up playing the sport and watching it played by professionals. It's extremely popular among young men, who are now passing it on to their children as their primary sporting passion, rather than baseball, basketball, etc.

 

[ali benarbia's studs]

sorry i read the other "soccer" thread a few days ago....it s been edited!

one my brothers lived stateside for years he claims the americans think they can win the WC within 20 years.

as a whole americans understand the game better of late, they will make an impact in the game soon again. (robbed in korea/japan)

 

[andrewmswift]

sorry i read the other "soccer" thread a few days ago....it s been edited!

one my brothers lived stateside for years he claims the americans think they can win the WC within 20 years.

as a whole americans understand the game better of late, they will make an impact in the game soon again. (robbed in korea/japan)

I do not know a single American who thinks this.

 

[Why Always Ste]

sorry i read the other "soccer" thread a few days ago....it s been edited!

one my brothers lived stateside for years he claims the americans think they can win the WC within 20 years.

as a whole americans understand the game better of late, they will make an impact in the game soon again. (robbed in korea/japan)

LoL tbh pal if you lived in Scotland for a few years you'd meet Scots who still think they can win the WC in 20yrs... it's called being a Football fan - we are deluded twats :-D

One thing I could see happening in 20yrs is a club like say Liverpool (owned by msg) moving the club and forming a breakaway league in somewhere like the states.

A new Prem league, with multi european clubs and a few south american ones all competing in a league, with the worlds best players.

 

[Andy Dale]

I can't ever see football dislodging baseball, the NFL, or basketball, but it can make a big three, become a big four, where they're all very well appreciated, and move ahead of hockey.

Add ice hockey and wrestling to that list.

 

[DetCity]

The idea of celebrating a 17th place finish and avoiding relegation is extremely foreign to US fans.

Hmm, this whole idea of "success is king" is just something I wasn't brought up on, but more the reason why I'm enjoying the current success of City - and I believe a win for the club feels more to me than it would say someone who has only started to watch us recently.
I was brought up on watching relegation battles, routing for the underdog, and this for me somewhat feels just as exciting as demolishing a team/league.

As I said though, what will eventually help is a whole generation of a Family who have played the game, from mother to father, grandfather to granddaughter.

This for me is key in the rise of the sport, and eventual mainstay (rather than just rising for say a World cup) and collapsing when ROI jump back on the boat.

The more Americans that "get" the actual patience of the sport, as to the constant point scoring of basketball, the more probable of success.

That's because you shipped us all of your Calvinists. ;) It's a great irony that American neutrals will almost exclusively support the underdog, but as soon as their own team tanks, they begin with the "I'm not wasting another dollar/minute/relationship on those bums." Frankly, I think relegation is just what's missing from American sports, although the cadre of "haves" won't allow it. It seems interesting to me that there have been more and more grumblings recently from Europe about maintaining the status quo and protecting the current elites' status as such (FFP, etc) even to the extent of hearing some people (albeit not many) floating the idea of doing away with relegation. I'm waiting for the "No More Liverpools!" movement.

 

[DetCity]

I have always found the american "socialisation" of sport to be odd. For a country so enamoured with the free market, they employ a salary cap in football and equalise the playing field through the draft in american football. I dont know if this happens in other US sports.

The reason why the Prem is so loved is because it has a lot of the best players, it attracts so much talent through the wages it pays. For the MSL to compete it would have to pay those wages and then it may grow huge.

And i really dont get why anyone anywhere could watch basketball, it is the singular most pointless boring sport in existence.

The is really big difference in the way American sports leagues and European sports leagues operate and the culture of the different fan bases.

The sports in the US are set up like this because each league is it's own corporation. Instead of having 32 separate NFL companies, each team is part of a single corporation. This allows the leagues to break anti-trust rules. In the US, teams that don't win don't get supported by their fans, in general. The amount of enthusiasm found in European football fans can only be found in American college Football and a few, individual franchises in other American sports. Because of this, American sports league put in place rules to ensure competitive balance. If they didn't do this, the league as a whole (as apposed to an individual owner like in Europe) suffers from the loss of revenue. Individual team owners in the US can still make more money through initiative and success, but it takes a really bone-headed owner to lose money. In this way, the teams operate much more like financially sound businesses and less like a Roman Abramovich d*** measuring contest.

