Yea, there are definitely teams with active fan bases (LA, chicago, dallas, DC) and there are places like Columbus that don’t draw as many. The league has been shuffling teams around to different cities and I think they will eventually find 16-20 decent markets
[quote]superhero#1 wrote:
Steel Nation wrote:
superhero#1 wrote:
I’ve heard soccer is the manliest sport to play in Europe.
You must be either joking or misinformed. Rugby would be the obvious choice here.
Obviously not, having been to Spain, known people who went to Germany and England. Maybe Rugby is growing but soccer is the number one sport in virtually every country but the USA.
2006 FIFA World Cup (I was actually in Spain for this): The 2006 World Cup stands as the most watched event in television history garnering an estimated 28.29 billion non-unique viewers, compiled over the course of the tournament. The final attracted an estimated audience of 715.1 million people.[2]
2007 Superbowl: estimated 93.2 million viewers
It must be…jealousy[/quote]
I didn’t say rugby was the most popular, I said it was clearly the “manliest” sport in Europe, possibly the world.
The popularity and viewership of soccer vs. the NFL is completely irrelevant to me. I concede that soccer is the most popular, most widely viewed sport the world over. In the US, that is not the case, and I am attempting to explain why.
[quote]
BALBO wrote:Here in Croatia,if you cant play soccer you are not considered a real man.Soccer is considered a real men sport,while basketball and table tennis is considered pussified.
Steel Nation wrote:While it’s true that there are a few metrosexuals in every sport, soccer is the only one I can think of, out of those mentioned (excluding golf and NASCAR, which are loved for different reasons), that has no big and bad SOBs to speak of.
But, I guess that’s just the nature of the sport. It wouldn’t make much sense to be big and jacked if you have to run 13 km a match (OUCH!).
What? The only “metrosexual” soccer player I can think of is Beckham, I am sure there are metrosexual basketball and football players. [/quote]
I said they were “metro-looking,” meaning all of them look like they could fit into size XXS shirts from the Gap.
There are definitely a few metro NFL players. Tom Brady comes to mind. But for every one of him, there is a 270 lb Shawne Merriman waiting to eat him.
LOL. I did play soccer in my youth, until I was about 10. I was a goalie on a really good team, so I never had to do much, which was good because I was kinda chubby and VERY slow afoot.
I never said they jogged 13 km. I said run. I meant that it impresses me to have that level of endurance, and that it explains why you don’t see any big soccer players. They aren’t big because being so would make them worse at their sport.
I’m not trying to say that soccer sucks as a sport. I’m trying to explain why it will never catch on in the US, and why I don’t find it particularly entertaining. I still respect the athletic ability of the players, though it would be nice if they wouldn’t play dead every time they fall down.
Likewise, I don’t find baseball (or NASCAR, or golf that doesn’t involve Tiger) entertaining to watch on TV, but it remains somewhat popular in the US because there is so much history with the game here.
It’s not fun.
thank you for your inane contribution
Anyway…to get back on topic. I don’t think Beckham alone will popularize soccer in here. The last unit we did on school was based on why soccer isn’t popular in the US. We had no conclusive answer though. I think eventually soccer will grow in the US, but not for a while.
[quote]superhero#1 wrote:
Airtruth wrote:It’s not fun.
thank you for your inane contribution
Anyway…to get back on topic. I don’t think Beckham alone will popularize soccer in here. The last unit we did on school was based on why soccer isn’t popular in the US. We had no conclusive answer though. I think eventually soccer will grow in the US, but not for a while.
[/quote]
What were some of the ideas proposed?
He better do something for US Soccer for a million dollars a week.
I have no idea where the sheet is…
American Football : Almost solely played in the US and yet one of the biggest sports in America. It’s impossible to imagine that this game could have been devised from anything other than Rugby, with a huge helping of protective padding to enable even the wimpy boys to join in! All that protection and a separate team for offence, defence and kicking - and yet it’s stilled played at such a pace that it takes nearly four hours to get through.
