Will soccer league ever be big in North America?

Wow CJ my hat's off to you, refereeing is a very thankless task.

I used to play in a soccer league where players from a neutral team reffed. I was running a line for a game that involved a latino team when I saw a fight break out between three players. I started to run towards it to break it up but as I got closer I realised all three players played for the latino team!

Sorry about the link Jane, A2K stuck the full stop into the URL here it is again: http://www.ausport.gov.au/ethics/codeparent.asp

0 Replies

Well, then we have something to look forward to cj.
As it is now, the hispanic teams beat our girls every time,
and they are not necessarily taller but so much bulkier
than our kids and ours get intimidated when one of the
little bulky children starts heading towards them. They
get frightened.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

In order to fit soccer into the scene, it now needs to be perceived as a better alternative than an established sport (most likely baseball, since, in the US, soccer plays its season in the summer)...

So if soccer is to catch on, it needs to draw fans away from baseball...

Frankly, I think that's because many people find soccer a much more enjoyable game to play than to watch (I feel the same way about golf and bowling)...

In any event, soccer needs to put a product out there that will turn baseball fans into soccer fans. So far, and for whatever reason, soccer has failed to do that.

A well-put set of arguements, Joe. I have a few questions in response, if I may.

Which day of the week is baseball normally played on? Here, the majority of league games are on Saturday, with Sunday coming second and a few on week-nights, usually because of a cup match on the weekend. I was wondering if there is room in the scheduling for football* and baseball?

Would it be a problem with getting audiences at the stadiums, or TV audiences? The TV companies here have to limit the number of live games that they show (usually one on Sat and one on Sun, for the Premiership), the arguement from the Football Association being that less people would attend live games if more were on the TV. The big teams still collect large sums of money from Sky even when the games are shown on the TV, so I can't see the problem here.

If more football* was shown on TV (either live or extended highlights), would more people watch it, or would they be watching baseball on the other channel? Is it a true chicken-and-egg situation?

Another thing that occurred to me is just how different football* and baseball are, as games. Would this difference mean that "US-football" fans might like to watch another "ball-sport", rather than a "ball-and-bat-sport"? It does happen here that football* fans tend often (but not always) not to watch much cricket (our equivalent of baseball, I suppose), and vice-versa.

Just wonderin'...

0 Replies

Grand Duke wrote:

Which day of the week is baseball normally played on? Here, the majority of league games are on Saturday, with Sunday coming second and a few on week-nights, usually because of a cup match on the weekend. I was wondering if there is room in the scheduling for football* and baseball?

Major league baseball teams play 162 games in a season, which lasts from the beginning of April to the beginning of October (not counting post-season). So baseball isn't like (American) football, where the teams play once a week. During the baseball season, there are only three days when there are no games scheduled. You can look at the team schedules here.

Grand Duke wrote:

Would it be a problem with getting audiences at the stadiums, or TV audiences? The TV companies here have to limit the number of live games that they show (usually one on Sat and one on Sun, for the Premiership), the arguement from the Football Association being that less people would attend live games if more were on the TV. The big teams still collect large sums of money from Sky even when the games are shown on the TV, so I can't see the problem here.

I don't think that any professional soccer team uses a stadium that is also used by a major-league baseball team. The Chicago Sting, of the defunct North American Soccer League (NASL), played, at one time or another, in both baseball stadiums in Chicago, but the current Chicago pro soccer team (the Fire) has its home games elsewhere. And there's a move now to build soccer-only stadiums (like in Columbus, Ohio). So there shouldn't be too much problem making stadiums available for soccer games (heck, we hosted the World Cup without too much trouble).

Likewise, with the proliferation of cable sports programming, getting games on tv shouldn't be a big problem -- as long as it proved to be commercially feasible to broadcast the games. Of course, it might be difficult to convince people to switch from watching baseball to watching soccer, but if that's what the people want then television networks will undoubtedly accomodate them.

