NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not sure what it will take, what do you think?

Not calling it football when speaking to Americans.

I'm not sure what it will take, what do you think?

David Beckham signing for an American footie team?

Maybe they don't want it.

Many children play soccer as children in the US. For some reason, it doesn't stick like it does in other countries.

Because playing it in school is still not widespread and where it exists it is only recently prevalent and becomes less so the older you get, so the kids who like it are still young and there is very little to draw their attention to it.

Massive Mexican Immigration?

A lot more than sending David and Skeletor over there.

Soccer mom has changed into a general term more than an actual descriptive one. It doesn't actually have anything to do with parents who have children in soccer. It now just describes women driving around in SUVs like druggies.

Because playing it in school is still not widespread and where it exists it is only recently prevalent and becomes less so the older you get, so the kids who like it are still young and there is very little to draw their attention to it.

Ah, so the "soccer mom" thing that is nationwide only came up in the 1990s...

We have no soccer hooligians. :(

If you build it, they will come!

The biggest problems with soccer are these:

The clock goes the wrong way. Americans like countdowns.
There are too many ties. The 0-0 tie is unamerician.
We have no soccer hooligians. :(

If the MLS wasn't structured like a US major sport, and they signed more kids around the ages of Freddy "I swear I'm 14, ignore my full beard" Adu and showed them that you can make as much money in basketball at 19 in soccer at 15.

Now that I just remembered it, the two local conservative jackasses who occasionally shut up about their misinformed political ideologies to talk about their more comedic lives were discussing soccer the other day. One said soccer by kids was interesting because everyone ran around in a jumble but adult soccer was boring because no one ever scored or really did anything. This from a nation that puts golf on 3 channels for 9 hours every Sunday.

I know how to make soccer more interesting to Americans: make every goal count for a larger number of points. That is also why hockey is smaller than it could be nationally - goals only count for single points so everyone finds it boring. The bigger the numbers that show up, the more interesting Americans find the game.

If every goal in soccer counted for 5 points and every penalty shot counted for 3, soccer fanship would jump 5 fold.

If the MLS wasn't structured like a US major sport, and they signed more kids around the ages of Freddy "I swear I'm 14, ignore my full beard" Adu and showed them that you can make as much money in basketball at 19 in soccer at 15.

I brought him over from the States in my game of Football Manager, as a striker and he is wicked!

Because it isn't an epic sport full of manliness and win. Seriously, if soccer was played in the mud all the time, and you could tackle, it'd be huge.

Oh, and plus, we don't need anymore big sports here. We have enough.

it would take 10 mega millionaires willing to invest $500million each to buy the best talent in the world to create 10 world class soccer teams.

we're not interested in starting at the bottom and we arent interesting in having only one great team in this country.

Hockey is interesting only because of the fights.

Hockey is interesting only because of the fights.
Exactly.

It needs more numbers. Americans like numbers in their sports.

I brought him over from the States in my game of Football Manager, as a striker and he is wicked!

I just remember the big sensation when DC signed him, and I heard he was 14:

"Where the hell is my beard at 14???"

He's marginal. He couldn't crack the WC Suckfest squad's lineup, IIRC.

Side note: FM roolz. I brought myself over from Houston to Bayern Munchen to pair up with Prinz Poldi. It was wicked.

I can't wait for next year, with a front of Toni, Miro Klose, and Podolski.

As soon as American Football and Baseball stop being disparaged by elitist Soccer fans from Europe.

Which, given the mutually antagonistic history, is likely to be never. :p

Football is popular in the US.

Soccer is popular amongst effete kids in highschool. Snotty lil bastards.

As soon as American Football and Baseball stop being disparaged by elitist Soccer fans from Europe.

Which, given the mutually antagonistic history, is likely to be never. :p


People think I'm weird because I love playing all three and grasp all three.

Actually, my favorite mutual disparagement is baseball/cricket:

"Cricket is 'just baseball!'"
"Baseball is 'just rounders!'"

Because it isn't an epic sport full of manliness and win. Seriously, if soccer was played in the mud all the time, and you could tackle, it'd be huge.

Oh, and plus, we don't need anymore big sports here. We have enough.

You mean Rugby?

You mean Rugby?

Yup. The only way soccer could survive as a major sport in the United States is if it turned into rugby.

Oh, and plus, we don't need anymore big sports here. We have enough.

That is probabily the reason. As much as americans love to waste their money on sports and entertainment, there are just too many sports there already.

Basketball, Golf, Hockey, American Football, Baseball, among others, already have a pretty big portion of the market.

Exactly.

It needs more numbers. Americans like numbers in their sports.

Yes, specially because of the statistics.

It makes them believe they are smart.

Football is popular in the US.

Soccer is popular amongst effete kids in highschool. Snotty lil bastards.I feel the same way. All of the kids in high school who weren't good enough to make the (american) football or basketball teams always joined either the soccer team or some other unpopular sport like lacrosse.

A Dalek football team.

I'm not sure what it will take, what do you think?

Football is popular in the US. It's soccer that ya'll should be worried about.








:D

Football is popular in the US. It's soccer that ya'll should be worried about.








:D

You mean Rugby With Safety Pads.

The market's saturated.

The only way to get Americans to watch Soccer is to make Soccer not boring.

Seriously. I like Soccer. I like the skills. I like the game. A good, attacking game of Soccer is a beautiful thing.

The average game of Soccer is like watching grass grow.

Baseball, Gridiron, Basketball and Ice Hockey are either hugely exciting, or, in the case of Baseball, full of tension and periodic action (as is cricket - One-Day Cricket is gathering a following in the US). Even a bad game has it's moments of drama and power.

When the round ball gets passed between the same three players for ten minutes straight (I timed it, an English Premier League match too), anyone who isn't a complete aficionado IS GOING TO CHANGE THE CHANNEL OR GO HOME.

So, how to make it more exciting? Eliminate that damned silly offside rule, and start a play clock. Any time one side has possession they have one minute to attempt to score or the other team gets a free kick.

You mean Rugby With Safety Pads.

Oh God not again :p

How popular is it at the moment?

I'm not sure what it will take, what do you think?

Nothing. Playing football is already a popular passtime in the USA.
Watching it is not - but who can blame them for that ?

How popular is it at the moment?

maybe behind hockey?

Thing about football is, unless you have some aggressive play it is TEDIOUS.

Watch Manchester United or Arsenal or Liverpool in full flight against a team of equal ability and it's a thing of beauty. Watch them hhut down a game like a sixties Italian international and it's bloody terrible.

The best games are probably in the First Division or so where the teams are more physical and brutal about it.

(and be honest, the last World Cup was an exercise in boredom).

Action, violence, scoring, upper body strength, more overt moves (rather than subtlety)

maybe behind hockey?

Oh dear God.... oh... my.... fucking ... god.

Oh dear God.... oh... my.... fucking ... god.

Hockey was murdered by the lockout, so that means low.

Even if ESPN is propping the MLS up.

I really want a team in Philly, I'd go see them. They were gonna put a stadium in Rowan, the local college, but I think that fell through.

Hockey was murdered by the lockout, so that means low.

Even if ESPN is propping the MLS up.

I really want a team in Philly, I'd go see them. They were gonna put a stadium in Rowan, the local college, but I think that fell through.

We do have a soccer team the KiXX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_KiXX)

Thing about football is, unless you have some aggressive play it is TEDIOUS.

Watch Manchester United or Arsenal or Liverpool in full flight against a team of equal ability and it's a thing of beauty. Watch them hhut down a game like a sixties Italian international and it's bloody terrible.

The best games are probably in the First Division or so where the teams are more physical and brutal about it.

(and be honest, the last World Cup was an exercise in boredom).
Yeah, but the argument falls through in the American market. Everyone talks about how boring soccer is yet the local networks will put on all day golf sessions on Sunday for the golf tournaments. Golf. Some guys taking metal sticks and hitting balls. There is no direct competition, there isn't even cheering or anything. Just some guys hitting balls as far as they can.

Tennis is barely better.

Yes, specially because of the statistics.

It makes them believe they are smart.

It's time we faced facts, sports fans are nerds. Seriously, they got nothin' on the D&D crowd with the volume of bullshit they commit to memory, or their 'imaginary games' make idle discussions about Superman vs. Ultraman pale in comparison.

Nerds.

There are more and more people coming of age who played it as their primary sport, so that will help. In my home town soccer was a big deal (one of our players wound up on the Galaxy, I only knew his knick name so I don't know if he's still there. Not likely, but possible).

The problem is if you're any good at the game the last place you'd want to play is here unless you're in the sunset of your career and someone backed a truckload of money to your door and convinced your wife that they'd revive her career. So our 'major' league soccer is essentially AAA soccer and we're not fooling ourselves. With baseball, basketball, American football-we're where you come if you're the best. With soccer we're where you come if no one else will have you. I don't know that we could really compete with the draw of the other more successful leagues.

Joining them in a competitive manner might work, instead of trying to be an island just join those leagues so that we're watching the best and maybe have the ability to draw better talent.