Baseball : Could hardly have been more like Rounders if it tried - the only difference is that rounders is for girls! I can understand that some might even suggest that it’s actually Cricket that may be the non-American version of Baseball, but there would be ten times as many who would faint at the very idea. Cricket has become one of the most important parts of life in some of the poorest areas of the world, like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Baseball on the other hand is limited to the US, with a Japanese team thrown in to make a World Series!
Basketball : Just like baseball, the favourite of many Americans is derived from a European girls game, called Netball. Not being able to keep to the rules, the US boys started running with the ball and bouncing it around, they gave it a new name and now we have Basketball.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
It’s not fun.[/quote]
You’ve probably never played then… or at least weren’t very good when you did.
[quote]DS 007 wrote:
dcb wrote:
DS 007 wrote:
I’ve been to a few games in Columbus and if there were 5,000 people there I’d be shocked. NO ONE watches it on TV. Networks sign up for carry MLS because it’s cheap. So is the advertising on these games.
Maybe you and your soccer buddies like it. But face reality. Soccer is behind the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL (which is sad),
Those were well below average games you went to considering the Crew have averaged around 16,000 fans per game over the course of their lifetime.
Clearly you are correct in regard to the 3 big sports in this country. I’m not so sure about the NHL though. Last month the U.S. v Mexico Gold Cup final outdrew the final game of the Stanley Cup when only taking Spanish language ratings into account.
The game was also televised on Fox Soccer Network in English so the actual ratings were probably much more in favor of the soccer game. I like hockey, but if the MLS is on life support, you may have to put the NHL in that category as well.
I don’t see MLS actually converting people like you who don’t like soccer into fans. I’ve generally liked the same sports for most of my life: soccer, football, and basketball. I think MLB players are great athletes, but I’ve never liked watching the sport and probably never will. The key for any sport that needs more attendance (like hockey and soccer) is to draw in the casual fan.
I’m not sure it’s fair to compare soccer and hockey viewership for spanish-language broadcasts. Hockey is not a blip on the latin fan’s radar screen. That said, hockey has to come back from the dead in my view. Their games are on ‘Versus’ and get outdrawn by re-runs of ‘Andy Griffith’ on TV Land (That’s not joke - it happened!).
Hockey deserves it if they have to contract, fold, declare bankruptcy, whatever. Fact is, the sport was doing just fine and then they want to strike. Anyone with any sense warned that they would have a hard time getting the casual fan back if they went on strike. They did and who knows when or IF those fans will be back.
As for the Crew: The ticket I got was free. I was there with a large group who also got free tix. I read in the paper the next day that the ‘announced’ crowd was 13,500. There were NOT half that many there. I have heard from a guy who works in marketing for another MLS team that the league plays games with their attendence numbers.
They count each ticket sold and each ticket given away. Basically they distribute tickets (through radio stations, grocery stores, etc.) and count those as ‘attended’ even if that person never shows.
As a sports fan I took note of the dynamic of the crowd. Pretty quiet. Talked among themselves a lot. Distracted by a lot things other than the game but paid attention when the ball got fairly deep into one end. There were not many Crew FANS.
I didn’t hear people yelling out ‘Player-A, you stink’ or riding the coach. Seems no one really knew (or cared) enough about the team to get that invested in it. All in all I rank that as the worst sports exerience of my life. Right behind Ballroom dancing. I’m not joking. Ballroom dancing (also a free ticket) was more fun to watch. [/quote]
I would be curious to see about the attendance numbers, but the Crew is not only getting around that 16K per game, but they are actually profitable (something that a lot of sports teams in the major sports cannot claim).
I think the major factor is that becoming really good at soccer takes time and let’s face it… America likes winners and likes their sports to be at the elite level for the most part. Is the MLS the same as La Liga in Spain or Serie A in Italy? Of course not.
But American soccer is improving all the time. Just look at the U-20 team playing in the U-20 World Cup and taking out every team they play. The time will come. I mean think about it… even in the NBA, there are more and more great players coming from Europe, Canada and South America. It just took some time.
so what’d you guys think of the 2006 world cup?
I thought france was going to win until henry and zidane were gone, with them gone italy kept it tied until penalties. Henry rules.
