Grant McCracken thinks that soccer needs to be improved to appeal to U.S. audiences. According to him:
…there is room for product development. Specifically, something has to be done about the physics of the game. There is too much time and too much space. A 90 minute game is too long and so is the field. Both tax players so heavily that dynamism is actually suppressed. I am not suggesting dramatic reductions. Otherwise, soccer would become merely basketball played with one’s feet. But I think 60 minutes and a smaller field would bring the game alive nicely.
In the comments, Stéphane makes an excellent point when he says ‘I think that you can’t make up a interest in a sport. Being a fan is a question of entertainment for sure, but also it a huge belonging occasion. Therefore, regional differences in sport preferences are natural.’ As he puts it, sport is a celebration of a ‘belonging occasion’ (great expression), a social expression of who we are for and who we are against, a short, unifying or dividing force that can cut across or augment other forces of difference – race, class, religion, belief.
If I had to put forward a theory on why soccer has failed to capture a mainstream audience I would mention the following factors:
- There is no history of success in the U.S., no ingrained mythology of soccer, no national stories of individual or team heroics to unite people. There is no great struggle, no single, great enemy to defeat. Even hockey has the Miracle on Ice.
- U.S. sports fans love to win, and soccer is almost always not about winning, but rather about the existential pain and suffering of having a chance to win, without being in control of the outcome.
- The sports media landscape is jammed full of competing sports that cater better to an ESPN-focused, video-clip attention span. Basketball, football and baseball all feature relatively static situations from which the money shot (respectively: the slam dunk / rejection, touchdown pass / big hit and home run / diving catch) originates. The viewer can fill in the preceding circumstances. In soccer, because goals develop over longer, more fluid stretches of play, a longer clip is required to tell the story. It’s not so simple.
C’mon SoccerBlog readers, I know this topic is endless brought up among soccer enthusiasts, but what else needs to be added to the conversation?
My initial reaction to Grant’s statement re: shortening the game to 60 minutes is that it’s a bit absurd and wouldn’t help at all.
For instance, the average NFL game takes 3.5-4 hours, the avg. baseball game 3+ hours and the avg. NBA game 2.5+ hours. A soccer match is over in 2 hours, barring OT and/or a shoot-out. The issue isn’t that the games take too long, but rather the lack of “money shots” as James put it.
The main problem with soccer in the US is that the best players don’t play here. It’s almost impossible to follow the European leagues: the games are at odd hours, you need special cable packages to watch the games; the multitude of leagues and tournaments and cups are confusing.
Most sports pundits simply don’t know soccer. That’s why they rail on it. It threatens their livelihood. If soccer catches on, they might be squeezed out.
The major networks, like most already successful companies, are too timid to spend the resources on breaking in a new sport to its audience. To really do soccer right, you’d have to invest years of solid coverage of the European leagues before it would catch on.
Railing against soccer also appeals to “bubba” fans: sport is the only national or cultural institution that working class people not only participate in, but dominate. Soccer is seen as a “foreign” sport — which is only exacerbated by the fact that Mexican-Americans play such a large part in MLS’ success here in the States, both as fans and players.
So I think there’s a host of reasons, cultural, racial, economic that prevents soccer from catching fire.
What’s amazing is how much soccer has caught on, considering all the road blocks against it. That’s only natural: it’s such an easy game to learn and rewards athleticism over freakish physicalitiy (like the NBA’s 7 footers and the NFL’s 300lb lineman). One thrilling World Cup involving the US in a near win — a final against Brazil? — might ignite interest. So would shifting the WC to every two years.
I do not think you can summarize whay soccer has not caught on in the US in one or two factors. Yes, competition is a factor (a point I made in a comment to Reineking’s article), but it will cut both ways as American sports become more porpoular in Europe, Asia and SA.
Community is also a big factor, but isn’t the question on how we expand the community. As a player for 25 years, I can relate to a 1-0 game and appreciate the missed opportunities (almost) as much as the goals, but can you expect a newcomer?
The big complaint is the 1-0 game. Remember the final match of WC 1994 in the US was a 0-0 tie between Italy and Brazil, won by the Brazilians on PKs. Yuck.
Soccer has not always been a clash of defenses. The Hungarians of the 50s, led by Puskas, could score in bunches. The game some consider the Greatest Ever was a 6-3 defeat of the English by the Hungarians at Wembley in 1953. The 1954 World Cup average over 5 goals per game. (In 2006, we could see a whole Group go without 5 goals total.)
Fast forward and it is the Brazilians who capture the soccer fans heart. Why? They can score. Every four years, one of the African team becomes the Cinderella. Why? Not because they are great defenders, but they play with a romantic abandon not (often) seen in the game today.
The players that have captured the imagination of the soccer fans (Pele, DiStefano, Best, Maradona, Cruijff) are all scorers. Of the six players generally considered the best ever (Pele, Puskas, DiStefano, Cruijff, Maradona, Beckenbauer), four are “pure” strikers. It is not just the Americans who appreciate more scoring.
