"My view is that we are exceptionalism and wouldn't want to start liking something that the rest of the world likes."

That's it.

Soccer is an awesome sport. I like (American) football a lot too. Basically, the way I see it, there's a continuum of talent required vs. strategy required. Soccer is on the talent end, football is on the strategy end.

Originally, soccer in the US was a kids sport. As a result, it didn't get the following of the big four (Am. football, baseball, bball, and hockey). It's popularity is growing and I even heard a World Cup report today on a local radio station known for it's love of baseball and football. Give it time. Until Pele grew in fame, soccer was a strange sport to us in the USofA.

I watched part of the US v ENG game today, as did my father. There was this constant sound like dying cows in the background and the guys kicked the ball back and forth to very little effect... While the level of skill displayed was tremendous - truly amazing - it was boring. Perhaps it's simply because I don't know anything about the "characters", as I know, for example, the story behind a quarterback I've watched from NCAA through pros. While my entire family (wife, kids and I) have all played soccer, watching it is kind of boring. Compared to the energy and (yes) violence of American Football, there is just no comparison. NBA, Hockey - same thing - ton more action. Baseball, on the other hand, is a slow game - so not quite sure why it is as popular from that standpoint - except that a guy hitting a ball 400 feet off a 95 mile per hour fastball is pretty amazing. Plus - as stated above, culturally soccer has been a cheap-to-play kid's game, so from a cultural standpoint it has gotten the short shrift.

But i suspect - particularly is the US can step it up moving forward - the popularity will grow -- nationalism will propel it forward if we see ourselves as becoming competitive.

@rlunley - If you think (American) football is all abut the strategy, and not about the talent, look again, long and hard. The removal of a key player due to injury, for example, can complete devastate an offense. They play one half with a guy, the second hald with a replacement of a different skill set and the same plays don't work. Even down to the offensive/defensive lines the skill set of individual players can make a tremendous amount of difference.

Go into a playoff game and have your quarterback and your best receiver eliminated by the evil Pittsburg Steelers taking cheap shots and your playoff chances go to shit. Ask the Bengals about it. Yes, Cinci is still pissed about the late hits and low blows the Steelers pulled in that game.

Many soccer games can be boring, but at least something is always happening. American football players spend more than 50% of the game standing around. Huddles, standing on the line, play clock, time outs, etc. DO SOMETHING YOU ARE AN "ATHLETE"!

Sure football takes talent. But trying to argue that football takes as much talent as soccer is laughable.

Just as trying to argue that soccer takes as much talent as football is laughable.

That's why I like both - both are the epitome of their spectrum. Baseball and basketball fall somewhere in the middle - which makes them both boring.

Baseball is a real strategy game. Mostly for the pitcher/catcher on how to handle a given batter, but also on the batter and the coaches. It's also tactics in how a given situation is played on the fly (fielder's choice, do you walk to set up a force out at third or home when a man is on second and third, etc.) Basketball is pure athelticism, but it's always up and down and up and down and it comes down to which means makes or misses the most shots at the backet.

*means = teams - Don't know what my fingers were doing there.

rlumley - Agreed, both take a tremendous amount of talent to play WELL.

@bananaFang - saying that "something is always happening" is soccer is true, strictly speaking. Mostly this "something happening" is a ball getting passed around with rather minor challenges...every now and then short bursts of intense interaction take place....and then it's back to the dull back and forth. HARDLY compelling.

Trying to suggest that American Football players don't do anything is, frankly, just downright ignorant. The physical effort and abuse to their bodies is so far beyond what happens in a soccer game there is no comparison - and anyone with integrity should be able to admit that. First of all they run around with armor on, and then they proceed to beat the hell out of each other! In fact, the average lifespan of a pro football player is well short of others due to the physical abuse they take on the field damaging their long-term health.

You complain about huddles....oh, you mean like the soccer defense stands around in the backfield while the ball is at the other end of the field? Maybe they huddle because the strategy involved is a bit more involved than soccer....which is what creates the incredible action and intense activity each and every down.

Come on dude...have some integrity in your argument. It's one thing to say you don't like American Football, but to pretend they don't do anything is simply stupid and invalid.