[quote]entheogens wrote:
Do you think Beckham is going to become a blockbusting celebrity in the U.S.A. or help popularize soccer?
http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news?slug=ap-sportsshowcase&prov=ap&type=lgns [/quote]
Celebrity? Yep. Popularize soccer? Nope.
Beckham, alone, won’t make this thing happen. In order for the MLS to really take off and get anywhere close to soccer’s popularity in Europe, the quality has to go up. I know a lot of Americans who watch the World Cup (not just the US games) and no other soccer. They are amazed at how athletic and good these guys are.
So, if Beckham can pioneer this*, and in the next few seasons, other good players (who will undoubtedly be close to the twilight of their careers) will come. The problem with this, though, is that there is no money in the MLS. Beckham is getting a one in a million contract offer, other players from Europe won’t be getting those. So, it’s a difficult call.
I don’t know how this cycle can be overcome:
More people won’t watch the games until better players come, therefore, the league stays poor and said players don’t come because nobody can afford them
I think that is what it boils down to.
*I am not saying Crew vs. Red Bull will approach Brazil vs. Italy/Chelsea vs. ManUtd/etc/etc in the near future…I just think there would be an increased fanbase if the soccer on show was actually good compared to the top European leagues…
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
tom63 wrote:
That doesn’t mean a thing. Just because kids play it doesn’t mean it will become more popular in this country.
Umm… actually I think that’s precisely what it means. Usually more people playing a sport means more people enjoy that sport… making it more popular.
Personally I could care less about soccer, but if you think it’s not getting more popular in America, you are just out of touch. I highly doubt it will ever surpass the “Big 3” on a professional level, but I also highly doubt that it will not continue to slowly increase in popularity over the foreseeable future.[/quote]
Soccer will never be as popular as pro and college football, pro and college basketball, nascar, pro baseball and after that who cares. You’re talking about lower level niche sports.
Kids that play soccer in this country still love Michigan or Notre Dame, Duke or NC, Tony Stewart, the Yankees, Dallas Cowboys, or the LA Lakers.
And they’ll watch them over soccer anyday.
[quote]engerland66 wrote:
Beckham, alone, won’t make this thing happen. In order for the MLS to really take off and get anywhere close to soccer’s popularity in Europe, the quality has to go up. I know a lot of Americans who watch the World Cup (not just the US games) and no other soccer. They are amazed at how athletic and good these guys are.[/quote]
Very valid point - Beckham alone cannot make it all happen and people should really not buy into him as a grand messiah. Do I think he can be a great difference maker? I do, but true long-term success will take more than Becks, although I think he can be an excellent catalyst.
[quote]
So, if Beckham can pioneer this*, and in the next few seasons, other good players (who will undoubtedly be close to the twilight of their careers) will come. The problem with this, though, is that there is no money in the MLS. Beckham is getting a one in a million contract offer, other players from Europe won’t be getting those. So, it’s a difficult call.
I don’t know how this cycle can be overcome:
More people won’t watch the games until better players come, therefore, the league stays poor and said players don’t come because nobody can afford them
I think that is what it boils down to. [/quote]
The economics of MLS are pretty different from a lot of other leagues in that MLS (unless I have my facts horribly mixed) is the corporation that actually owns all the teams. They have currently structured things financially such that they are run very lean to avoid losing money and there are a number of clubs who are turning a profit (again, Columbus jumps most readily to mind and I have to believe the Galaxy are there as well).
The teams that are doing best financially are those that play in soccer only stadiums, which shows that actually putting the capital investments into the team can lead to a pay-off.
Also, each MLS team has a salary cap, something that does not exist in elite European soccer. This is a double-edged sword: it keeps finances in check across the league, but can limit the signings of the best players. MLS this past year instituted a policy of each team having a slot (which they can trade to other teams) for a player which is not subject to the cap. L.A. is using it with Beckham.