I'm not sure what it will take, what do you think?

...Maybe for non-American to stop bitching about...

I like Soccer a little, but our Football(the real football) will always be better.

Yeah, but the argument falls through in the American market. Everyone talks about how boring soccer is yet the local networks will put on all day golf sessions on Sunday for the golf tournaments. Golf. Some guys taking metal sticks and hitting balls. There is no direct competition, there isn't even cheering or anything. Just some guys hitting balls as far as they can.

But golf is what rich people do. That helps.
Similarily, basketball can get you out of the ghetto. Padded rugby can get you into college.

What can football do for you ?

But golf is what rich people do. That helps.
Similarily, basketball can get you out of the ghetto. Padded rugby can get you into college.

What can football do for you ?

....bag you a Spice Girl.......OK now I see why it's not more popular

...Maybe for non-American to stop bitching about...

I like Soccer a little, but our Football(the real football) will always be better.

Promoting a sport is bitching about what exactly?

Yeah, but the argument falls through in the American market. Everyone talks about how boring soccer is yet the local networks will put on all day golf sessions on Sunday for the golf tournaments. Golf. Some guys taking metal sticks and hitting balls. There is no direct competition, there isn't even cheering or anything. Just some guys hitting balls as far as they can.

Tennis is barely better.

so popular = they put it on tv?

then it would be easy to have soccer be as popular as golf. just have some rich guy subsidize the televising of it.

The only way to get Americans to watch Soccer is to make Soccer not boring...

So, how to make it more exciting? Eliminate that damned silly offside rule, and start a play clock. Any time one side has possession they have one minute to attempt to score or the other team gets a free kick.
For a second there I thought you were being serious.

But golf is what rich people do. That helps.
Similarily, basketball can get you out of the ghetto. Padded rugby can get you into college.

What can football do for you ?

There's some truth here, there isn't really a visible feeder system to foster players into MLS, it hasn't established that 'from the street game to the big show' mythology about itself like the other major American sports have.

stop calling it soccer it is football, I do not think Beckham will make the sport big in america as Some of the greatest footballers of all time (Pele,Best and many others) played i america and i do not count Beckham in the same class as Pele or the Belfast Boy

Promoting a sport is bitching about what exactly?

Promoting a sport that will never gain wide spread popularity in the US is bitching. Non-Americans need to stop trying to find reasons why we don't worship soccer like they do, as if there is something wrong with us.

I watch little soccer. Why? Because it's boring. Theres your answer. Most Americans find soccer boring.

stop calling it soccer it is football, I do not think Beckham will make the sport big in america as Some of the greatest footballers of all time (Pele,Best and many others) played i america and i do not count Beckham in the same class as Pele or the Belfast Boy

It's Soccer because we say its soccer.

Let's not remind ourselves who runs this planet?:rolleyes:

Promoting a sport that will never gain wide spread popularity in the US is bitching.

It's not bitching, it's trying to make money.

stop calling it soccer it is football, I do not think Beckham will make the sport big in america as Some of the greatest footballers of all time (Pele,Best and many others) played i america and i do not count Beckham in the same class as Pele or the Belfast Boy
Well, we gave a sport where you use your hands most the time the name 'football' and Hank Williams Jr. has already asked us if we're ready for some, so we got to call it soccer. Suck it up.

And when Pele was here we where all about it. As long as it was Pele. The other 10 guys were dressing.

I watch little soccer. Why? Because it's boring. Theres your answer. Most Americans find soccer boring.


I watched a charity game of Grid Iron at Leicester Tigers ground once, and I can honestly say it is for 95% of the time an incredibly boring and funless experience. Considering the quarters are each something like 20 minutes, the entire game took up 2 and a half hours. How someone can (persumably) enjoy watching 15 seconds of running and then 2 minutes of swapping teams call 90 minutes of full-on action boring is quite frankly beyond me

the sport was invented in Britian (yes i know FIFA says china invented it but that is a lie, and i do not see them coming out week in rain nor shine to support their local club) and it was called Football, heck FIFA stands for Fédération Internationale de Football Association.

I watched a charity game of Grid Iron at Leicester Tigers ground once, and I can honestly say it is for 95% of the time an incredibly boring and funless experience. Considering the quarters are each something like 20 minutes, the entire game took up 2 and a half hours. How someone can (persumably) enjoy watching 15 seconds of running and then 2 minutes of swapping teams call 90 minutes of full-on action boring is quite frankly beyond me

Oh yeah, cause kicking a ball to one another and scoring 1 goal all game is full on action...

the sport was invented in Britian (yes i know FIFA says china invented it but that is a lie, and i do not see them coming out week in rain nor shine to support their local club) and it was called Football, heck FIFA stands for Fédération Internationale de Football Association.

Who cares whether the Brits or the Chinese invented, when its still crap?
Oh, and it became Soccer when American's started calling it soccer

Promoting a sport that will never gain wide spread popularity in the US is bitching. Non-Americans need to stop trying to find reasons why we don't worship soccer like they do, as if there is something wrong with us.

I watch little soccer. Why? Because it's boring. Theres your answer. Most Americans find soccer boring.

How exactly is it bitching? So what you're saying is that all sports should stick to their locations of origin?

How exactly is it bitching? So what you're saying is that all sports should stick to their locations of origin?

No, but I do disagree with everyone acting like American's are somehow flawed because Soccer isn't a major sport over here. It gets annoying, maybe they can all agree that Soccer isn't a sport we like over here and stop trying?

the sport was invented in Britian (yes i know FIFA says china invented it but that is a lie, and i do not see them coming out week in rain nor shine to support their local club) and it was called Football, heck FIFA stands for Fédération Internationale de Football Association.

You need to give reasons for it being a lie

Oh yeah, cause kicking a ball to one another and scoring 1 goal all game is full on action...

I'll give you that it may not always be the most exciting game (Thats rugby :)) the length and ridiculous periods of breaks and time-outs in Gridiron. But anyways we're going Off topic

While Football may not be the most exciting game to watch, its ability to allow anyone to play and the excitement generated in doing so is almost second to none. There is a reason it is the most popular sport in the entire world.

You don't like sports much in general, do you?

Meh, Basketball is the best sport. Followed by the real Football. Then Hockey. Everything else is pretty boring(Baseball, Golf, Soccer, etc.)

Oh yeah, cause kicking a ball to one another and scoring 1 goal all game is full on action...
You don't like sports much in general, do you?

Promoting a sport that will never gain wide spread popularity in the US is bitching. Non-Americans need to stop trying to find reasons why we don't worship soccer like they do, as if there is something wrong with us.

I watch little soccer. Why? Because it's boring. Theres your answer. Most Americans find soccer boring.

I worship Football do not knock until you have tried it. Also I am a massive Northern Ireland Supporter and it is anything but boring it is 90 minutes of intense passion. When I was at the Northern Ireland v England match September 05 (Sir David Scored the winner and Windsor Park went wild) and this was a cold night and i was by the end of it in a t shirt because my adrenline was so pumped

No, but I do disagree with everyone acting like American's are somehow flawed because Soccer isn't a major sport over here. It gets annoying, maybe they can all agree that Soccer isn't a sport we like over here and stop trying?

Was that mentioned in the OP at all?

Nice motto for life you have there "If at first you don't succeed, quit"

Meh, Basketball is the best sport. Followed by the real Football. Then Hockey. Everything else is pretty boring(Baseball, Golf, Soccer, etc.)

are you kidding? Basketball is tied for second with Football, Baseball is the best.

Was that mentioned in the OP at all?
Nah, but it is implied by every non-American in the world who tries to push for Soccer in the US.

Nice motto for life you have there "If at first you don't succeed, quit

Nah, I'm just saying since soccer is lame, quit.

Pfft I prefer sports where people can move at 120mph using just their bodies :p

Skydiving?

Pfft I prefer sports where people can move at 120mph using just their bodies :p

you like skydiving? :p

Meh, Basketball is the best sport. Followed by the real Football. Then Hockey. Everything else is pretty boring(Baseball, Golf, Soccer, etc.)

Thank you for saying the Beautiful game is the greatest sport on earth. Siylva real football is the game we are talking about. Americans just stole the name. I love Hockey as well but real Hockey which is what you call field hockey

I'll give you that it may not always be the most exciting game (Thats rugby :))


Pfft I prefer sports where people can move at 120mph using just their bodies :p

Meh, Basketball is the best sport. Followed by the real Football. Then Hockey. Everything else is pretty boring(Baseball, Golf, Soccer, etc.)

You forgot extreme ironing in that list.

are you kidding? Basketball is tied for second with Football, Baseball is the best.

...Baseball...You can't be serious :p

Losers who couldn't play Basketball or Football play baseball. It is one of the most boring sports of them all. No one hits the ball, they sit in the dug-out all day, never have to run cause nobody hits the ball, and you call that exciting.

Please, Baseball is one of the worst sports period.

Nah, I'm just saying since soccer is lame, quit.