But a soccer match is too often played as a game “not to lose” as a game to win. This inevitably leads to very conservative play and a less entertaining match.
Scoring comes from wanting to win; needing to win; and not being afraid to lose. The “Total Soccer” concept of the Puskas’ Hungarians of the 50s; Pele’s Brazilians of the 60s; Cruijff’s Dutch of the 70s; and Zico’s Brazilian in the 80s offered some great soccer.
Other then The Brazilians, who offers that sort of entertainment?
All of you (except for Grant McCracken), make good points. While I was reading your comments, mostly in agreement, I realized something: I really don’t care anymore if soccer’s popularity grows here in the US. Think about it: those of us who love the sport have plenty of chances to indulge ourselves, right? Fox Soccer Channel has pretty good coverage, although not everyone can see the games live (and my apologizes to those who live in areas where they can’t get this channel. I would consider moving, if I were you). All the Cup games will be covered live by network and ESPN. ESPN gives us Champions League matches live throughout the year, which are easy to record for later viewing. The internet makes it possible to follow the sport more closely than ever before.
What we don’t have is that “shared experience” and that’s what we crave. The MLS does provide live, local matches and there are some very devoted fans (I’m happy to get a new soccer-only stadium here in Chicago this month). Face it, the grass-roots love of the sport won’t happen on a grand scale here for many years, if ever. I for one am ready to accept minority status, ignore the antipathy exhibited by the US sports establishment, and thankfully enjoy what we do have.
He can eat a shl*ng
also, why this perception that smaller field will lead to more goals? makes no sense. It would actually lead to less goals because of smaller amount of space and crammed areas.
Soccer was doing just fine all these years. If your attention span is too short, choose another sport. This is the beautiful game and the only improvement required is the upgrading of some of the viewers!!
Susan makes a great point that I would like to take a bit further.
I do think soccer is VERY popular in the US, but not as high profile. (Except in big events.) Youth soccer is ubiquitous on weekends. We even have a term, “soccer mom”, in recognition of its impact on our families.
I think the “problem” with the US media is that most hardcore US soccer fans pay more attention to the EPL then the MLS. My 9 year old son is a bigger Arsenal fan than Revolution fan and knows more about Henry than Beasley. The fact is, we will watch the English, Brazil and French matches with as much interest as the US matches. (I have not brainwashed him with blind patriotism yet, but I will!)
We are just too used to being the center of attention and equate popularity with “prime time” coverage.
I will throw a statement out there:
“Most parents (in particular, moms) in this country know more about the game of soccer then every other sport save baseball.”
True or false?
Why the US doesn’t love soccer: A few more thoughts
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…
Bruce Arena mentions the intelligence of the US soccer players in his recent profile in the NYT. He states that the US players could beat other players in the world in crossword very easily.
This is because for most US soccer players to get to the next level you have to get a varsity education.
In other parts of the world,this is not a pre-requisite. In fact, players would look to varsity as wasted time and opportunity.
Jay Stevens basically nailed it. Its the U.S. media that hasn’t caught on to soccer, and all the football/baseball fans that rely on the media and statistics for their enjoyment of the game won’t catch on to soccer because they haven’t experienced it like they have the more traditional american sports.
One thing you will see though is that soccer is the most played, fastest growing sport among american youth. Now that there is a major league (at least in the media, where kids with baseball dad’s can actually see the outcome of games, poor NASL…), and kids see the posibility of being good enough to play for sports levels of money overseas a lot more will begin choosing soccer over baseball/football as they get older.
Forget about the adults, no one in America over 30 will ever switch to soccer, but their kids are eating it up, and their kids are the ones that will determine the future of soccer in this country.
Want to help? Go coach a youth team, AYSO, etc, would all love the help of those like us that are older and able to provide a ccess for kids to play soccer. Stop letting the baseball dad’s coach their kids team and get someone that knows and loves this most beautiful sport teach it to the youth of the country, soon you will see kids playing soccer in the streets like they do with basketball currently.
What Productivity? Soccer @ Work
Based on an average hourly wage of £12.50, the law firm Brabners Chaffe Street calculated that during the tournament, if half of British workers surf the net for an hour a day, it will cost Britain nearly £4 billion…
The perspective of a non-fan:
On the whole, I would say any sport can seem boring to an outsider. American football can drag by sometimes; so can baseball. So appreciating a sport is a learned experience. That said, the things I dislike about soccer do not derive from the fact that it is an “import” (Americans have quite a taste for imports, judging by the trade deficit), but rather from its internal qualities. They are:
Usually, nothing is happening!! I know you will disagree, but when the ball is bouncing around midfield or the keeper launches a long kick downfield, to me, this is not noteworthy activity. The ball will almost always trade hands and go the other way for 20 yards, then reverse course yet again, all meaningless in the end. When the ball does travel close to the goal, my attention does come more into focus, but I still know that a score is not likely. Perhaps I have just seen too many MLS games, but more often than not, the ball is just blasted into the stands. I mean, these are professional players — all they do is practice soccer, and yet they can’t consistently put the ball at least in the vicinity of the goal??!! They don’t have to actually score to be interesting, but the real threat of a score is what makes the game exciting. Putting the ball into the 20th row, when the kicker had a good look at the goal, is a big downer. Shots on goal are what count.