The biggest reason that the NFL is the most popular league in the US is that no team stays bad for too long. With rare exceptions generally caused by horribly incompetent management, bad NFL teams will be good within a couple years. By selling this hope, which typically does manifest itself, the NFL is able to keep fans engaged even in bad years. In the US, a team like QPR (with no realistic chance to ever be a top EPL team) would just not be supported. US fans like and expect winners. Finally, very few American franchises have the 100+ year histories of English FC's that create generations of supporters.

The other thing to point out in the US. Besides soccer, the US has the best leagues and highest paying salaries in every sport that is popular in the US (rugby and cricket are not popular). So the established leagues have not had any competition in attracting players domestically or internationally since the ABA-NBA (basketball) and AFL-NFL (American football) mergers of the 1970's. The American leagues have been able to run things however the want, and due to their similarity have created a sporting culture the American fan has come to expect. This is why the MLS is in a tough situation of having the cater to expectations of the American fan while playing within the rules of Global Football.

The idea of celebrating a 17th place finish and avoiding relegation is extremely foreign to US fans.

In addition, because of this, every NFL franchise makes a profit of tens of millions of dollars before they sell a single season ticket. Revenue sharing of TV broadcast rights, video games, etc. is split evenly. It's the opposite of the La Liga model. It also means a perenially unsuccesfull team (like the Detroit Lions) maintains not just financial viability, but profitabitlity, differntiating themselves from a team that relies on performance to scale their operations (as happens with not only relegation and promotion, but with Champions League qualification). There's is virtually no negative incentivization for poor on-field performance.

 

[unlikelyfan19]

I have always found the american "socialisation" of sport to be odd. For a country so enamoured with the free market, they employ a salary cap in football and equalise the playing field through the draft in american football. I dont know if this happens in other US sports.

The reason why the Prem is so loved is because it has a lot of the best players, it attracts so much talent through the wages it pays. For the MSL to compete it would have to pay those wages and then it may grow huge.

And i really dont get why anyone anywhere could watch basketball, it is the singular most pointless boring sport in existence.

The is really big difference in the way American sports leagues and European sports leagues operate and the culture of the different fan bases.

The sports in the US are set up like this because each league is it's own corporation. Instead of having 32 separate NFL companies, each team is part of a single corporation. This allows the leagues to break anti-trust rules. In the US, teams that don't win don't get supported by their fans, in general. The amount of enthusiasm found in European football fans can only be found in American college Football and a few, individual franchises in other American sports. Because of this, American sports league put in place rules to ensure competitive balance. If they didn't do this, the league as a whole (as apposed to an individual owner like in Europe) suffers from the loss of revenue. Individual team owners in the US can still make more money through initiative and success, but it takes a really bone-headed owner to lose money. In this way, the teams operate much more like financially sound businesses and less like a Roman Abramovich d*** measuring contest.

The biggest reason that the NFL is the most popular league in the US is that no team stays bad for too long. With rare exceptions generally caused by horribly incompetent management, bad NFL teams will be good within a couple years. By selling this hope, which typically does manifest itself, the NFL is able to keep fans engaged even in bad years. In the US, a team like QPR (with no realistic chance to ever be a top EPL team) would just not be supported. US fans like and expect winners. Finally, very few American franchises have the 100+ year histories of English FC's that create generations of supporters.

The other thing to point out in the US. Besides soccer, the US has the best leagues and highest paying salaries in every sport that is popular in the US (rugby and cricket are not popular). So the established leagues have not had any competition in attracting players domestically or internationally since the ABA-NBA (basketball) and AFL-NFL (American football) mergers of the 1970's. The American leagues have been able to run things however the want, and due to their similarity have created a sporting culture the American fan has come to expect. This is why the MLS is in a tough situation of having the cater to expectations of the American fan while playing within the rules of Global Football.

The idea of celebrating a 17th place finish and avoiding relegation is extremely foreign to US fans.

