Why isn't football / soccer that popular in North America, United States / USA ?

[McRocket]

Last year (World Bank)
US $43 740
Norway $59 950
Switzerland $54 930
UK $37 600 but with the $2 pound they are neck and neck.

Do you have a link to the World Bank figures? Because they don't jive with the CIA World Fact Book or the International Monetary Fund as listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Even if you go by the World Bank's figures. The European Union average GDP per capita is under $34,000.
Even by these numbers, American's still make almost 1/3 more per person.

http://devdata.worldbank.org/external/CPProfile.asp?PTYPE=CP&CCODE=EMU

 

[angell]

With the advent of the internet and digital tv, americans have become increasingly saavy and passionate about soccer. for example, there are lots of yanks calling in to "fox football fone-in" on fox soccer channel. another place where american footy fans converge is nickandsteven.com

 

[titsrock]

I kind of think Steven of FFF is kind of a prick (not that his Chelski-lurve is clouding my judgement)...I like the current Nick and last year's Nick better...imo.

I do like that show, btw....good show!

 

[McRocket]

I also have a less scientific reason why North Americans don't much care for watching soccer...

...IT'S BORING TO WATCH!!!

And I played it for years - just like millions of North Americans did/are.

:tongue:

 

[BNF]

Finally, the question has been answered:

Americans don't like soccer because they have the highest GDP.

(Start a new thread if you really want to talk about comparing GDP and standards of living.)


Can I close this thing now? :crash:impdaddy

 

[McRocket]

Finally, the question has been answered:

Americans don't like soccer because they have the highest GDP.

(Start a new thread if you really want to talk about comparing GDP and standards of living.)


Can I close this thing now? :crash:impdaddy

Like we have a choice in so far as what you do?

 

[slikpulla152]

Finally, the question has been answered:

Americans don't like soccer because they have the highest GDP.

(Start a new thread if you really want to talk about comparing GDP and standards of living.)


Can I close this thing now? :crash:impdaddy

you can put it under post games

 

[Shower Scene]

Im not sure if this idea has been suggested already but...

Have you ever noticed how much stuff is used in football compared to soccer?

Football requires alot more players, alot more padding, more refs, all these people to mark where the ball is and which down they are on, all these cameras to record every play from every angle, 2 big ass field goals with 2 big ass nets behind them, a big ass nearly perfectly marked field measured in "American yards" (remember... Americans think they are too big and bad to use the Metric System), the bands that usually play at games, 2 big ass end zones (which are usually artistically painted), and "maybe" its field/stadium design... I am not sure how unique the football field/stadium is compared to a soccer field/stadium... it might be bigger might be smaller... not every city has a multipurpose stadium like the Astro Dome in Houston was...

Anyways, Soccer requires alot less stuff than American Football. It requires 2 simple goals, a few pads, a few cleats, a ball, several red and yellow cards to kick out any assholes from the game, alot less cameras around the field than football, and a much more simple field than football. It also requires less players. You go to some college football games such as for the University of Texas and it looks like they have over 100 players... while soccer only has like 25 or so, alot of which are subs/reserves. Thats alot of damn padding needed... Also soccer requires much less refs and other people that football requires.

Not every country has the money to pay for all the stuff football requires like the United States has, neither do alot of them have the people.
They do however play a game kinda similar to football in other countries called Rugby, which is like football with alot less equiptment.

Anyways thats just a theory of mine, it might be partially right or partially wrong... No need to get into an argument over it.

 

[titsrock]

American football did not always use pads...it was very Rugby like in the very beginning.

Sports like American Football and Hockey appear to be sports that welcome "technical innovations" whether or not they actually improve gameplay...

 

[poggy]

You crack me up.

I agree with dave rhino 100%.

Boxing isn't demanding? You think those boxers that you see collapse in KO's/TKO's quit because they are bored? They are physically not capable of performing any longer.


And, BTW, I am not sure your comments poggy are consistent with the subject of this thread.
I only mention this because you seem to be big on yourself (and others) following board rules/guidelines.
But maybe I am wrong.


Have a nice day.

As I said before, boxing isn't difficult or demanding. A marshal art is, in both mind and body. Especially if you compete in it. I speak from experience having done both. All that boxing really is barbaric compared to most other fighting forms.

As I said.

To properly compete in a marshal art. You not only have to compete harder in mind and body. But also train hard on all the aspects of your body. Not only endurance and strength that boxing really only takes.

I tried boxing for a year. But did marshal arts for somewhere around 9 years. I was never interested in the belts. In fact the only reason I progressed in them was because certain events required a certain belt level to enter.



Why close something that still isn't actually answered BNF? Plus like most threads here, it has progressed into something more than just the original question asked.

Also why should it go into the games section, like that has been mentioned. This is a discussion and that is what the talk section is for.

 

[bunker]

Im not sure if this idea has been suggested already but...