Second, from my vantage point, I don’t see set plays in soccer, except on corner kicks. It might be more interesting to me to see the team doing some sort of play rather than making it up as they go. In fact, the sum total of soccer scoring strategy seems to be to center the ball somewhere in front of the goal and hope that some teammate, who may or may not be there, gets a lucky bounce. I’m sure there’s more to it (I hope!) but that’s how it looks to me. Boring.
Offsides rule. What would happen if there was no offsides rule? Would groups of players simply congregate in front of each goal and kick long passes to each other, or would it be more like basketball, with a more wide open field due to some players hanging out deep? I don’t know, but I’d at least like to see it. So many good scoring chances are ruined by a player being marginally offsides.
Secondarily, I have to say that many soccer players look somewhat scrawny … even emaciated. They might be quick but they often aren’t impressive. And when you see them flopping, it just adds to the “wimp” perception. By the way, why not just add a couple more refs to reduce those flops? Seems like an easy solution.
Finally, as to popularity, yes, in America there are far too many sports now. It is difficult to add anything new. I love volleyball, but those fans are also always asking how we can make it more popular/get it on TV, etc. There is only so much attention a sports fan can give to any one sport — not to mention the different levels (HS, college, pro). Just too much happening to add soccer, volleyball, etc.
Mark,
Yes, I think there are far too many sports in the US to focus on. But the fascination with soccer has to do with how the world sees it differently than the US. No other sport raises the passion of the world like soccer. Are we missing something? It seems that there is nothing happening for an interminable time in soccer but I think it stems from the fact that in the US, we love an outcome. That is life out here. I think soccer mirrors life a bit more closely. If you are frustrated with the ball being blasted into the 20th row, think about Shaq taking a free throw. He has plenty of time, why can’t he make it? It clangs of the rim, uselessly. In soccer, we have to deal with a lot more variables. It is much more open chain, i.e. a big field with 22 players. That is why set plays in basketball are more definiitive. It’s easier to get 5 players on the same page around a smaller target area.
Getting a goal is so much harder- Gerd Muller is the all time leader with fourteen over three World Cups. Jerry Rice can score these number of touchdowns in a season. But this is predicated on your relationship with the quarterback- Steve Young, Joe Montana. In soccer you have no such didactic relationship. It is so much more spontaneous and so much more creative.
But there is a method to the madness. And if you look at the set plays of the Germans, you’ll understand that there is a structure there.
Anyways, the good part is that you are trying to understand what makes soccer so fascinating. Hopefully, the World Cup at the end of it all, will convince you.
i think the problem is cultural. American fans do not have the same intensity and interaction watching soccer.Why? Because American isn’t Europe or South America. For example, just watch a soccer game broadcasted by Telemundo or Univision and the annoucers go nuts when someone scores a goal ( i.e. GOOOOOAAAALLL!). American announcers by contrast are just boring. Foriegn soccer fans sing and dance anthems throughout the game, could you imagine an American doing that ? It would so un-natural and foriegn. It would be ‘gay’ for an American.
Soccer will never be able to attain the masculinity and social equivalant football has in the United States.
Don’t you think this goes back a little farther? Soccer has never been popular in the US, and this was before ESPN, and all the explosion of sports to choose.
There had to be a reason why soccer never caught on in the early days of US history. Makes me wonder if there was an intentional boycott against it because it came from England. Football and basketball are newer sports, so there has to be a deeper reason why it didn’t catch on very early in US history.
I like a lot of the posts here. I don’t necessarily agree with some of the posts that say that soccer will be popular in a few years because it’s popular with youth. Soccer’s been immensely popular with youth since at LEAST the early 90’s…more accurate might be the 80’s. That’s almost a generation ago, how come soccer isn’t (really) any more popular now than it was then? If there weren’t a heavy influx of our friends from south of the border, how many would truely follow soccer? Now, I don’t want to sound like a hater, cause I love playing soccer (I’m like most other american’s when it comes to watching), and I think there’s plenty of room for soccer in our sports loving hearts. In fact, the ‘sports landscape is full’ seems almost moot because in the last 10 years or so, we’ve seen poker gain a lot of popularity, MMA is getting popular, even Nathan’s hot dogg eating contest is well known to the general populus. IMO, something with the game of soccer has to change in order for the general populus to accept it. We’re by no means sports idiots, so I don’t think ‘understanding’ it will make it popular. Hell, hockey is about on par with hockey in scoring, but at least there are other elements to keep you interested. Maybe I’m ranting a little here, but I hope someday it is popular…but I don’t think that it’s gonna become anything close to the big 4 sports anytime soon.
Soccer is not a professional sports Americans care about very much. It does not rank in the top 20 sports (as pictured) and it actually comes in below equestrian jumping and tractor pulls.