I admit there are intense moments in soccer - I got excited a couple times today and nervous a couple others during the US v ENG game...and that was about it. In American football even a "meaningless" can involve brutal blocks and tackles that take your breath away in terms of the sheer violence of the encounter...and the amazement that these guys stand up to play another down after receiving a hit that would literally kill me. That's intense!

@Draugnar - did you watch the NCAA finals in basketball? The winning team outplayed the crap to take the championship not just in athleticism, but in strategic play-making that the other teams could not counter. Basketball - played PROPERLY - is very strategic. And to make that point Iook at the Olympic BEATDOWN the US took some years ago when a bunch of athletic, me-first NBA players got the shit beat out of them by a some unknown team that played as a team with strategy. I think the current NBA is a joke...BECAUSE is it mostly athleticism and showmanship over team and strategy.

Yeah. I completely mistyped that. I meant that trying to argue that soccer took as much strategy as football is laughable.

As to it being a kid's game... one would think that because just about every American kid has played soccer that they will want to watch it. However there seems to be this stigma among adults where when you get above a certain age, if you still like soccer you are a weirdo or Swedish or something.... I don't get it.

Mericans are taught that baseball and american football are what we should watch. Major TV networks have only just begun to advertise and show soccer in the last two years. Also sports casters bash football over and over again. makign fun of the british anouncers and the entire game. In fact today i was watching on ESPN after the USA England game a sports show where they had to pick the top plays of the week. Whenever a soccer play was put up against another the sportscaster would always vote on the non soccer play. He even voted for cliff diving over the United States goal.

As far as will football ever get big int he united states i think it will. It will take a long while though. Until the MLS gets amazing players no one will be interested. We enjoy the world cup because of big names. We need more star power in the MLS.

wow it cut my thing in short.

i also had int here how americans don;t under stand how it can be exciting with so little goals. They say its not exciting when no one scores. yet they enjoy a perfect pitching game in baseball. They say its boring to see people stand in a field. Yet they watch baseball players stand in the outfield. Personally i'd rather see a striker put one through the net than a ball fly over a wall. i suppose i'm a rarity for an american.

what is really ironical is that we mexicans do care (too much) about soccer, and it would be much easier for usa to get a soccer worldcup than for mexico, (if any of these teams ever get a worldcup). and it's cos 1.mexican soccer is a fucking mafia, and 2.if usa ever gets interested, they have much more mony and resources to set up a first level league

oh i think if USA was really interested we could win 2 out of the next 4 world cups.

@Krellin - "There was this constant sound like dying cows in the background and the guys kicked the ball back and forth to very little effect... While the level of skill displayed was tremendous - truly amazing - it was boring" - That's because it wasn't a particularly good game. I'm sure your wonderful American Football has its bad games every now and then. The first games in the World Cup generally aren't that impressive, particularly when the teams are the strongest in the group. You wait until Brazil or the Dutch start playing...
@Check - I don't think either is likely given the US hosted in '94 and Mexico '86
@DJE - Well, thanks to the wonders of the word 'could' technically you are correct, but taking your actual meaning. You wouldn't suddenly become such a great footballing nation as to overshadow the rest of the world.

DJE, as figle says. You can't really expect to win until 2022 I'd say, and even then it wouldn't be a level of dominance that would give you 2 consecutive wins.

well maybe thats so.
New Question:
but how would soccer grow in the united states everyone? what needs to happen.

@krellin
I admitted first thing that some soccer games are boring. I never said american football players didn't do anything, just that they don't spend as much time doing things as soccer players. Sure, soccer defenders take a break while their team is on offense in the other half, but *I don't have to watch that.* In american football, everyone is in the huddle, doing nothing all at the same time. That bores me way faster than unimpressive passing/challenges in soccer.

Some of the team on an american football team is very athletic. Some of it is not, per my definition of athleticism. Soccer players will run upwards of 9 km in a game. American football? Sure, receivers are fast, but they need anywhere near the endurance of a soccer player. I also take issue with the 350 pound guys who stand and block on the line. Sure, they lift a lot of weights and they are strong, but maybe their life expectancy is shorter because they aren't actually at a healthy weight. I prefer sports where good overall athleticism is rewarded.