Come to think about it I was always of the opinion that determination and not giving up were important in sports

Who cares whether the Brits or the Chinese invented, when its still crap?
Oh, and it became Soccer when American's started calling it soccer

Soccer comes from Association Football.

Skydiving?

The one and only :D

Screw all your talk of pads, etc. If you go in deep thanks to a malfunction they don't help much in the real mans sport :p

Nah, I'm just saying since soccer is lame, quit.
So... this post of yours is... ... so you are ...quitting?
Please, no farewell threads.

You forgot extreme ironing in that list.

and Olympic walking

and Olympic walking

Sheep shearing, man. Sheep shearing.

Come to think about it I was always of the opinion that determination and not giving up were important in sports

Lies, sir:p

I'm saying that Soccer is lame (when compared to True Football), so quit trying to make soccer popular in the US

So... this post of yours is... ... so you are ...quitting?
Please, no farewell threads.

Nah, I was saying quit trying to make Americans like Soccer, it won't happen:p

But soccer is Pure football! Not the twisted game you play, Gridiron!

Ack, the contradictions are killing me...

Soccer comes from Association Football.

I don't care where it comes from, most Americans call it Soccer and thats what matters. Regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.

I don't care where it comes from, most Americans call it Soccer and thats what matters. Regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.

"Football" (or variants thereof) - 5,700,000,000
"Soccer" - 300,000,000

Meh, Basketball is the best sport. Followed by the real Football. Then Hockey. Everything else is pretty boring(Baseball, Golf, Soccer, etc.)

So you like high scores?

I don't care where it comes from, most Americans call it Soccer and thats what matters. Regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.
:rolleyes:
So you like high scores?

Make every goal counts for 100 points.

I don't care where it comes from, most Americans call it Soccer and thats what matters. Regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.
But that's the American opinion on everything.

Regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.
Yep. Keep that attitude. It will take you places. I'm ready to bet you'd have posted that regardless wether this thread was about football or whatnot...

"Football" (or variants thereof) - 5,700,000,000
"Soccer" - 300,000,000

Ah, but that 300,000,000? All that matters:D

But that's the American opinion on everything.

Yup:D

Yep. Keep that attitude. It will take you places. I'm ready to bet you'd have posted that regardless wether this thread was about football or whatnot...

Hey, what can I say? I'm from the USA.:p

Yup:D
You'll get far in life...

Yup. The only way soccer could survive as a major sport in the United States is if it turned into rugby.

Then Australia rules football is essentially that.

Hey, what can I say? I'm from the USA.:p
And you can NOT supply one constructive idea how football could be popularized in the US?!? I wonder if you really are an American. There's money in that, see..!?

But please, carry on trolling.

I don't care where it comes from, most Americans call it Soccer and thats what matters. Regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.

typical american

I'm not sure what it will take, what do you think?

why do you want it to be popular in the US?

typical american
Quite the contrary. All the people in this thread (with the exception of this guy (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=12887023)) are atypical Americans. They are not interested in money. I strongly suspect they are communists!

in america

I'm not sure what it will take, what do you think?
Make everyone think it was invented here and change the name. We can only follow one sport called football. God only knows how we were able to keep up with two teams in St Louis called the Cardinals.

I'd rather ask the opposite; does football NEED the USA?

The worst World Cup, ever ever ever, was held in the USA, and simply attempted to batter football into a package appealing both to the American audiance, and media. Frankly, as a football fan, if the price of popularity in the USA is the alteration of the game to suit such sensibilities, I'd rather leave you to your own sports, and you leave us to ours.

I'd rather ask the opposite; does football NEED the USA?

The worst World Cup, ever ever ever, was held in the USA, and simply attempted to batter football into a package appealing both to the American audiance, and media. Frankly, as a football fan, if the price of popularity in the USA is the alteration of the game to suit such sensibilities, I'd rather leave you to your own sports, and you leave us to ours.

Football doesn't need the USA, but one can never have too much money, if you catch my drift.

Football doesn't need the USA, but one can never have too much money, if you catch my drift.

Well possibly, not that football clubs ever consider money before anything else......:p

Simply time. The figures show large numbers of younger children playing football then diverting to other sports.

Football clubs are looking for new markets and so on, currently Asia is the major target with the US not far behind. When Asia is conquered more will be focussed on the US. Also money, football wages will surpass those offered by American sports in the not too distant future and the children will be more interested in a career in it.

Finally, the growing hispanic population will help popularise football, given they have a cultural background of football popularity.

I'm not sure what it will take, what do you think?

Football IS popular; we just don't give a toss about soccer.

Soccer is boring, I've tried to watch it and I fell asleep. Golf is boring too but it's fun to play. It really is, I play golf on a regular basis.

Also if you want to know why American Football will always beat Soccer in popularity, well just watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAqype6Kyac

Who knows. I wish it were popular: I actually like soccer. American Football, on the other hand, just fucking sucks. Horribly and terribly.

I'm not sure what it will take, what do you think?

Xtreme violent collisions,and i aint talking sissy we knocked knees and some fancy boy takes a dive and cringes like a girl.to get a card,then the next play he is in..lol.
my kid brother loves soccer..er football,even he says it is gay with all the guys flopping about like fish on a dock.
come on....it is a cool sport,but america likes violent impact sports,aint been paying attention have you?
hell even baseball,probably the most boring sport in the history of sports(and i like to play it)still has collisions with the catcher,or fielders,soccer,shit if you fart the guy falls down and writhes in pain..how girly.
not saying they cant run around,but so did my high school track team..lol

Soccer is boring, I've tried to watch it and I fell asleep. Golf is boring too but it's fun to play. It really is, I play golf on a regular basis.

Also if you want to know why American Football will always beat Soccer in popularity, well just watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAqype6Kyac

*yawn*

Me Gurg! Gurg hit! Hur, hur, hur...

*yawn*

Me Gurg! Gurg hit! Hur, hur, hur...

You never watched an American Football game have ya, and I'm not talking like the Detroit Lion facing off with the Oakland Raiders, I'm talking like the Carolina Panthers facing off the Atlanta Falcon, or The Indiana Colts Facing off the Sea hawks, the really good games.

But golf is what rich people do. That helps.
Similarily, basketball can get you out of the ghetto. Padded rugby can get you into college.

What can football do for you ?Football can get you out of the ghetto,
Football can make you rich,

but.. there is one thing that separates Football from the others.. the massive amount of Glory, Prestige and national pride that you can "get" as a player.. every 4 years.

You never watched an American Football game have ya, and I'm not talking like the Detroit Lion facing off with the Oakland Raiders, I'm talking like the Carolina Panthers facing off the Atlanta Falcon, or The Indiana Colts Facing off the Sea hawks, the really good games.

I live in Seattle. I've seen it before. Dull as all hell. If I wanted to see ogres fight, I'd go rent LOTR or something.

Football can get you out of the ghetto,
Football can make you rich,

but.. there is one thing that separates Football from the others.. the massive amount of Glory, Prestige and national pride that you can "get" as a player.. every 4 years.

It's true that the World Cup can make you a superstar on different continents, but that speaks more to the venue than the game itself, doesn't it? ;) I think Soccer and Football are both great sports, for ther record, but it's more for (I think) to watch and play football.

Football IS popular; we just don't give a toss about soccer.

Heh. Nice use of the British jargon. :p

Also if you want to know why American Football will always beat Soccer in popularity, well just watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAqype6Kyac


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tc0Ut5y-GRc

Ah damn, thats not actually promoting football...at least its a English sport ;)

Soccer is boring, I've tried to watch it and I fell asleep. Golf is boring too but it's fun to play. It really is, I play golf on a regular basis.

Also if you want to know why American Football will always beat Soccer in popularity, well just watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAqype6Kyac

heh strange that football is huge the world over and American football is huge....well in America.

Soccer is boring, I've tried to watch it and I fell asleep. Golf is boring too but it's fun to play. It really is, I play golf on a regular basis.

Also if you want to know why American Football will always beat Soccer in popularity, well just watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAqype6Kyac

Have you played soccer? It's the same with your description of golf: great to play, tedious to watch.

You never watched an American Football game have ya, and I'm not talking like the Detroit Lion facing off with the Oakland Raiders, I'm talking like the Carolina Panthers facing off the Atlanta Falcon, or The Indiana Colts Facing off the Sea hawks, the really good games.
I hate to tell you this but... Football is fucking boring.

Football IS popular; we just don't give a toss about soccer.

As far as I can see 'soccer' already is pretty big in the US.

BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6904077.stm)

Consider a few facts to dispel the myth that US sports fans do not give a fig about soccer.


The 2006 World Cup final attracted more television viewers than baseball's 2005 World Series pulled in on any single night.

Soccer is the most popular recreational sport for boys and girls in the US. More young people play it than any other sport.

The MLS is the 12th most attended Premier League in the world.

The use of the phrase 'soccer moms' shows how soccer has entered the national consciousnous. It'll take time for it to challenge the major US sports for overall popularity. But it is on its way.:)

I hate to tell you this but... Football is fucking boring.

I hear it's less boring if you edit it down and speed it up.