Grand Duke wrote:

If more football* was shown on TV (either live or extended highlights), would more people watch it, or would they be watching baseball on the other channel? Is it a true chicken-and-egg situation?

I think it's a chicken-egg conundrum. Does increased television coverage create more fans, or do more fans lead to increased television coverage? The economics, however, point to the latter: there won't be more tv coverage until more people show a desire to watch soccer on tv.

Grand Duke wrote:

Another thing that occurred to me is just how different football* and baseball are, as games. Would this difference mean that "US-football" fans might like to watch another "ball-sport", rather than a "ball-and-bat-sport"? It does happen here that football* fans tend often (but not always) not to watch much cricket (our equivalent of baseball, I suppose), and vice-versa.

I'm not sure. A lot of baseball fans are also (American) football fans (I prefer baseball and hockey to football, but I enjoy watching college football). Baseball, because it's an everyday event, may not leave a lot of room for another sport. Despite its popularity, (American) football has never succeeded as a summer game, possibly for this reason.

0 Replies

Arena (american) football picks up where the NFL leaves off. The thing is though, outside of the home city, or HDNet, arena football gets almost no coverage. Played on a tiny field with padded walls on both sides, it is a high scoring, speed fueled event.

0 Replies

In the 40s and 50s baseball was more popular in Mexico than football.
In the late forties the Mexican Baseball League was almost as tough as MLB (the famous Pasquel raid attracted stars with bundles of dollars).
When the racial barrier was broken in the US, it meant that many black players -both Latin Americans and US Americans- who would otherwise play in Mexico went to the Majors.

Football was popular, but smallish in comparison.
But on the late 50s, a small soccer club owner, Guillermo Cañedo made an alliance with TV tycoon Emilio Azcárraga to promote the sport widely on television. The biggest TV network bought a team, Club America. They took control of the Football Federation.
They decided that football games would be played at 12:00 noon on sundays, to avoid competition with bullfighting (held, traditionally, at 4 p.m.). It was a mega-cheap TV time slot back then. And started to promote heavily the network's team.
Cañedo and Azcárraga created a consortium with the owners of other two Mexico City football teams (the electric workers' union and a retired general) and propagandized thoughly the construction of the Azteca Stadium, selling lifetime tickets and "palcos" (practically, small apartments inside the stadium).
Their big investment paid off handily.

This had it's drawbacks. For almost three decades, the main TV network practically controlled football in Mexico. It was some sort of a dictatorship, favoring Club America (yuck!) and commercializing excessively the sport.

When I was a child, in the 60s, a football ticket cost one tenth of a baseball ticket. Now it's slightly more expensive.
Back then, open TV transmitted a little league game on saturday mornings and a Mexican baseball league game on saturday afternoons, the soccer game on sunday noon and the bullfights on sunday afternoon.
Now, open TV transmits, every week, about 6 Mexican league football fames, plus one Spanish league game, one Libertadores Cup game, one UEFA Champions' League game, and all of the Mexican team friendlies and qualifiers. It only transmits daily highlights of MLB and the Baseball World Series. The Mexican Baseball League, all majors before October, the Pacific League (winter) and the Caribbean Series are all on cable. [57% of Mexican families do not have cable]. On cable you can watch soccer all day and night long. Hour after hour after hour. You can watch a qualifier Slovenia against Czech Republic, you can watch the Chilean league, you can watch the Totocup, the Mexican second division, the goals on the Honduras league, the African Cup... even MLS (I think).

So, how can football defeat baseball in the US? With money, publicity and diffussion (and perhaps a baseball players' strike, like we had in baseball on 1980). With a sinergy between club owners and media owners.
It's not simple at all, we're talking about the biggest economy in the world and the biggestest entertainment industry. They'd need to lose megabucks for several years before the investment pays off.

0 Replies

Fbaezer, thanks for that history of football in Mexico, very interesting. I still say the organisation and promotion of the game depends largely on the receptiveness of the audience. In Australia there is an audience but the management of the game has always been woeful (but seems to be changing).