American football is designed to abuse the players more. Therefore they wear more padding. Soccer is designed so that the players aren't supposed to come into a lot of contact, so they only have shin guards. Soccer players have broken legs and skulls and they keep going back to the game. Does that make them tougher? Does wearing less armor make you tougher? Does knowing you are supposed to take hits make you tougher? I don't really know how to call that one. I think players in both take a fair bit of abuse, but also that the abuse is separate from the athleticism. Also, I think rugby players are probably way tougher than either.

American Football and Baseball have huge popularity in the States due to the endless number of pauses in play that give the spectators a chance to buy more snacks (obligatory Yank joke now over... I shall continue).

One reason many Americans find association football (soccer) dull is that they've not learned how to enjoy it. Too many of you are used to watching a short piece of action, and then pausing to chat about it, which is a fine way of watching the NFL but often fails in soccer. To support soccer you need to be in touch with the spirit of the game, the flow and buildup of momentum, and the chanting of football songs. To use a bloody awful analogy it's a bit like the difference between analogue and digital... ish...

On a really positive note the England USA game was the first in the world cup where some proper chanting drowned out that bloody awful drone from the South Africans (those few millions in the states who have learned to love soccer have become some of the world's finest supporters). Although the US really has to develop something better than repeating USA USA over and over again. To global ears it really makes you sound like a bunch of yokel thug types.

Soccer (deal with it) is boring. It's not that I don't like the idea of it. Indoor soccer, which is played at a much more frantic pace , can be fun to watch. Watching regular soccer is like watching the grass grow.

Do you watch baseball Dingle?

I think Octavious's point about needing to understand the game to really enjoy it is applicable to all sports. When American Football was first broadcast in the UK it was almost unintelligble but thanks to some good commentary, explaining the game, I began to find it watchable, although I never caught the bug. Similarly, cycling was a total mystery until someone sat down and explained it to me.

The culture that you grow up in must affect the sports that people are interested in. If you grow up in an environment where Monday Night Football (have I got that right?) is the thing everyone talks about you, as a child, will pick that up too.

Thus, for me, the curious thing is not what sports Americans like now but how they became popular. Soccer does well around the world because it is so simple, requiring almost no equipment and very few people for a scratch game. Basketball is almost as simple (only a hoop more). I guess Baseball and Cricket are similarly challenged in terms of numbers and equipment but some of the skills can be practiced by a couple of people. However, American Football seems only possible with many people, a lot of equipment and so on. How did it start?

It's definitely not because of the number of U.S sports. In the U.K we have cricket and rugby union which are both major sports, the equivalent of say Ice Hockey in the U.S. Add to that rugby league, golf and tennis, all of which are massively popular either in certain areas or at certain time of year( e.g Yorkshire and Lancashire for league,Ryder cup and the Open golf, Wimbledon tennis etc), as well as the likes of snooker and darts.
Despite the fact these sports have all grown at a huge rate in the last 20 years- greater than football, football continues to grow apace itself. Would suggest that sport isn't really affected by a saturation point.

@ diplomat61- it came from rugby, started being different in about 1895.

quite funny story really- they invented the forward pass becuase they agreed that the pitch at the major stadium they played at was too small, and couldn't be expanded beacuse of all the seats. So they introduced a forward pass, and the game developed from there.

@Dip - I agree.
I tried to watch American football a few months back, but because I don't understand the strategies etc couldn't tell what was a good play and what wasn't etc etc.

As I understand it though, you don't *need* lots of people to play American football - that's just how its evolved to be.
Its not hard to compare American football with rugby and see they would have a common ancestor.

Vamos, No, I do not watch baseball. I find that incredibly boring as well. I follow the Phillies in the newspaper only, watch the highlights on the local news, but that's it. Haven't watched a full game since Joe Carter's home run in the World Series in 1993.

"However, American Football seems only possible with many people, a lot of equipment and so on. How did it start? "

You need 3 people to play football. Two teams, and a 'steady quarterback'. A guy who plays QB for both teams. One guy tries to get open, the QB throws it to him. If they score, possession (and the QB) changes. sides.

Obviously its better with more people. But you just need a side yard, 3 people and a nerf ball.

the base answer is because in soccer, theres no contact. football is highly tactical, can change in a minute and every game matters. its not like in baseball or basketball where if you lose 10 games or even 3 in the championship game that your season is over. you have to play every game as the best in order to be the best. sissies need not apply.