Have you ever noticed how much stuff is used in football compared to soccer?

Not every country has the money to pay for all the stuff football requires like the United States has, neither do alot of them have the people.
They do however play a game kinda similar to football in other countries called Rugby, which is like football with alot less equiptment.

Anyways thats just a theory of mine, it might be partially right or partially wrong... No need to get into an argument over it.

No argument but a bit more juice maybe. I guess you are surely not completly wrong.

There are now in Canada (at least parts of it) more young soccer players than young hockey players, and one of the main reason is money.

It is not like the good old days when the guys where skating on an exterior ice rink, playing with anything that could be called a puck, wearing abnout no equipment, and were inventing rules according to the situation (4 good guys playing against 5 guys not as good as them), smaller nets for not so good teams, etc. Things we see being done nowadays by soccer players.

Now hockey players need equipement, register in leagues, make the team or they almost don't play... and it does cost lots of money.
Like in the MasterCard ad : a goalkeeper equipement... never used (800$)... Pretty annoying for parents that pay the price and see their kids on the bench and not on the ice.

Soccer is virtually free compared to that and fun is for everyone cause they all play (That is as long as we are not that good and that there are no real pro league in Canada. When getting a place in a pro team will be a concern, fun for all will gradually disapeared. Here, that's what most people complain about hockey.)

This has nothing to do with saying that soccer is a sport for poor people...
but if you put it positively, it shows that soccer is a real democratic sport, opens to everyone.

I put a long answer to a so-called scientific study of ESPN. The GDP (PPP) debate is about the same type and as irrevelant as the previous one.

And as many has wrote, (I summarize in my poor English) it is all good, just different.

Compare it to art. The ESPN poll would tell me that Jan Garbarek is a better jazzman than Miles Davis. And they can prove it. Why ? Because you need only one hand and 4 fingers (thumb included) to play trumpet but you need both hands and 5 fingers of each hand to play sax. Apply the ESPN scientific study (and it could be apply, why not?) and any sax players is better that trumpet players.
And also sax are more expensive than trumpets,. And teachers and schools cost more also. Studying it is longer, mastering the basics also. Higher GDP (PPP) is for sax also.

Is Garbarek better than Miles ???

It is art, it has nothing to do with any of the previous.

Same for sports!

What I didn't like is taht some of the posts are like this : it is a stupid sport because it doesn't work like the sports I know.

That someone finds it boring, who cares, I find football boring. But saying it is stupid because it does not work like the sports I know and like, and that they actually should change all the rules of soccer to adapt it to my taste ???

Written this way, I am not sure many people would agree with that.

 

[BNF]

Franklin Foer, author of How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization. "It's not about (whether soccer is in our) DNA. It is about our history. Saying soccer will never be big here assumes American culture is static."

Interview with above: http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/08/08_400.html

---

Another theory is that the USA, despite a few vocal left leaning groups, is an extremely conservative place. The conservatism acts as a buffer against most things new, radical or, god-forbid, European. (Strangely, to my eye, most other imports from the UK are automatically viewed as a way to improve one's social standing: clothing, imitated accents, travel, cars, art and "food", decor etc...)

---

And, since everyone else seems to be fine with going soooo deep: We are in the beginning of a post-American world. It is absolutely true that for the past 100 years, much, if not most, of the world looked to America as an example of what is possible and what is good. That era, IMO and in the opinion of many, has ended. I think only the most conservative nationalist would have the breath to argue that the American military machine and might has shown fatal chinks in it's armor; that corporate governance is disproportionately run by criminals in ties or fueled soley by greed - ditto for national policy makers, and the rise of the euro and the continual fall of the dollar. In short, while there still are a great many things that the US does better, the flaw is that many there do not see that other countries also do things much better. The idea of GDP as a gauge for the standard of living is flawed and inaccurate. It fails to show or include a massive amount of information regarding quality of life: health care, infant mortality, crime, public transport, free time / holidays, personal savings etc.

Simply, few people that I talk to, hear or read about mention the USA anymore outside of what was once a laughable foreign policy and is now simply something that you acknowledge like a crazy uncle. I think that many people are uncomfortable anymore visiting the USA with the suspicion and often hostility shown - right from the first contact now at immigration control. People who want to study english or business now, around me, think immediately of London. When they want to talk about manufacturing: China or India. Journalist Gopnik just wrote: "To a new leadership class, it sometimes seems that America is no longer the human bomb you have to defuse but the nut you walk away from."

So, I think that part of the reason that soccer is still not popular in the US is that a large and growing part of the world doesn't care. The expertise in soccer is abroad, outside of the US - internal soccer management in the US is dismal at best. The pro management and players have no interest in the US market because they simply don't need it and see more potential in emerging markets that the now slowly fading giant.

 

[joeice345]

A similar question might be "why is soccer so popular all over the world.