The funny thing is that because of ticket sales, new sponsorship and merchandise sales, the Galaxy have already made back all of their money on the Beckham contract without him yet playing a game. Not too shabby eh? I think it bears noting that the massive Beckham “contract” only has a portion of it coming from the Galaxy. Most of that money is from sponsors who are probably doing just fine with the most recognizable player of the most popular game on the planet. Heck, they think jersey sales in Asia alone (where Beckham is absolutely huge) are going to be off the charts.
[quote]
*I am not saying Crew vs. Red Bull will approach Brazil vs. Italy/Chelsea vs. ManUtd/etc/etc in the near future…I just think there would be an increased fanbase if the soccer on show was actually good compared to the top European leagues…[/quote]
Another good point. Americans want the elite, no doubt about it and we are certainly not there (yet) with MLS. However, MLS teams have had some pretty good showings against English/Scottish clubs over the last 10 years and I am curious to see how the Galaxy vs. Chelsea this Saturday turns out. Chelsea are clearly an elite, world class club, so I hope the Galaxy can at least play a competitive match. But I certainly think many MLS teams are as good as, for example, the lower half of the EPL.
It’s all marketing, people. He’s a celeb, so they think he’ll bring hordes and hordes of uninterested Americans to the table.
Bottom line is this: It won’t work because America’s national team is a fucking joke. In my opinion, we (the US) shouldn’t even COMPETE on an international level. Why should we give the rest of the world another reason to hate us? Let them have their sport. Besides, we’re TERRIBLE at it!
Ever watch a match between Germany and the US? You see the usual cliches: US trying to be too overphysical, literally playing Kickball the entire game, and the Germans controlling the flow with their amazing footwork. The US’ mentality to try and turn soccer into a physical game doesn’t work and the team almost always loses.
Here’s to hoping the MLS (an embarassment to the international football community) fails. I give it 3 years before Becks is back in Europe somewhere. You know the Galaxy won’t be able to afford him.
[quote]gatesoftanhauser wrote:
It’s all marketing, people. He’s a celeb, so they think he’ll bring hordes and hordes of uninterested Americans to the table.
Bottom line is this: It won’t work because America’s national team is a fucking joke. In my opinion, we (the US) shouldn’t even COMPETE on an international level. Why should we give the rest of the world another reason to hate us? Let them have their sport. Besides, we’re TERRIBLE at it!
Ever watch a match between Germany and the US? You see the usual cliches: US trying to be too overphysical, literally playing Kickball the entire game, and the Germans controlling the flow with their amazing footwork. The US’ mentality to try and turn soccer into a physical game doesn’t work and the team almost always loses.
Here’s to hoping the MLS (an embarassment to the international football community) fails. I give it 3 years before Becks is back in Europe somewhere. You know the Galaxy won’t be able to afford him.[/quote]
Your post clearly shows you never, ever watch the US National Team play soccer. Seriously, you just made a whole bunch of stuff up. An “overphysical” team? I have watched them more times than I can count and I can absolutely assure you that has never been an issue.
And before you make it seem like the US National Team is terrible or always has been terrible, we have been ranked in the FIFA Top 10 in the last 3 years.
If you hate soccer, fine. No skin off my nose… but please don’t just make shit up.
[quote]Kuz wrote:
gatesoftanhauser wrote:
It’s all marketing, people. He’s a celeb, so they think he’ll bring hordes and hordes of uninterested Americans to the table.
Bottom line is this: It won’t work because America’s national team is a fucking joke. In my opinion, we (the US) shouldn’t even COMPETE on an international level. Why should we give the rest of the world another reason to hate us? Let them have their sport. Besides, we’re TERRIBLE at it!
Ever watch a match between Germany and the US? You see the usual cliches: US trying to be too overphysical, literally playing Kickball the entire game, and the Germans controlling the flow with their amazing footwork. The US’ mentality to try and turn soccer into a physical game doesn’t work and the team almost always loses.
Here’s to hoping the MLS (an embarassment to the international football community) fails. I give it 3 years before Becks is back in Europe somewhere. You know the Galaxy won’t be able to afford him.
Your post clearly shows you never, ever watch the US National Team play soccer. Seriously, you just made a whole bunch of stuff up. An “overphysical” team? I have watched them more times than I can count and I can absolutely assure you that has never been an issue.