I hear it's less boring if you edit it down and speed it up.

I prefer it that way, as long as you can skip or speed through the stoppages then it's not too bad.

Have you played soccer? It's the same with your description of golf: great to play, tedious to watch.

I haven't played soccer since well I was five, so no. Really the only reason I even bothered playing soccer was that well it was something for me to do on a Saturday that wore me out the rest of the day so that my parents would have peace and quiet.

Also, there's more to American Football than just having big guys run into one another and pound on each other to get the ball, you also have to consider the many, many, many plays that the coach has at his reach. I mean your team is on 3rd and 5 yards to go, does he do a running play, a passing play. If he does a passing play, does he do a short one, a medium one or a long one. If he does a running play, does the runner go through the middle, around to the side, or just kinda shoots off to the right or left? Also if your team scores a touch down, do you go for the Field Goal or do you go for the two pointer? There's just an endless combination of plays that a coach can use to get the ball to first down and then to a touch down, and every team in the NFL has their own strength, weakness, and it's fun discussing which team will win against which team and why.

NFL FTW!

http://www.chicagogigs.com/images/content/carolina-panthers_carolina-panthers__tickets_733343.jpg

1. Call it soccer. Americans have a football already, and we cherish it dearly (I don't, but then again, I'm no big sports fan).
2. Soccer in the US is a suburban sport for kids. Broaden its appeal.
3. No soccer-riots. Americans aren't that passionate about their sports, and when riots do break out (like at that basketball game a couple of years ago), everyone is prosecuted.
4. America has some of the best ad agencies in the world. Why not use them?

I haven't played soccer since well I was five, so no. Really the only reason I even bothered playing soccer was that well it was something for me to do on a Saturday that wore me out the rest of the day so that my parents would have peace and quiet.

Also, there's more to American Football than just having big guys run into one another and pound on each other to get the ball, you also have to consider the many, many, many plays that the coach has at his reach. I mean your team is on 3rd and 5 yards to go, does he do a running play, a passing play. If he does a passing play, does he do a short one, a medium one or a long one. If he does a running play, does the runner go through the middle, around to the side, or just kinda shoots off to the right or left? Also if your team scores a touch down, do you go for the Field Goal or do you go for the two pointer? There's just an endless combination of plays that a coach can use to get the ball to first down and then to a touch down, and every team in the NFL has their own strength, weakness, and it's fun discussing which team will win against which team and why.

NFL FTW!

http://www.chicagogigs.com/images/content/carolina-panthers_carolina-panthers__tickets_733343.jpg

I love playing football and soccer. Both have their great strengths. Football is more of a mind game than at first thought. Yes, linemen don't have to think that much, but linebackers and quarterbacks have to learn to read the opposing side and learn the plays. Coaches plan intricate systems just to score a single touchdown. Soccer is the same way. Position, speed, the thought process of a developing play is amazing.

Maybe if you guys don't get hurt this year, David Carr will lead you to the playoffs!

What are you talking about? Football is popular here. It's slow and boring as hell soccer, that we don't give two sh!ts about. Plus it really doesn't, nor will it ever, stand much of a chance in the US. Even if for no other reason than that we don't really like to kill each other over sports here. ;)

Maybe if you guys don't get hurt this year, David Carr will lead you to the playoffs!

I hope so, last season was a big disappointment, but I will always be a Carolina Panthers fan! *makes Panthers growling sound*

Soccer is boring. So who cares anyway. And I live in a country where soccer is the most important sport.
But, Boxing is boring too. :p

But if you want an answer, I think it is because the media doesn't show any soccer matches. I know they don't because not many people like soccer in America, but I think more and more people will like soccer after some time.

Massive Mexican Immigration?

That might be a reason to support illegal immigrants.

Maybe if its proponents ditched the arrogant attitude. Deriding the sports we already enjoy isn't going to make soccer more popular.

Perhaps realizing that we already have a much more popular sport that we call "football," so while the rest of the world may use that term for their sport, it has to be called "soccer," here, and so accepting that and using the term that exists for it in the US instead of being obstinate about calling it "football."

Also, it's a little frustrating that it seems to be mostly a defensive struggle. There is a lot of action in soccer, but little of that results in anything. And too often games are decided by basically penalty kicks, which is simply fucking ridiculous.

Maybe if its proponents ditched the arrogant attitude. Deriding the sports we already enjoy isn't going to make soccer more popular.

Perhaps realizing that we already have a much more popular sport that we call "football," so while the rest of the world may use that term for their sport, it has to be called "soccer," here, and so accepting that and using the term that exists for it in the US instead of being obstinate about calling it "football."

Also, it's a little frustrating that it seems to be mostly a defensive struggle. There is a lot of action in soccer, but little of that results in anything. And too often games are decided by basically penalty kicks, which is simply fucking ridiculous.

Do you have any idea how difficult that would be? The majority of the footballing world supports clubs that make it nothing short of necessity to be arrogant; ever talked to a United, Arsenal or Barcelona fan about the quality of their football?

Perhaps realizing that we already have a much more popular sport that we call "football," so while the rest of the world may use that term for their sport, it has to be called "soccer," here, and so accepting that and using the term that exists for it in the US instead of being obstinate about calling it "football."

They do that in my country too, it pisses me off too. Adelaide United goes so far as to use the slogan "The real football" in their ads.

The problem is if you're any good at the game the last place you'd want to play is here unless you're in the sunset of your career and someone backed a truckload of money to your door and convinced your wife that they'd revive her career. So our 'major' league soccer is essentially AAA soccer and we're not fooling ourselves. With baseball, basketball, American football-we're where you come if you're the best. With soccer we're where you come if no one else will have you. I don't know that we could really compete with the draw of the other more successful leagues.

Joining them in a competitive manner might work, instead of trying to be an island just join those leagues so that we're watching the best and maybe have the ability to draw better talent.

I have- basically- the same position you have. What's never pointed out about Major League Soccer is that not only does it not contain the best players in the world, it also doesn't contain the best American players in the world. Many of the best American players- such as Tim Howard, Carlos Bocanegra, Claudio Reyna, DaMarcus Beasley, Kasey Keller, Brian McBride, Cory Gibbs, even Alexi Lalas- either spent their prime overseas or are playing overseas (also, so no one's thinking I'm excluding Canadian players, the same can also be said for our best- Paul Stalteri, Atiba Hutchinson, Tomasz Radzinski and now Julian de Guzman all also play overseas, not to mention Jonathan de Guzman (Netherlands) and Owen Hargreaves (England) are technically Canadians but play for other national sides). So not only is the MLS getting the scraps in terms of soccer talent, they're also getting the scraps in terms of American soccer talent- and that says a lot. Since North Americans like to not only watch the best but also our own, that alone will work against the MLS.

Now, it is true that soccer is popular in countries that don't possess immense soccer talent, but in those countries, soccer is either everything or, at least, too well established to "knock off". In North America, where we get to watch (presumably) the best baseball players, hockey players, football players, and basketball players, the fact that we don't get to watch the best soccer players- foreign or North American- is what is ultimately holding the sport back. I've always held that if an American team won a legitimate club competition (i.e., one the European teams would actually care about, the Club World Cup doesn't count) or the World Cup, Americans would start paying attention. Hockey's popularity in the U.S. really only spiked after the Americans' gold medal wins in 1960 and 1980- and soccer isn't any different. It's not enough to be "decent"- we demand the best, and until we get that, soccer won't get any attention. Plain and simple.

It may be nuts, but somehow I think it's the one thing that'll get Americans to actually pay attention to football.

An all-Hard Guy team.

With Vinnie Jones as coach and/or captain.

Maybe if its proponents ditched the arrogant attitude. Deriding the sports we already enjoy isn't going to make soccer more popular.

Perhaps realizing that we already have a much more popular sport that we call "football," so while the rest of the world may use that term for their sport, it has to be called "soccer," here, and so accepting that and using the term that exists for it in the US instead of being obstinate about calling it "football."

Also, it's a little frustrating that it seems to be mostly a defensive struggle. There is a lot of action in soccer, but little of that results in anything. And too often games are decided by basically penalty kicks, which is simply fucking ridiculous.

Hehhe it really is a two way street you know, I call it football, coz that is what it is called where I live, but you know wot if you say soccer, I still know what you are talking about.

So how about we Brits call it football, you Americans call it soccer, and we just stop all this nonsense?

We have no soccer hooligians. :(

One thing we can be thankful for. Seriously, do we need regular rioting because of a GAME?

I rather see it as something we do better than the rest of the world.

Yes, specially because of the statistics.

It makes them believe they are smart.

Smart enough to know it's spelled ESPECIALLY.

One thing we can be thankful for. Seriously, do we need regular rioting because of a GAME?

I rather see it as something we do better than the rest of the world.
Not in the US gun culture.

One thing we can be thankful for. Seriously, do we need regular rioting because of a GAME?

I rather see it as something we do better than the rest of the world.

Hehe no you have all the fighting you need in the game, by the sports men!