@Tru - Are you American? I ask because I don't know what you mean by football.
Our football is also highly tactical, but there is also room for individual brilliance.

The combination of geography, independence, and size are the main reasons that local sports grew to dominate the US sports scene.

When America came into its own after the civil war, most of the great soccer countries were several thousand miles away in an era when time and space actually meant something. Additionally, the US is big enough to have plenty of inter-state rivalries that basically serve the same purpose psychologically as an international rivalry serves between France and England (for example); i.e., you suck, we're better than you, and we'll prove it on the field. So being isolated from the major soccer powers probably led to just starting to do our own thing.

As for independence, well, we all know that the US in general likes to do its own thing and not feel like it's just "Europe West". So there is a level or contrariness there, I'm sure.

Essayist Chuck Klostermann believes that it is because Americans like to see dominance, which is more easily portrayed in a game like American football, where a score of 47-3 is completely possible. A 5-0 soccer victory is just as impressive, but it doesn't look as impressive on paper.

Soccer and Hockey are the same sport, basically, and hockey isn't that popular in most parts of the US either - but since we have a big neighbor that adores the sport, it bleeds into the north of the country. You'd think soccer would get a similar influence from Mexico, but until the last 50 years or so, the border between the USA and Mexico wasn't all that populous; Mexico speaks a different language than most Americans; and the center of power isn't in the southwest, so "American Culture" doesn't spring from that area. There has been a shift west and south over the last several decades, and not surprisingly, soccer also grows in popularity. I doubt it will ever compete with American football though.

So take your pick - soccer's homeland was across an ocean; the USA doesn't have a lot of nations on its borders; we like big scores which show if there was a severe ass kicking; and so on.

That said, seeing that English goalkeeper bobble the ball away was quite delicious. :D

I'd say a big part of the reason why association football isn't especially popular in the US is that the best games in the world are played when most Americans are at work, or on Saturday morning at around 8 am, depending upon where you live. We like our sports in convenient time zones.

And yet, the game is getting much bigger quite rapidly. I, sadly, live in the middle of nowhere in a small town in Wisconsin 2 hours drive away from a city of even 100,000 residents. In my town of 40,000, it's not very hard to find people to talk about how evil Chelski, ManU, and Tottenham are.

@Rule: thanks.

@DBJ: thanks for that, I guess it is a like only needing two people to play cricket.

@all: Rugby and cricket were "exported" to America (I know about the latter, although it met with little success) so presumably soccer was too. Does anyone know why it lost out to rugby (which morphed into American football).

I agree with Figs that soccer can also be very tactical. It seems to me that any sport which can command a big audience, directly or on TV, must have things about it that keep those people coming back. Watch something enough and you start to recognise the tactics, good play and so on. Even Krellin has probably learnt a bit from his study of women's beach volleyball.

In my experience, you can talk about football (soccer) just about anywhere.

because the sport soccer isnt as popular as more american sports. but its growing

There was some comment up above (don't feel like finding it) basically saying American's don't know how to CHEER PROPERLY....Yeah, that is one reason why Americans could care less about soccer - because the people that like soccer are a bunch of arrogant jackasses who who don't do very much to endear themselves towards a new fan base. When somebody tells me I'm not sophisticated enough to properly understand and cheer for a bunch of guys kicking a ball around a field. You kind of sound like the guys with the fancy sports car and a little dick....like you're trying to impress us with your sport (but we're not really that impressed...)

In US sports, pick the sports arena, and you a very likely to find a unique cheer/team spirit thing. Cheeseheads in Green Bay, tomahawk chops for an Indian's team. Whe nLou whitaker played for the Detroit Tigers, everying went "Looouuuuuuuuuu" and as a child, i thought they were booing him. So USA fans chant USA...but that's not the correct way to cheer? Give me a break...

@diplo- not really sure, but I know that rugby and football were v.close to being the same game until about 1880. Also, rugby was the only one which got a stadium built, which I'd imagine encouraged people to watch?

@bplus - The local issue is a good reason it didn't spread, but doesn't explain why it didn't kick off originally

really the whole thing comes down to personal taste. i can enjoy a 1-1 draw. Not everyone will like a sport. But soccer is growing in the united states. we did buy the most world cup tickets.