I came across Chicagoland’s Dave Eggers (his novel ‘You Shall Know Our Velocity’ was a great read ) tongue in cheek entry in The Thinking Fan’s Guide to the World Cup, edited by Matt Weiland and Sean Wilsey.
He makes two points when explaining why soccer has not caught on in the USA. One, is that it was a game that we never invented. And we invented and developed football, basketball, and baseball, and as a nation of inventors we take pride in our own product. The second, is the notion that as a nation we are taken up with the virtue of transparency. And soccer unfortunately has its share of floppers who could put their talent on display time and time again. James Lipton in the Actors Studio would have a field day deconstructing these prima donnas.
Flopping is truly an irritating phenomena of soccer, but it is inevitable, given the fact it is easy to hoodwink the referee into giving a free kick or penalty that might make all the difference in a match.
I agree with Egger’s first point that there is a perception in the US that soccer is an import, and consequently, there is an inbuilt resistance. But as to the second part, that soccer is considered by many to be a game for floppers, is not believable because many have not seen soccer in its entirety to come to that conclusion. And if Eggers considers that Americans love a grind it out work ethic, then the US soccer team should be held in high regard. Plus, the prevalence of steroids in the major American sports makes a mockery out of the virtues of transparency.
James article makes some very valid points especially his point on the spectators fixating on attention grabbing money shots and I absolutely agree with all the comments panning Grant McCracken’s suggestions; reducing the gametime and the size of the field in order to accomodate American sensibilities.
A few more points about soccer’s inability to take off in the US
1) Soccer is an exurban and political phenomenon: Soccer is seen by many to be a part of the closeted world of the priveleged, more to do with completing a succesful college admissions package, to the elite universities. This exurban phenomena was exploited in the 1996 and 2000 elections as both parties scrambled to get the soccer mom vote. Soccer became a victim of electoral politics. The term ‘soccer mom’ is derogatory in sporting lexicon.
2) Success in the soccer world in the US, has been defined for better or worse by the women’s team. Mia Hamm gets instant name recognition whereas most people would struggle to name one single player in the US men’s team. The most defining moment in US soccer history was Brandi Chastain’s gesture of falling onto her knees and ripping of her jersey, showing her sports bra, and the players piling onto her when the US women won the 1999 World Cup.
3) The corollary to point 2, is that sports in the US is about machismo. The women got there first with soccer and now it is a women’s game.
4) Soccer’s metrics are undefinable: The US is obsessed with sports statistics. All the three major sports provide tonnes of discrete points in which stats can be compiled to make athletes achieve superstar status. Barry Bonds is the most walked player in baseball but Ronaldinho might be the most tackled player in soccer. Guess whose stats are recorded? Steve Cherundolo makes tackles for a living but the ones recorded are that in football. Thierry Henry scored the most goals in the EPL this year. Van Nistelrooy ran him close. But witness the major obsession and almost non-stop coverage of the slugfest between Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa some years ago.
5) Soccer gives an opportunity for the colonised to stick it to the coloniser. Angola with Portugal, T&T with England, Tunisia with France. The closest we got was with England and we booted them out pretty quickly. India’s obsession with cricket is partly explained by the fact that India can now beat England regularly. There is delight in that payback. The globalization of soccer is closely linked to the histiriography of colonialism.
6) I have heard that the future of soccer in this country lies at the feet of the recent immigrants. But a point to be debated is whether they will consider soccer to be part of the assimilatory process or to create a distinction. Language still holds that power.
As Susan points out that “the grass-roots love of the sport won’t happen on a grand scale here for many years, if ever”. Lets face it we will be a minority.
Dave Eggers says at the end of his essay, “if you were soccer, the sports of kings, would you want the adulation of a people who elected Bush and Cheney, not once but twice.? You would not. You would rather return to your roots, communist or otherwise, and fight fascism with your feet.”