And before you make it seem like the US National Team is terrible or always has been terrible, we have been ranked in the FIFA Top 10 in the last 3 years.
If you hate soccer, fine. No skin off my nose… but please don’t just make shit up.[/quote]
Well said, to add to that, here’s a highlight from the last time the US played Germany in a game that mattered. It was in the quarterfinals of the worldcup in 2002.
Germany was very lucky to get away with a 1-0 win
[quote]Kuz wrote:
And before you make it seem like the US National Team is terrible or always has been terrible, we have been ranked in the FIFA Top 10 in the last 3 years.
If you hate soccer, fine. No skin off my nose… but please don’t just make shit up.[/quote]
Sorry bro but the US soccer team is pretty bad…They do play a very physical game. FIFA ranking is crap. It’s mathematical formula…There are plenty of holes in it. Also, look at who the US is playing to get points, here is a list of recent wins:
Denmark, Mexico, Ecuador, Guatemala, China, Guatemala, Trinidad and Tobago, El Salvador, Panama, Canada, and Mexico
Their recent losses are to Arjentina and Uruguay. The US rarely goes up against European powerhouses. A country like Italy has to play a lot stiffer competition to get points.
I’m not saying the US will never go anywhere but I am saying is they have a LONG way to go. They are getting better but last World Cup survived on momentum and not consistent scoring. All of their recent wins have been 2-1 or 1-0 victories…
As for Beckham, he is a fantastic soccer player, I can’t believe that is even being contested. No we can’t compare him to Kaka, Ronaldinho, or Pirlo but Beckham has contributed a ton to Man U, Real, and England. He lacks consistency but works hard and has a field vision that is amazing.
[quote]lmari wrote:
Kuz wrote:
And before you make it seem like the US National Team is terrible or always has been terrible, we have been ranked in the FIFA Top 10 in the last 3 years.
If you hate soccer, fine. No skin off my nose… but please don’t just make shit up.
Sorry bro but the US soccer team is pretty bad…They do play a very physical game. FIFA ranking is crap. It’s mathematical formula…There are plenty of holes in it. Also, look at who the US is playing to get points, here is a list of recent wins:
Denmark, Mexico, Ecuador, Guatemala, China, Guatemala, Trinidad and Tobago, El Salvador, Panama, Canada, and Mexico
Their recent losses are to Arjentina and Uruguay. The US rarely goes up against European powerhouses. A country like Italy has to play a lot stiffer competition to get points. [/quote]
I agree that FIFA rankings are pretty suspect. I wouldn’t put the US in the top 10. Though they certainly are in the top 20.
I think they’re better than they showed at the Copa America (where they lost to Paraguay, Argentina, and Columbia) because they basically brought a bunch of scrubs. Most of the good players were resting after winning the Gold Cup.
[quote]
I’m not saying the US will never go anywhere but I am saying is they have a LONG way to go. They are getting better but last World Cup survived on momentum and not consistent scoring. All of their recent wins have been 2-1 or 1-0 victories…[/quote]
I think the US will be a top 10 team in the next 5-10 years. Look at the youth side, which recently beat brazil in the U20 world cup (in a game that mattered more for brazil than it did for the US).
Granted our performance in the 2006 world cup wasn’t good, but we were in the toughest group in the tournament.
I agree, I’d say that he’s was a quality player on some of the best teams in the world, but not one of the elite.
[quote]Kuz wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
It’s not fun.
You’ve probably never played then… or at least weren’t very good when you did.[/quote]
Played in gym class…was horrible. It was cool for its 2 week session but compared to basketball and football it just wasn’t as much fun. Waste of having 2 hands.
Being less fun for the majority of athletes in America this leads to the best athletes choosing football or basketball. Which leads to people watching a sport with majority second teir athletes. Which is why it just won’t cut in America. Just like nobody watches the WNBA (well except me sometimes and 3 other people). In Europe you have there number 1 athletes playing soccer of course they will like it better.
And before you argue that american soccer players are top notch athletes, please explain how MLS seeks aging oversees players past their prime to completely dominate.