Any Americans know where soccer ranks in terms of participation across all age groups and genders? It's near the top in Oz, but it doesn't get the TV ratings or crowds of other sports, due to it's poor management. And in Mexico in the 50s, FB, you say baseball was more popular, but do you mean as a television sport or as a participation sport.

If participation is high then you've got an audience and a certain kind of management/promotion can translate that into a successful TV product. If participation is low the game needs a different type of management, aimed at promoting participation.

That's a bit simplistic but it's a starting point.

0 Replies

hingehead wrote:

. And in Mexico in the 50s, FB, you say baseball was more popular, but do you mean as a television sport or as a participation sport.

Honestly, I don't know for sure. I wasn't there (or I was very very small). Certainly it was much bigger than today, in both senses: participation (amateur leagues), attendance (full stadiums) and media (TV, a lot of baseball radio, back then, and in the 60s; and also several baseball films).
Football was popular too, both in participation and attendance. The media push made it intensely popular. And the media pull hurt baseball.
This means, of course, that the drive to make football massive had a good starting point.
From what you say, this could also be true for Australia.

According to the last specialized poll, in september 2004, 85% of Mexicans like sports. Among them, 41% prefer football (soccer), and baseball & basketball are tied in second place with 10%. That's terrible news for baseball, because basketball is less watched but more practiced, since there is less investment for a basketball court than for a baseball diamond. Athletics, swimming, American football, tennis and weightlifting follow in that order as favorite sports.
Is there a similar poll in other countries?

0 Replies

fbaezer: I think the Mexican example demonstrates my point: in order to succeed in the US, soccer needs to convert baseball fans into soccer fans. In Mexico, that's exactly what appears to have happened. Unfortunately for soccer in the US, there isn't the same kind of media monopoly here that can push baseball coverage aside in favor of soccer.

0 Replies

Not to mention baseball's 'national game' status in the US where it also has a cultural role, a bit like cricket in Australia. Different football codes are followed in different states but every Aussie watches the cricket.

0 Replies

Maybe I've been thinking about this the wrong way. If anyone asked me why American rules football, ice hockey or even basketball, weren't very popular in Britain, I'd have to say it's because football, rugby union/league and cricket take up most of our time, money and TV slots. Why change to US-rules when we have football* & rugby? Why change to baseball when we have cricket?

Interesting, I think, that many discussions about the future of football* in the US (even here in A2K) descend into comments about the average American's "need for action", and "love of statistics", which some feel football* lacks, that perhaps there is a psychological reason behind it, rather than simple history and economics.

* Soccer

0 Replies

Grand Duke wrote:

Interesting, I think, that many discussions about the future of football* in the US (even here in A2K) descend into comments about the average American's "need for action", and "love of statistics", which some feel football* lacks, that perhaps there is a psychological reason behind it, rather than simple history and economics.

Well, I'm already on record as calling soccer "mind-numbingly dull," and I think a lot of Americans share my viewpoint. But then I also find basketball mind-numbingly dull and I'm constantly amazed by its popularity in this country, so I may not be the most acute observer. Soccer, rightly or wrongly, carries that stigma in the US, and it will need to get over that bias if it can hope to become a major sport.

0 Replies

I went to my daughter's 7th grade soccer game last night and it was far from dull. More like non-stop action. These girls were beating the crap out of each other.

We won, 1-0. Smile

0 Replies

"There is, too, the problem of the frequency with which football matches end in a draw. Americans want conclusive results from their games."

That quote from your link caught my eye. Does it hold true with you, Joe? As far as you can speak for an entire nation, is it the mind-set of the average American that they NEED to have a winner and a loser? They just can't handle that the teams played equally well, or that one team played betetr but was thwarted by near-misses and/or bad refereeing decisions?

There must be no hope for cricket to ever become popular in the US, when a test match can be played all day for 5 days and still end as a draw!

The fact is, for football* fans, the fact that goals are relatively rare means that they are more special, and worth waiting for. They are often remembered for years to come.