8 comments on “Why the US doesn’t love soccer: A few more thoughts”
Wait a second. Egger’s argument fails on both levels. First, not invented here? Golf wasn’t either. Both baseball and football are American “re-inventions” at best. This is getting a bit too nuanced. Other than baseball, no other sport has held the country in thrall for so long a period. Football’s popularity is a recent (30 years?) phenomenon. I would guess college basketball is far more popular the pro basketball. And hockey…anyone notice the season was cancelled last year?
Shourin’s points miss the point also. Point one can be applied to baseball and football also. And I think it stands the reasoning of soccer’s popularity on its head. One of the reasons soccer is so popular in the third world is that all it takes is a ball and a little bit of land. There are not a lot of schools in Brazil that can outfit an American-style football team.
And the point of “soccer mom” is not politics, it is lexicon – they did not call them “little league moms” because soccer is currently MORE popular in the age 6 – 13 set then baseball.
Points 2 and 3 also misses. Soccer is not viewed as a “women’s” sport here, but it is certainly played by a heck of a lot more women then baseball and football. Lack of machismo does not explain it: Title IX does. Again, I see this as a benefit in this country because it gives half the population a direct connection with the sport.
As a brief aside, I was watching the Arsenal women play Leeds United in the FA Cup a few weeks ago and it occurred to me that any top 10 women’s college program in the US would have wiped the floor with them. I say that gushing with national pride.
Finally, the US sports obsession with metrics is (again) a recent phenomenon (driven by the popularity of fantasy sports leagues) and I can’t take the “colonial past” argument seriously.
Like it or not, soccer is the new kid on the block. It is contending with a lot of entrenched competition, but is making headway in spite of this. The demographics are in soccer’s favor (popularity among the young and the immigrants; accessibility to girls as well as boys) but it will definitely take time. Even so, I don’t see soccer becoming more popular than baseball and football, but I think it will do better than basketball and hockey.
A last aside, there is one sport now that is where soccer was in 1980: lacrosse. It also meets everyone of Shourin’s points: 1) it is native US (American Indian), 2 & 3) it is a man’s sport (for all intents and purposes), 4) has more metrics than you care about, 5) echoes of colonialism (Custer and all that) and 6) absolutely unknown to immigrants. Let’s see how it does…
Ooops. My bad. The refernce to lacrosse had Shourin’s point one as “native sports.” That was Egger’s point.
Shourin’s point was that soccer was a hoity-toity rich boys sports (“closeted world of the privileged”). Of course, lacrosse is a hoity-toity rich boys sport, so while the point is still valid, I botched the delivery.
Apologies.
actually, there’s another factual error, as basketball was invented by Canadians. good old canada. we certainly noticed that hockey was cancelled last year.
Tilam
I think sports to be popular over here has to have a spectacle like quality. Unfortunately so.
30-40 million people watch the Super Bowl- remove the halftime show, the Bud ads, and you’ll see that the viewership falls dramatically. In the NBA All Star game, the competition that gets the most interest is the slam dunk contest.
Soccer is not meant to be a spectacle- but that goes to the point that it is played by athletes who do not have to be physically intimidating unlike the NBA, NFL – so citius, altius, and fortius becomes irrelevent. It would be hard to find any soccer player the size of Derek Jeter. There is a certain awe that we hold athletes who play these games in. And machismo is a big part of it. See Reineking’s article.
The political dimensions of the ‘soccer mom’ demograph was realized by pollsters ( who exploited it for their candidates). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer_mom
I think Eggers is talking about the perception that the big three sports have some sort of national lineage, hence even the re-invented versions are considered uniquely American.
Golf and tennis are individualistic games and expensive to play. The prize money is good. For a long time only the US could provide the infrastructure. Recently, the developing nations are investing in it. Again, these games do not require a certain type of physicality-as a result the field is leveling out with the developing world providing champions in these games- Se Ri Pak, Paradorn Srichaphan.