All you need is 4 rocks and a ball (or an empty milk jug) and you've got a soccer game. Additionally, its easy for young children to learn the basics and can be played about the time a kid can walk. This has made it so that kids all over the world could learn it and play it.

So part of the reason is America's affluence.

The other part is that Americans like to see someone win and someone loose. Not just the game, but in action. We want to see someone get tackled or dunked on. We like constant action (either violence or scoring....although I don't get baseball....)

We don't get how 2 teams could play for 2 hours, and at the end of the night the score is 0-0 and people loved the game. That makes no sense to your average American.

 

[marquis2]

A similar question might be "why is soccer so popular all over the world.



We don't get how 2 teams could play for 2 hours, and at the end of the night the score is 0-0 and people loved the game. That makes no sense to your average American.

You wouldn't like cricket then! The teams can play 5 days without result.
But games aren't all about winning.The attraction might be in watching the skilled stroke play, the balance of the game, the setting of traps and even whether or not a team can hold out until the end of play.A little more sophisticated!

 

[eatm81]

I also have a less scientific reason why North Americans don't much care for watching soccer...

...IT'S BORING TO WATCH!!!

Yeah, and baseball is such a blast to watch...

 

[marquis2]

Do you have a link to the World Bank figures? Because they don't jive with the CIA World Fact Book or the International Monetary Fund as listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Even if you go by the World Bank's figures. The European Union average GDP per capita is under $34,000.
Even by these numbers, American's still make almost 1/3 more per person.

http://devdata.worldbank.org/external/CPProfile.asp?PTYPE=CP&CCODE=EMU

Take everything from Wikipedia with a pinch of salt!The CIA figures were estimates only.
My information came from the BBC no less.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/country_profiles/default.stm

Then look at Luxemburg!
Actually, comparing GDP depends so much on exchange rates it's difficult to compare accurately.With the $2 pound it seems as if the UK is on a par. Drop the pound to $1.65 (the basis of the 2006 figures) and it looks different.

 

[nightwanker]

A similar question might be "why is soccer so popular all over the world. [...]

If you would not have written this question, I would have come up with it soon.

Why is football so popular in "the rest of the world"?

(mainly except in India, Mongolia, Laos, Cambodia, Taiwan and some else, according to this map, showing status in national sports rankings and number of players per 1,000 inhabitants
- interesting by the way for example, that soccer isn't number 1 in Australia and Japan, but gets, as far as I know, much more regard in publicity than in the US)

So the question is: What makes football so popular?

One answer is already given

All you need is 4 rocks and a ball (or an empty milk jug) and you've got a soccer game. Additionally, its easy for young children to learn the basics and can be played about the time a kid can walk. This has made it so that kids all over the world could learn it and play it.

I strongly believe in the simplicity of the game!
( - But be advised: it still takes skill, talent and fighting spirit to win games and championships. And it gets even harder as so many others in the world want to)


Finally You can witness some of the popularity here, here, here, here, here and here.

So what do You think? Why is football so popular?

 

[McRocket]

Take everything from Wikipedia with a pinch of salt!The CIA figures were estimates only.
My information came from the BBC no less.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/country_profiles/default.stm

Then look at Luxemburg!
Actually, comparing GDP depends so much on exchange rates it's difficult to compare accurately.With the $2 pound it seems as if the UK is on a par. Drop the pound to $1.65 (the basis of the 2006 figures) and it looks different.

Apparently, we are not allowed to debate this in this thread.

We will have to agree to disagree.

However, currency fluctuations do not change purchasing power in one's own country much.

 

[BNF]

Income and the need for equipment doesn't make a good argument for the lack of popularity either. Judging from what I've seen and read, the supporters of soccer in the US are in the higher income brackets. I'd even say that soccer, in that sense, has the same air of exclusivity as lacrosse or women's field hockey. Just ask Garret or Brice or Hunter or Tag or Thad if they like soccer, and then ask them where they 'prep. Ask the same to someone in Queens or Hough or Watts and they may admit to using a soccer ball when a basket ball wasn't available. ..... the same type of impoverished areas where some of the world's great soccer talents emerge in other nations. :2 cents:

 

[marquis2]

Income and the need for equipment doesn't make a good argument for the lack of popularity either. Judging from what I've seen and read, the supporters of soccer in the US are in the higher income brackets. I'd even say that soccer, in that sense, has the same air of exclusivity as lacrosse or women's field hockey. Just ask Garret or Brice or Hunter or Tag or Thad if they like soccer, and then ask them where they 'prep. Ask the same to someone in Queens or Hough or Watts and they may admit to using a soccer ball when a basket ball wasn't available. ..... the same type of impoverished areas where some of the world's great soccer talents emerge in other nations. :2 cents:

In this country football is the province of the lower income bracket.Traditionally better educated boys have usually played rugby at school which is still regarded as more than a cut above soccer.
That might explain why British soccer players have a problem stringing together an intelligible sentence whereas Continental ones speak good English.