They do that in my country too, it pisses me off too. Adelaide United goes so far as to use the slogan "The real football" in their ads.

We don't have that problem is Victoria; AFL is slowly surrendering to real football.

One thing we can be thankful for. Seriously, do we need regular rioting because of a GAME?

I rather see it as something we do better than the rest of the world.

If you're not willing to fight for the club, you shouldn't follow the sport.

stop calling it soccer it is football, I do not think Beckham will make the sport big in america as Some of the greatest footballers of all time (Pele,Best and many others) played i america and i do not count Beckham in the same class as Pele or the Belfast Boy

Football. http://www.cortland.edu/athletics/football/&h=399&w=326&sz=25&hl=en&start=2&sig2=GLd232GifO5UMEtTUyf-KA&tbnid=lDtXr5WPn6fKvM:&tbnh=124&tbnw=101&ei=MrKgRryHLaCMeeeZ0CA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfootball%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

Soccer.
http://www.bestirantravel.com/images/culture/sports/soccer/worldcup2006/iran_bahrain_soccer2005.jpg

By the way, stop calling that thing step DANCING. Who ever heard of calling bouncing with your arms held tight to your sides like you're a pogo stick dancing?Yes, quite aware of how obnoxious that is. It's obnoxious to tell us what to call things in our own country too, or to tell us what is and isn't a sport.

You forgot extreme ironing in that list.

Speaking of ironing: curling.
I mean really. "Let's push a really heavy rock down this lake and.... SWEEP IN FRONT OF IT."

I'm not sure what it will take, what do you think?

Football is already popular in America. Soccer on the other hand...nothing is going to make it that popular.

We don't have that problem is Victoria; AFL is slowly surrendering to real football.

Are you talking about Ozzie rules footie? Damn me I love that game.

Heh. Nice use of the British jargon. :p

;) Thank you, I thought so as well.

As far as I can see 'soccer' already is pretty big in the US.

BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6904077.stm)



The use of the phrase 'soccer moms' shows how soccer has entered the national consciousnous. It'll take time for it to challenge the major US sports for overall popularity. But it is on its way.:)


Yeah, but for how long? I played it when I was in middle school and that, my friend, was nearly three decades ago.

Football. http://www.cortland.edu/athletics/football/&h=399&w=326&sz=25&hl=en&start=2&sig2=GLd232GifO5UMEtTUyf-KA&tbnid=lDtXr5WPn6fKvM:&tbnh=124&tbnw=101&ei=MrKgRryHLaCMeeeZ0CA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfootball%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

No, that would be a cross between rugby, pro wrestling and medieval battle recreation.

This is football:
http://www.teambath.com/wp-content/uploads/Football%202%20(Small).JPG

Not in the US gun culture.

Right. Because every one of us has guns. I have about a million, myself, and I let my nieces play with them, loaded.

Next year I'm going to let them lob grenades. :rolleyes:

If you're not willing to fight for the club, you shouldn't follow the sport.

Or maybe you should play the sport rather than act like cavemen?

No, that would be a cross between rugby, pro wrestling and medieval battle recreation.

This is football:
http://www.teambath.com/wp-content/uploads/Football%202%20(Small).JPG

Not here it ain't.

By the way, stop calling that thing step DANCING. Who ever heard of calling bouncing with your arms held tight to your sides like you're a pogo stick dancing?Yes, quite aware of how obnoxious that is. It's obnoxious to tell us what to call things in our own country too, or to tell us what is and isn't a sport.

I'm just waiting for D'dee to claim Ulster-Scots heritage as a way to avoid this point :p

Right. Because every one of us has guns. I have about a million, myself, and I let my nieces play with them, loaded.

Next year I'm going to let them lob grenades. :rolleyes:

Thanks for missing the point. You can go pick it up because I'm not walking over there to do it.

We don't have that problem is Victoria; AFL is slowly surrendering to real football.

No, that would be a cross between rugby, pro wrestling and medieval battle recreation.

This is football:
http://www.teambath.com/wp-content/uploads/Football%202%20(Small).JPG

If you're not willing to fight for the club, you shouldn't follow the sport.

See this attitude. This arrogance. This is why soccer isn't taking off in America. And this is why I'm never going to stop trying to stop it from taking over from my state's original sport. When you're in a country, football is <Insert country here>-ian football. But you guys don't get that.

Silly costumes

Hehhe it really is a two way street you know, I call it football, coz that is what it is called where I live, but you know wot if you say soccer, I still know what you are talking about.

So how about we Brits call it football, you Americans call it soccer, and we just stop all this nonsense?

I agree. Enough of this "Real Football" crap. It just makes people angry for no good purpose.

And for the record, I have nothing against soccer. But nobody likes having something they enjoy derided.

No, that would be a cross between rugby, pro wrestling and medieval battle recreation.

This is football:
http://www.teambath.com/wp-content/uploads/Football%202%20(Small).JPG

Here, that is soccer.

See, this is exactly the type of arrogant attitude I'm talking about. I have no problem with the game itself, it's shit like this that pisses me off.

See, this is exactly the type of arrogant attitude I'm talking about. I have no problem with the game itself, it's shit like this that pisses me off.

My philiosophy is that in American football is American Football, in Europe football is European Football, in Australia is Australian Football, if I'm ever in another country I might not take the time to change and refer to them as "football" but I at least respect other people's rights to refer to their country's version as "football" and I assume that when someone from that country says football, that's what they mean. For some reason Association Football fans don't get that.

Here, that is soccer.

See, this is exactly the type of arrogant attitude I'm talking about. I have no problem with the game itself, it's shit like this that pisses me off.

It is a game where you play a ball with your foot. Foot-ball.
It makes sense to use that name for this game, and call "American Football" something like "American Rugby" - or even something original.

It is a game where you play a ball with your foot. Foot-ball.
It makes sense to use that name for this game, and call "American Football" something like "American Rugby" - or even something original.

Just because it doesn't make sense as a name doesn't mean they can't use it. Where I'm from commercial lemonade hasn't been made out of lemons in a long time, are you going to start forcing people to call it flavoured sugar-water?

Just because it doesn't make sense as a name doesn't mean they can't use it. Where I'm from commercial lemonade hasn't been made out of lemons in a long time, are you going to start forcing people to call it flavoured sugar-water?

Depends. Does every other country on the planet call it something like that and does the USA wish to export/import it ?

Depends. Does every other country on the planet call it something like that and does the USA wish to export/import it ?

Hey now. You can't legally call it Lemonade if it lacks lemons. Something about Truth in Advertising Law. Think it's the same with Champagne, Burgundy, and some other stuff involving places with food named after it.

Hey now. You can't legally call it Lemonade if it lacks lemons. Something about Truth in Advertising Law. Think it's the same with Champagne, Burgundy, and some other stuff involving places with food named after it.

Ah but see the thing is. Over here it is lemonade. It actually having lemons would probably be being deceptive. Well unless it's labelled that way but let's not get into that.

You don't like the term "American Football", call it Gridiron. You don't like the term "Football" when used by Europeans/South Americans, call it Soccer, Association Football, European Football, That Sport Where Guys Pretend To Be In Pain. The point is, stop arguing about it! I could be really really spiteful when it comes to the spelling differences between American English and Australian English but I don't, because this is an international message board. I might slip up at times but I shouldn't be calling my way of speaking as "right" because this isn't my country, and outside of my country it isn't.

EDIT: Also the whole Champagne issue is more to do with treaties and trademarks than false advertising.

Football is soccer in the United States. When we are saying soccer, it means European Football. Enough of this petty bickering. It is pointless.

Hey now. You can't legally call it Lemonade if it lacks lemons. Something about Truth in Advertising Law. Think it's the same with Champagne, Burgundy, and some other stuff involving places with food named after it.

True that.
However, the whole issue with soccer, football and American Football is that it makes Americans look stupid. The "American" prefix already indicates that Americans know another type of "football" exists. It also implies that the two sports are similar. Which - obviously - they are not. And in the American version people do not even use their feet to kick a ball that much...

Schematic:
American: Hey - this is a cool sport, Let us call it football !
American 2: That name is already taken by another, quite different, sport where people play the ball with their feet.
American 1: Then let us call it American Football !
American 2: But then people could still confuse it with that other sport
American 1: Well, let us call that soccer then !
American 2: Makes sense !

Yes- Americans have every right to call things whatever they want. But other nations have the right to point fingers and laugh at them when they do.
(And vice versa of course;))

For a second there I thought you were being serious.

I was being completely serious.

The offside rule is designed to make the game more boring and give the officials control over who scores. A play clock would prevent moronic "tactical play" that never results in anything at all (except people leaving the game). Soccer, in it's current form, will never be truly popular in the US, because we already have better, more exciting games.

I'm not sure what it will take, what do you think?Psychopharmica in the water supply?

Take away the hugely gay body pads in American Football, lol as the sport sues itself to oblivion, and then basically - proper football ftw.

Take away the hugely gay body pads in American Football, lol as the sport sues itself to oblivion, and then basically - proper football ftw.