Scott, okay, fair point, Naismith was Canadian, but he did invent it in Springfield, MA. Call it a draw…
Shourin, I do agree whole heartedly on the spectacle aspect of sports, but I really think soccer can be a spectacle. In fact, I think soccer can be as big or as intimate as you would like. A big deal in front of 100,000 fans with 11 men doing battle on over an acre of God’s greenest grass.
Of it can be a boy and a ball, juggling to pass the time.
Soccer is amazingly complex or childishly simple. You chose and I chose how we want it to be. That is a big reason for its popularity.
I don’t understand the point about size. Derek Jeter is 6’3″, 195 lbs. Oguchi Oneywu is 6’4″ 210 lbs. I do agree size in soccer is not a prerequisite, but any athlete who wants to play a sport will gear his body to that sport. (It is just that baseball does not “require” one particular body type. David Wells can play and Albert Pujols can play.) If Lawrence Taylor (6’3″, 240 lbs) wanted to be a soccer player, he could have been, his size notwithstanding. I would guess though, his soccer size would have been 6’3″ 205 lbs.
Regarding “soccer moms,” I agree that the term became a political class, but my point was that with all the sports to chose, some smart aleck consultant chose soccer. Not baseball, football, skateboarding, lacrosse or any other sport. “Soccer” perfectly embodied the middle to upper middle class suburban family experience. I take that as a step in the right direction. (On second thought, the point isn’t worth it. Who wants to defend Caitlin Flanagan.)
I wouldn’t say that Americans resist soccer because it’s an “import.” The segment of the population willing to buy foreign cars and beer has grown steadily over the years, so I don’t think that’s really a barrier.
Re Shourin’s point #4: Tilam is correct in noting that the stats obsession is relatively recent. However, I think Shourin’s point that soccer doesn’t easily lend itself to measurement gets at something that truly is a barrier to appreciating the game. Neophytes don’t always know what to look for on the field. People who grew up with baseball understand the numbers: 3 strikes, 4 balls, 3 outs, 9 innings, RBIs, batting averages plus the myriad ways that hits & walks can be put together to get runs. Football is about getting first downs and moving the ball down the 100-yard field. A 25 yard pass is better than a 5 yard pass. In soccer, there is so much happening on the field that is a legitimate part of the sport that simply doesn’t end up as a statistic. And sometimes the “correct” result is a draw, and that may even be 0-0. The mindset is just not what traditional US sports fans are used to.
Someone reminded me that 50 years ago the top sports in the US were boxing and horse racing. Right now we have many fewer kids playing baseball and football and many more playing soccer than ever before, so the groundwork is in place. Again, I will preach patience.
I thinks the stats provide consolation in defeat. And to a certain extent quantifies the luck often needed to win a close match. (“If it weren’t for Manny’s error, we would have won.” or “Favre threw for 278 yards in a loss to the Bears.”)
Soccer has Time of Possession, Shots on Goal, Saves, and counts the number of offsides and set pieces. Is there any salve in the fact that we had twice as many corners as they did?
Lacrosse has an odd (but key) statistic: ground balls. It is what you would think, how many loose balls were controlled by the player.
I bring this because lacrosse finds itself in a similar situation as soccer: a fluid game that is not easy to quantify beyond the score. But in this stat mad world it looked to key metrics to develop a unique, but important stat.
I think soccer could do the same and, as Susan suggests, it would help the neophyte understand what to look for. Loose balls won, steals, (unforced) turnovers are some. How about time on offense? Time in the Box?
Any others come to mind?
You guys bounce all over the subject, but the pertinent point that truly stands out more than any(and yet has previously been unmentioned) is that compared to basketball, football, and even baseball, soccer is flat out boring.
Who the hell cares about guys “dribbling” a ball down a field when you have 300 pound guys tackling the hell out of each other in football? Or guys slam dunking a ball in basketball?
Soccer will become more popular as our kids get older, since it does seem to be very popular among kids, but it will never overtake the aforementioned sports that we all grew up with.