0 Replies

cjhsa - Even without knowing anything about the match, I can totally understand what sort of game you watched. The end-to-end action, the near-misses, the sweet through-ball which cuts the defence like a knife but ends up in the keeper's arms are what makes the game so good.

0 Replies

Exactly. My daugter was also matched up against a girl from her club team and gave her a thorough lesson. Wink

0 Replies

Exactly, GD! What's great about soccer is its fluidity ... its constant motion ... its subtlety. But Joe is probably correct, and the majority of Americans do not understand soccer on the level to appreciate a great one-touch, brilliant through runs, and superb tackles. A draw can be an incredible game ... but if you don't understand the game very well, you don't appreciate all that, and only look for "results." Americans are conditioned to expect these "results." That is what you get with basketball, and to a lesser degree, baseball and football. Even with those latter two you have "mini-results" to accomplish along the way to a touchdown//run (e.g., 1st, 2nd, 3rd bases/downs).

0 Replies

Grand Duke wrote:

"There is, too, the problem of the frequency with which football matches end in a draw. Americans want conclusive results from their games."

That quote from your link caught my eye. Does it hold true with you, Joe? As far as you can speak for an entire nation, is it the mind-set of the average American that they NEED to have a winner and a loser? They just can't handle that the teams played equally well, or that one team played betetr but was thwarted by near-misses and/or bad refereeing decisions?

I have no problems with ties, but then I'm probably not typical of the average sports fan. I think, however, that ties should be broken by using the same rules as in the regular game. Baseball, pro football, basketball, and NHL hockey currently have tie-breakers that simply extend the regular game into overtime (although football and hockey have the team that scores first win). To my mind, that's the way it should be done. I absolutely hate the way that college football breaks ties, and I equally hate the way that minor-league hockey relies on the shootout to break ties. And the same goes for soccer shootouts. It's like playing a regular game, and then playing an entirely different game to decide who wins.

But, as I said, I'm probably not typical. I think the majority of American fans want a winner and a loser.

Grand Duke wrote:

There must be no hope for cricket to ever become popular in the US, when a test match can be played all day for 5 days and still end as a draw!

There are dozens of reasons why cricket will never become popular in the US. That's just one of them.

Grand Duke wrote:

The fact is, for football* fans, the fact that goals are relatively rare means that they are more special, and worth waiting for. They are often remembered for years to come.

Well, dramatic moments in sports are remembered for years to come, regardless of the ease with which teams score. Bobby Thompson's home run in the 1951 National League playoff (the "shot heard round the world") came in a game that ended with the score of 5-4. Doug Flutie's "Hail Mary pass" against Miami came in the closing seconds of a game that ended up 47-45. Sports create their own drama and their own unforgettable moments, regardless of the final score.

0 Replies

The proper term isn't "shootout", it's called "kicks from the penalty mark", typically only used after an overtime period of sudden death, or "golden goal". At least if you play by FIFA rules.

0 Replies

I wanted to pick up on Tico's point about appreciating the finer points of a sport. I really think to have a real appreciation you have to have played the sport, which is why I think it will eventually succeed in the US, because enough people play it.

I agree with Joe about basketball - I say give both teams 100 points and start one minute from the end. And I've played basketball.

I've watched baseball and I think it's incredibly dull compared to cricket, especially the 50 over matches. But some of the reasons I prefer cricket, more action, more hitting, much higher scores, are precisely the reasons that American Football is seen as better than soccer. Which leads me to conclude that higher scores are irrelevant. You just got to have some emotional investment in the sport you're watching - for example watching your favourite team, or your national team.

Damn, if I watch a game of anything I always pick a team to favour for that game if my team isn't playing.

Hey, has anyone ever been converted to a sport? Which one and why?

There was a time when I could take or leave rugby union, but the success of the Australian team in the 1990s and the formation of the ACT Brumbies for the Super 12, and the amazing way they play(ed), has me as a convert and armchair expert, having only ever played one muck around game in P.E. about 30 years ago and not understanding anything about it.

0 Replies

Will soccer league ever be big in North America?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know