Like I said, it's not just about people slamming into each other, it's also about the countless plays that the coach can use, it's about statistic of a team, player, a combination of players, it's about the match-ups, it's about the fouls, the fumble, it's the game as a whole that draws Americans to it. Tackling is just one aspect of the whole thing.

Like I said, it's not just about people slamming into each other, it's also about the countless plays that the coach can use, it's about statistic of a team, player, a combination of players, it's about the match-ups, it's about the fouls, the fumble, it's the game as a whole that draws Americans to it. Tackling is just one aspect of the whole thing.
It would still die a death without the pads, as the teams would sue each other en masse.

People still get pretty roughed up even with the body pads.
Not to a rugby kind of 'ow, you tore my ear off' kind of standard.
And you do know that using gay as an insult is just stupid, right?
Yes. I do. *shrugs*

It would still die a death without the pads, as the teams would sue each other en masse.

Ok, umm let me ask you this. Football players get hurt all the time on the field, I mean hell last year my team got half of it's first draft hurt and injured, and yet no lawsuit has resulted, so why would that change without the pads?

Take away the hugely gay body pads in American Football, lol as the sport sues itself to oblivion, and then basically - proper football ftw.

People still get pretty roughed up even with the body pads. And you do know that using gay as an insult is just stupid, right?

Ok, umm let me ask you this. Football players get hurt all the time on the field, I mean hell last year my team got half of it's first draft hurt and injured, and yet no lawsuit has resulted, so why would that change without the pads?
Because people would start getting properly injured instead of 'oh, oh my leg! Ooch!' ;)

Because people would start getting properly injured instead of 'oh, oh my leg! Ooch!' ;)

Ok your argument is rejected, next.

Because people would start getting properly injured instead of 'oh, oh my leg! Ooch!' ;)

That was just stupid. End of.

Because people would start getting properly injured instead of 'oh, oh my leg! Ooch!' ;)

So we should go back to the heady days of the early 1900s where the sport was almost banned due to the increasing number of fatalities each year? In 1905 there were 19 fatalities in the US, and there were decidedly fewer players and the NFL players these days are much, much larger and faster.

Ok, umm let me ask you this. Football players get hurt all the time on the field, I mean hell last year my team got half of it's first draft hurt and injured, and yet no lawsuit has resulted, so why would that change without the pads?

Indeed. Do rugby players get sued ?

Indeed. Do rugby players get sued ?

No clue, don't watch rugby.

Not to a rugby kind of 'ow, you tore my ear off' kind of standard.

Yes. I do. *shrugs*

The teams play a game every week. Who can afford injuries like that.

Indeed. Do rugby players get sued ?

Strangely, no. Rugby players tend to conduct themselves with rather more dignity and honour than that.

Strangely, no. Rugby players tend to conduct themselves with rather more dignity and honour than that.

A petition to end violence in western province club rugby (http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-violence-in-western-province-club-rugby.html) is a result of dignity and honour among rugby players?

American football is a sport designed for the American culture. That's why it's popular basically only in the US. Plus, it's a sport designed to hurt. helmets don't always make one a wussy. American football armor is designed only to keep one playing and, after a while, it kinda barely works. Let me tell you something. Knees are among the most easily crippled body parts on the human body. And they don't always heal right.

Yes, the players wear helmets. Why? Because the tackles are designed to hurt. They aren't designed to prevent pain. They are only designed to prevent death.

I can generalize based off of ignorance too. International football is for wussies. All they do is run and kick balls. And the action stops every time someone gets a bruise. Rugby only has wussy tackles. They can't use American football tackles because that would kill the unprotected players. They are unprotected because they are too weak to wear helmets. See? Generalizations. The things you use when you don't really know what you are talking about.

Because it isn't an epic sport full of manliness and win. Seriously, if soccer was played in the mud all the time, and you could tackle, it'd be huge.

Oh, and plus, we don't need anymore big sports here. We have enough.We have American Football, Golf, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey, Hunting, Fishing, Boxing, Wrestling, and if you want to count it Poker.

Speaking of ironing: curling.
I mean really. "Let's push a really heavy rock down this lake and.... SWEEP IN FRONT OF IT."

Hey! How dare you deride curling...it's our national treasure![/sarcasm] Man, of all the sports that get "national coverage" up here, curling is the one that's the most baffling...it's just not entertaining. It's like golf- fun to play but boring to watch...way too much inaction.

Like I said, it's not just about people slamming into each other, it's also about the countless plays that the coach can use, it's about statistic of a team, player, a combination of players, it's about the match-ups, it's about the fouls, the fumble, it's the game as a whole that draws Americans to it. Tackling is just one aspect of the whole thing.

American football is just like chess- only that it hurts a lot more...

Ok, umm let me ask you this. Football players get hurt all the time on the field, I mean hell last year my team got half of it's first draft hurt and injured, and yet no lawsuit has resulted, so why would that change without the pads?

I do think rugby players are tougher than American football players because they do *roughly* the same thing without pads, but I wouldn't go as far as suggest they're not tough themselves- a lot of those collisions would hurt, even with padding.

I was being completely serious.

The offside rule is designed to make the game more boring and give the officials control over who scores. A play clock would prevent moronic "tactical play" that never results in anything at all (except people leaving the game). Soccer, in it's current form, will never be truly popular in the US, because we already have better, more exciting games.

You might succeed in getting a clock in to for the defensive team to get the ball past midfield- "keepaway soccer" is tactically effective but effectively boring, and happens way too often at the World Cup. Offsides could probably be amended, but the rule, in principle, needs to stand- otherwise, we'd have far too many "cherry pickers" and that's far from "ideal" soccer.

A petition to end violence in western province club rugby (http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-violence-in-western-province-club-rugby.html) is a result of dignity and honour among rugby players?

An anomoly, nothing more. Take BOD and Tana Umaga for instance; BOD was nobbled with the most cynical, overt spear tackle seen for years, and yet both have beers together now and confess to being "mates".

I was being completely serious.

The offside rule is designed to make the game more boring and give the officials control over who scores. A play clock would prevent moronic "tactical play" that never results in anything at all (except people leaving the game). Soccer, in it's current form, will never be truly popular in the US, because we already have better, more exciting games.

The offside rule, moron, prevents teams leaving a striker in the penalty area, dropping the rest of the team back, and hitting long balls whenever the opposition attack breaks down. It precludes the game becoming a long ball fest, and thus encourages attacking play so as to create chances.

In any case, "tactical play" is part of the appeal of the game; the plucky FA cup minnows who stave off the attacks of a Premiership big gun; Southend vs. United '06, are no less entertaining than watching Arsenal and Barcelona attack each other for 90 minutes.

Equally, why should the game change to appeal to an audiance you admit lacks the subtlety to grasp anything beyond big bangs, immediate gratification and perpetual excitement? What you laud is not sport as much as it is entertainment, much like the "wrestling" you popularise.

An anomoly, nothing more. Take BOD and Tana Umaga for instance; BOD was nobbled with the most cynical, overt spear tackle seen for years, and yet both have beers together now and confess to being "mates".

I get conflicting stories regarding violence in rugby. There's no Wikipedia page on it, indicating that it might not be *as* serious a problem as violence in hockey (which does have a page), but a Google search on the topic does net quite a few results. Do you know if it's a problem at the highest levels? From what I can tell, there is none.

I get conflicting stories regarding violence in rugby. There's no Wikipedia page on it, indicating that it might not be *as* serious a problem as violence in hockey (which does have a page), but a Google search on the topic does net quite a few results. Do you know if it's a problem at the highest levels? From what I can tell, there is none.

At a professional level, no. Not only are the punishments for genuine violence severe, but the players tend to respect each other as professionals, as far as I can tell.

At an amateur level, I daresay the problem is much the same as amateur football; fans who embrace the percieved violent aspect of the game attempt to replicate it, or simply live out aggressive tendencies on the rugby field.

I get conflicting stories regarding violence in rugby. There's no Wikipedia page on it, indicating that it might not be *as* serious a problem as violence in hockey (which does have a page), but a Google search on the topic does net quite a few results. Do you know if it's a problem at the highest levels? From what I can tell, there is none.

I have question -for you all- regarding Violence in sports,

Do you need violent types in your Team to win the Championship?
Is intimidation a part of the Game (cant win championship without using intimidation)

This question for Hockey, Rugby.. and whatever is your favorite sports.

BTW, When I say "intimidation" I do NOT mean "intimidated by their skill".. I mean The skilled players "playing scared of losing their teeth.. or breaking their bones"

I have question -for you all- regarding Violence in sports,

Do you need violent types in your Team to win the Championship?
Is intimidation a part of the Game (cant win championship without using intimidation)

This question for Hockey, Rugby.. and whatever is your favorite sports.

BTW, When I say "intimidation" I do NOT mean "intimidated by their skill".. I mean The skilled players "playing scared of losing their teeth"

Bollocks. Barcelona have won two La Liga's and a Champion's League playing the following side;

Valdes

Thuram/Belleti - Puyol - Marquez - van Bronkhorst/ Zambrotta

Deco - Marquez/Edmilson/Motta - Xavi/Iniesta

Messi/Giuly - Eto'o - Ronaldinho

Not one of the above is a physically intimidating player; even the holding midfielder, one of Marquez, Edmilson or Motta, is more tactically astute than physically intimidating.