In addition, because of this, every NFL franchise makes a profit of tens of millions of dollars before they sell a single season ticket. Revenue sharing of TV broadcast rights, video games, etc. is split evenly. It's the opposite of the La Liga model. It also means a perenially unsuccesfull team (like the Detroit Lions) maintains not just financial viability, but profitabitlity, differntiating themselves from a team that relies on performance to scale their operations (as happens with not only relegation and promotion, but with Champions League qualification). There's is virtually no negative incentivization for poor on-field performance.

You were making great points until there. If you suck people stop coming. People stop coming you lose a lot of money. The longer you suck the harder it is to demand higher sponsorship payments to get out of those holes. Then the owners look at possibly just picking the team up and moving it 20 hours away. But yes I agree with you in that the system is still good and helps alleviate some of the financial problems of being bad. But if you are bad long enough it will catch up with you.

 

[taconinja]

I don't know if there are sponsorships for individual teams in the NFL. I think that might be prohibited.

 

[DetCity]

The is really big difference in the way American sports leagues and European sports leagues operate and the culture of the different fan bases.

The sports in the US are set up like this because each league is it's own corporation. Instead of having 32 separate NFL companies, each team is part of a single corporation. This allows the leagues to break anti-trust rules. In the US, teams that don't win don't get supported by their fans, in general. The amount of enthusiasm found in European football fans can only be found in American college Football and a few, individual franchises in other American sports. Because of this, American sports league put in place rules to ensure competitive balance. If they didn't do this, the league as a whole (as apposed to an individual owner like in Europe) suffers from the loss of revenue. Individual team owners in the US can still make more money through initiative and success, but it takes a really bone-headed owner to lose money. In this way, the teams operate much more like financially sound businesses and less like a Roman Abramovich d*** measuring contest.

The biggest reason that the NFL is the most popular league in the US is that no team stays bad for too long. With rare exceptions generally caused by horribly incompetent management, bad NFL teams will be good within a couple years. By selling this hope, which typically does manifest itself, the NFL is able to keep fans engaged even in bad years. In the US, a team like QPR (with no realistic chance to ever be a top EPL team) would just not be supported. US fans like and expect winners. Finally, very few American franchises have the 100+ year histories of English FC's that create generations of supporters.

The other thing to point out in the US. Besides soccer, the US has the best leagues and highest paying salaries in every sport that is popular in the US (rugby and cricket are not popular). So the established leagues have not had any competition in attracting players domestically or internationally since the ABA-NBA (basketball) and AFL-NFL (American football) mergers of the 1970's. The American leagues have been able to run things however the want, and due to their similarity have created a sporting culture the American fan has come to expect. This is why the MLS is in a tough situation of having the cater to expectations of the American fan while playing within the rules of Global Football.

The idea of celebrating a 17th place finish and avoiding relegation is extremely foreign to US fans.

In addition, because of this, every NFL franchise makes a profit of tens of millions of dollars before they sell a single season ticket. Revenue sharing of TV broadcast rights, video games, etc. is split evenly. It's the opposite of the La Liga model. It also means a perenially unsuccesfull team (like the Detroit Lions) maintains not just financial viability, but profitabitlity, differntiating themselves from a team that relies on performance to scale their operations (as happens with not only relegation and promotion, but with Champions League qualification). There's is virtually no negative incentivization for poor on-field performance.

You were making great points until there. If you suck people stop coming. People stop coming you lose a lot of money. The longer you suck the harder it is to demand higher sponsorship payments to get out of those holes. Then the owners look at possibly just picking the team up and moving it 20 hours away. But yes I agree with you in that the system is still good and helps alleviate some of the financial problems of being bad. But if you are bad long enough it will catch up with you.

Fair enough, I guess I'm reading too much into what I view as the most poorly run franchise in professional sports history, the Detroit Lions, who, even after a decade of abject failure could still sell out a 56,000 seat venue week in, week out. Maybe it was paper talk, but the general consensus was that William Clay Fors was happy making 20 million a year with an uncompetitive team knowing that people would still come on Sunday.
But, to be fair to your point, to every Lions, there is an Atlanta Thrashers or a Seattle Supersonics. And probably more so, although the NFL is unique in that often times, poorly supported teams are the most profitable and teams with die hard fan bases (Cleveland) often leave.