Equally; Australian Cricket team. Of their "great" bowlers of the last few years, none have been a genuine "nasty fasty". McGrath is metronomically accurate, Lee merely quick, Warne a legspinner, and the likes of Gillespie and Kasprovic 85 mph seamers. None of the above present the physical threat that the likes of Lillee, Thommo, Holding, Garner, Walsh, Ambrose or Harmison are able to, yet they have dominated world cricket.

In any case, "tactical play" is part of the appeal of the game; the plucky FA cup minnows who stave off the attacks of a Premiership big gun; Southend vs. United '06, are no less entertaining than watching Arsenal and Barcelona attack each other for 90 minutes.

I understand it's a delicate balance, but you have to admit, "tactical play" is far from exciting soccer. It's one thing to see the likes of Southend United play keepaway to perfection against Manchester United because of the "David vs. Goliath" effect, but when the combatants are equal heavyweights (France vs. Brazil in the '06 World Cup, Argentina vs. Mexico in the '07 U-20 tournament), it's just not interesting. On one hand, you to make sure the games don't degenerate into a haphazard, non-stop "blur" of chances, but on the other hand, you do want to encourage attacking soccer. The clock idea- at least in terms of getting the ball to midfield- might be a good way to counteract this, but maybe the international knockout tournaments- the worst culprit in terms of "defence-first soccer"- could be amended to have two-legged ties instead of single-game elimination, because that would encourage goals. It might mean that some of the underdogs won't win as much as they used to, but at least it might allow the skilled players to really display what they've got, which is what we're supposed to be watching, anyway.

Barcelona have won two La Liga's and a Champion's League playing the following side;

Valdes

Thuram/Belleti - Puyol - Marquez - van Bronkhorst/ Zambrotta

Deco - Marquez/Edmilson/Motta - Xavi/Iniesta

Messi/Giuly - Eto'o - Ronaldinho

Not one of the above is a physically intimidating player; even the holding midfielder, one of Marquez, Edmilson or Motta, is more tactically astute than physically intimidating.

Equally; Australian Cricket team. Of their "great" bowlers of the last few years, none have been a genuine "nasty fasty". McGrath is metronomically accurate, Lee merely quick, Warne a legspinner, and the likes of Gillespie and Kasprovic 85 mph seamers. None of the above present the physical threat that the likes of Lillee, Thommo, Holding, Garner, Walsh, Ambrose or Harmison are able to, yet they have dominated world cricket.So -apparently- Football and Cricket do not encourage violence.

Bollocks.No thanks.

I understand it's a delicate balance, but you have to admit, "tactical play" is far from exciting soccer. It's one thing to see the likes of Southend United play keepaway to perfection against Manchester United because of the "David vs. Goliath" effect, but when the combatants are equal heavyweights (France vs. Brazil in the '06 World Cup, Argentina vs. Mexico in the '07 U-20 tournament), it's just not interesting. On one hand, you to make sure the games don't degenerate into a haphazard, non-stop "blur" of chances, but on the other hand, you do want to encourage attacking soccer. The clock idea- at least in terms of getting the ball to midfield- might be a good way to counteract this, but maybe the international knockout tournaments- the worst culprit in terms of "defence-first soccer"- could be amended to have two-legged ties instead of single-game elimination, because that would encourage goals. It might mean that some of the underdogs won't win as much as they used to, but at least it might allow the skilled players to really display what they've got, which is what we're supposed to be watching, anyway.

Mentality changes from era to era; if you seek to understand why football appears defensive in the modern era, it is because defensive football is de rigeur. The coaches to have emerged in the past 5 years, with the exception of Rjikaard, are all primarily defensive coaches, just as the coaches of a generation previous; Keegan, Ferguson, Wenger, Schuster and van Gaal, were primarily attacking in instinct.

There is little point introducing artificial, frankly american "clocks" and the like to counteract this; it is in overcoming defensive teams, in being a shining light in a mire of Bolton's and Lille's, that the likes of Barcelona, United and Arsebal demonstrate their quality.

I have question -for you all- regarding Violence in sports,

Do you need violent types in your Team to win the Championship?
Is intimidation a part of the Game (cant win championship without using intimidation)

This question for Hockey, Rugby.. and whatever is your favorite sports.

BTW, When I say "intimidation" I do NOT mean "intimidated by their skill".. I mean The skilled players "playing scared of losing their teeth.. or breaking their bones"

I think sometimes violence does play a part in American Football when trying to gain the upper hand. The first time the Carolina Panthers made it to the Playoffs, they tackled and knocked out the opposing team QB, and the back up QB didn't do so well, which lead to a victory for the Carolina Panthers and a ticket to the Super Bowl. I forgot what team it was, this was the playoff that led them to face off the Patriots in the Super Bowl.

I think sometimes violence does play a part in American Football when trying to gain the upper hand. The first time the Carolina Panthers made it to the Playoffs, they tackled and knocked out the opposing team QB, and the back up QB didn't do so well, which lead to a victory for the Carolina Panthers and a ticket to the Super Bowl. I forgot what team it was, this was the playoff that led them to face off the Patriots in the Super Bowl.I would say the Patriots are an intimidating team.

my opinion it is.

Bollocks. Barcelona have won two La Liga's and a Champion's League playing the following side;

Valdes

Thuram/Belleti - Puyol - Marquez - van Bronkhorst/ Zambrotta

Deco - Marquez/Edmilson/Motta - Xavi/Iniesta

Messi/Giuly - Eto'o - Ronaldinho

Not one of the above is a physically intimidating player; even the holding midfielder, one of Marquez, Edmilson or Motta, is more tactically astute than physically intimidating.

Equally; Australian Cricket team. Of their "great" bowlers of the last few years, none have been a genuine "nasty fasty". McGrath is metronomically accurate, Lee merely quick, Warne a legspinner, and the likes of Gillespie and Kasprovic 85 mph seamers. None of the above present the physical threat that the likes of Lillee, Thommo, Holding, Garner, Walsh, Ambrose or Harmison are able to, yet they have dominated world cricket.

Well, to be fair, Barcelona's 2006 UEFA Champions League triumph didn't feature either Lilliam Thuram or Gianluca Zambrotta- both players were acquired in the 2006 off-season from Juventus after the Turin club were convicted of match-fixing (Oleguer and Giovanni von Bronckhorst featured in their roles in that game). However, you are right- the top soccer clubs can and do win without physical intimidation- AC Milan may have won this year with the likes of Gennaro Gattuso (who'll turn you inside out if given the opportunity), but Milan also won with the tactical nous of Andrea Pirlo and Massimo Ambrosini, as well as the skill of Kaka. Hockey's Carolina Hurricanes won the 2006 Stanley Cup with speed and skill, and the Ottawa Senators, Buffalo Sabres (who won the regular season title) and Detroit Red Wings all advanced deep into the playoffs with the same setup this year; and the Anaheim Ducks, labelled as a "physical team", wouldn't have won the 2007 Cup without the sharp-shooting and passing capabilities of Teemu Selanne and Andy MacDonald, as well as the tactical proficiency of Samuel Pahlsson (the Ducks' unsung hero) and Rob Niedermayer. Brute strength isn't everything.

At a professional level, no. Not only are the punishments for genuine violence severe, but the players tend to respect each other as professionals, as far as I can tell.

At an amateur level, I daresay the problem is much the same as amateur football; fans who embrace the percieved violent aspect of the game attempt to replicate it, or simply live out aggressive tendencies on the rugby field.

I have question -for you all- regarding Violence in sports,

Do you need violent types in your Team to win the Championship?
Is intimidation a part of the Game (cant win championship without using intimidation)

This question for Hockey, Rugby.. and whatever is your favorite sports.

BTW, When I say "intimidation" I do NOT mean "intimidated by their skill".. I mean The skilled players "playing scared of losing their teeth.. or breaking their bones"

I, for one, are actually one of the (seemingly) few hockey fans who'd love to see much of the violent aspects of hockey taken out of the game- I've seen enough Marty McSorelys, Bryan Marchments, Chris Simons, Todd Bertuzzis Cam Janssens et all that I think it's time to say "enough is enough". Those are just some of the dirty players that have (dis)graced the National Hockey League- there's far more who still, unfortunately, play the game. However, the reaction from most hockey fans is not to really look at the game and see what they ought to do to change the rules to really stop this garbage but to call out for the individual player's head while, at the same time, implicitly approving of it because of the silly notion that hockey has to be a caveman competition to be successful entertainment. Don't get me wrong- I don't believe "physical intimidation" needs to be wiped out completely from hockey (or any other sport for that uses it, for that matter) because it can and does serve a purpose- psychologically as well as being able to take away or retain possession of the puck or ball, which is what should be the focus anyway. It just shouldn't get to the point where players have to "kill each other"- the focus should be on gaining possession in order to score, nothing else.

As far as my query about rugby goes (thanks, the blessed Chris)- I heard far too many hockey airheads say that "fighting (i.e., violence) needs to 'remain in the game' because hockey is the toughest sport in the world". Rugby is FAR tougher, and if professional rugby players can put a lid on their emotions and not violently retaliate, then hockey players can do the same thing. I just hope hockey people can realize that before a superstar player is killed on the ice because of some big bonehead "trying to send a message" because that, unfortunately, is where hockey is headed- and where it doesn't have to go.

Mentality changes from era to era; if you seek to understand why football appears defensive in the modern era, it is because defensive football is de rigeur. The coaches to have emerged in the past 5 years, with the exception of Rjikaard, are all primarily defensive coaches, just as the coaches of a generation previous; Keegan, Ferguson, Wenger, Schuster and van Gaal, were primarily attacking in instinct.

There is little point introducing artificial, frankly american "clocks" and the like to counteract this; it is in overcoming defensive teams, in being a shining light in a mire of Bolton's and Lille's, that the likes of Barcelona, United and Arsebal demonstrate their quality.

The question is, though, "how far in defence do you want to go before it becomes 'too much'?" I'll agree that we probably don't need "clocks"- there are other solutions as I suggested before (like two legs in international knockouts) that would remedy the situation and could be implemented that would be far less "disruptive"- but I do think we're at the point (or dangerously close to that point) where something has to be done, at least on the international level (club level seems fine). After being bored to tears watching World Cup '06, the last thing I want is to see World Cup '10 degenerate into the same morass.

Equally, why should the game change to appeal to an audiance you admit lacks the subtlety to grasp anything beyond big bangs, immediate gratification and perpetual excitement? What you laud is not sport as much as it is entertainment, much like the "wrestling" you popularise.

Because that was the question of the op.

At least one more World Cup. American kids (at least the ones I hung out with at the time, so at least Jewish American kids) payed attention to the World Cup. With luck, next World Cup will attract plenty of attention.

The next stage, once soccer becomes popular among American youth, is to bring soccer into the mainstream media. I can think of two ways. One would be for the US to win the World Cup. However, this is not likely.

The other way, which has a much better chance of happening, would be for the US to host the World Cup. While there is the disadvantage of soccer not being very popular, the US has hosted plenty of Olympics, and offers some interesting possibilities. One would be for the entire US to host the Olympics - spreading the games across the country. Perhaps the tournament could be organized regionally - each set would play in a different region.

The other possibility is for one or more states to host the Olympics. California, possessing an internationally-known soccer player and several large cities, seems a good choice.

Oh, and to avoid confusion, I use the terms 'soccer' and 'American football' rather than 'football'.

American football is just like chess- only that it hurts a lot more...

From what I've seen I'd say it's more like battle. Only it hurts a lot less. Chess is fundamentally different to your football.

Depends. Does every other country on the planet call it something like that and does the USA wish to export/import it ?

As long as this arrogant kind of attitude keeps up, the USA isn't going to be importing much Association Football.

Look, does it really matter that we call it different things? We say things differently all the time.

I enjoy American Football more than Association Football. That doesn't mean I think that nobody should enjoy the latter or even enjoy it more than the former. It's for fun. Do what works for you. They're just sports, shouldn't really be a big deal.

The next stage, once soccer becomes popular among American youth, is to bring soccer into the mainstream media. I can think of two ways. One would be for the US to win the World Cup. However, this is not likely.

About the same as the Americans winning the Gold Medal in 1980 while defeating the Soviet Union in the Semi's. The odds of that are about the same. Never say never. The US will win the World Cup one of these days and when they do, there will be a movie made :D

The other way, which has a much better chance of happening, would be for the US to host the World Cup.

US did host the world cup in 1994. Did not do much.

While there is the disadvantage of soccer not being very popular, the US has hosted plenty of Olympics, and offers some interesting possibilities. One would be for the entire US to host the Olympics - spreading the games across the country. Perhaps the tournament could be organized regionally - each set would play in a different region.

Good luck with that. I do not believe the IOC would go for that.

The other possibility is for one or more states to host the Olympics. California, possessing an internationally-known soccer player and several large cities, seems a good choice.

As does Florida, Texas, Colorado, Pennsylvania, New York, etc.

At least one more World Cup. American kids (at least the ones I hung out with at the time, so at least Jewish American kids) payed attention to the World Cup. With luck, next World Cup will attract plenty of attention.

The next stage, once soccer becomes popular among American youth, is to bring soccer into the mainstream media. I can think of two ways. One would be for the US to win the World Cup. However, this is not likely.

The other way, which has a much better chance of happening, would be for the US to host the World Cup. While there is the disadvantage of soccer not being very popular, the US has hosted plenty of Olympics, and offers some interesting possibilities. One would be for the entire US to host the Olympics - spreading the games across the country. Perhaps the tournament could be organized regionally - each set would play in a different region.

The other possibility is for one or more states to host the Olympics. California, possessing an internationally-known soccer player and several large cities, seems a good choice.

Oh, and to avoid confusion, I use the terms 'soccer' and 'American football' rather than 'football'.

The US is thinking of bidding for either 2014 or 2018.

Converting it to this (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC5ykhXDDbo&feature=dir) would make it much more popular i'm sure

The US is thinking of bidding for either 2014 or 2018.

Chicago won the US 2014 bid I believe.

Chicago won the US 2014 bid I believe.

They did.

Chicago won the US 2014 bid I believe.

They did.

I meant World Cup. Sorry.

I meant World Cup. Sorry.

Sorry

From what I've seen I'd say it's more like battle. Only it hurts a lot less. Chess is fundamentally different to your football.

First of all, I wouldn't say my analogy would be 100% accurate, but I think it's still reasonably close. The concepts are still the same- in both games, you have to make the right move to get the edge. The only differences, really, are that in chess you can lose "players" (the pieces) and in American football you don't and that in American football both "players" (the coaches) make their moves simultaneously while in chess you don't. However, in both games the action is not "continuous" and the action is determined by what move the players/coaches make- in chess, you have to decide whether or not to lead an attack with the rook or knight, use the pawns as a "defensive shell" or bring out the queen (just as a few possible options) and in football, you have to decide, on offence, between running up the middle and "eating the game" or a long pass for a quick score or, on defence, between throwing so many defenders to "rush" the quarterback so he doesn't have the time to make a great throw or having several defenders cover his receivers so the quarterback doesn't have someone to throw to. The structure is a bit different (and more painful) but the concept of "making the right move" remains.

About the same as the Americans winning the Gold Medal in 1980 while defeating the Soviet Union in the Semi's. The odds of that are about the same. Never say never. The US will win the World Cup one of these days and when they do, there will be a movie made :D

Well, the 1960 and 1980 victories did inspire quite a few American youths to pick up the game and give the U.S. a good contingent of hockey players- they have quite a few stars (Chris Drury, Brian Rafalski, Scott Gomez, Rick DiPietro, Ryan Miller, Chris Chelios, etc.)- they just lack a superstar of the calibre of Sidney Crosby or Peter Forsberg. There is *some* interest in the game as a result of those victories, but the real reason for the dearth in hockey interest south of the 49th parallel has more to do with misguided marketing, the National Hockey League refusing to deal with its games' barbaric atmosphere (which has made it the subject of ridicule) and, probably most importantly, the lack of continued American success. Americans just won't watch a sport they only win "once in a while"- they want to make sure they're always a contender, not the underdogs.

A World Cup win by the U.S. would provide the same result- a short-lived spate of interest in the game which would dissipate if the results are not continuous. Once the American team gets to the level of Italy or Brazil- contenders every year- then you'll see wider interest in the sport.

US did host the world cup in 1994. Did not do much.

It did foster the creation of Major League Soccer and has led to the American team becoming more competitive in international soccer- where they were once minnows the team can now boast a few world-class players of their own (DaMarcus Beasley, Kasey Keller) and some decent players that probably won't be able to beat the soccer powerhouses but could give them a hard time. Attendances, while still well below the other four major North American sports, are respectable (MLS is the 12th most-attended soccer league in the world) and more kids are playing the game in both Canada and the U.S. You are right, the 1994 World Cup didn't do a lot, but it did do something.

Getting rid of the already present popular national sports, nothing short of that will succeed in making Soccer popular in the US.

Getting rid of the already present popular national sports, nothing short of that will succeed in making Soccer popular in the US.

Right. And how would you propose this?

Anyway, at least there already is a market for soccer (as evidenced by a spot on ESPN), so it has something going for it. By the by, why does the U.S. necessarily need soccer as a popular sport to begin with? The popularity of a sport is decided by (duh) the popularity of it among the nation, and, currently, the vast majority of people I've talked to about the subject say that soccer is too low scoring and not fast-paced enough.

Granted, neither is American football or baseball, but the fact still remains - a good majority of Americans, I believe, feel that soccer is too slow to be enjoyable.

However, there IS a growing market for the sport, just don't expect it to gain hysterical popularity after ESPN airs the World Cup.