Football in the United States (1 Viewer)

Elnur_E65

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2004
10,848
#1
US soccer has been progressing rapidly over the years, especially with the start of MLS. They are going to add two new teams in a year or so.

Soccer is very popular with youth and quite strong on the college level. But there is still not much interest in this game. I saw MLS commitioner on BBC couple of weeks ago. He said that the average annual salary for MLS players is $120,000. Pretty far from Europe.

There is by far much more money in baseball, football and basketball. Last month the NY Yankees bought somebody from Texas, and the deal was worth something like $220 million over 3 years. Increadible amounts.

Will US soccer ever get to an high level? With drums, painted faces and fans travelling to support their teams?
 
Jul 12, 2002
5,666
#4
++ [ originally posted by Pendir ] ++
US soccer has been progressing rapidly over the years, especially with the start of MLS. They are going to add two new teams in a year or so.

Soccer is very popular with youth and quite strong on the college level. But there is still not much interest in this game. I saw MLS commitioner on BBC couple of weeks ago. He said that the average annual salary for MLS players is $120,000. Pretty far from Europe.

There is by far much more money in baseball, football and basketball. Last month the NY Yankees bought somebody from Texas, and the deal was worth something like $220 million over 3 years. Increadible amounts.

Will US soccer ever get to an high level? With drums, painted faces and fans travelling to support their teams?
Probably not, but Soccer (as they call it) may at some point be a serious sport there. The fan base is growing, but they are going to have to get over their fixation with women's soccer, because it's really going nowhere.
 
Jan 7, 2004
29,704
#5
++ [ originally posted by Ian ] ++


Probably not, but Soccer (as they call it) may at some point be a serious sport there. The fan base is growing, but they are going to have to get over their fixation with women's soccer, because it's really going nowhere.

wouldnt put it in better words
 

gray

Senior Member
Moderator
Apr 22, 2003
30,077
#6
I think the reason why soccer hasn't been as popular in the US is because Americans watch sports that are tailor-made for them. They can't be buggered watching 90 minutes + extra time, so they'd rather tune into the last ten seconds of a basketball match; I mean, that's the most important part, and you don't even need to see the rest of the match to be able to speak to your mates about it at the pub after the game.

That sounded fairly judgmental, but i think it's not far from the truth
 
Jul 12, 2002
5,666
#7
++ [ originally posted by Graham ] ++
I think the reason why soccer hasn't been as popular in the US is because Americans watch sports that are tailor-made for them. They can't be buggered watching 90 minutes + extra time, so they'd rather tune into the last ten seconds of a basketball match; I mean, that's the most important part, and you don't even need to see the rest of the match to be able to speak to your mates about it at the pub after the game.

That sounded fairly judgmental, but i think it's not far from the truth
Fairly judgemental? I think that footy isn't popular in the US because they've always had their own sports: Football, baseball, basketball, hockey. All those sports started in N. America and they like their own sports.
 

gray

Senior Member
Moderator
Apr 22, 2003
30,077
#8
What I meant is that football doesn't look like catching on, simply because it's not the same style of sport as those which already exist in the US, with the exception of hockey maybe.

I'm not sitting in a high-chair in some country where soccer is the #1 sport and looking down upon Americans or anything, I just felt that the situation was similar to Australia, where there are already established sports, and the mentality about soccer is that the only people who play it are "Sheilas, wogs and poofters". That's not a racist or sexist remark on my part, it's a term coined by Aussie soccer commentators
 
Jul 12, 2002
5,666
#9
++ [ originally posted by Graham ] ++
What I meant is that football doesn't look like catching on, simply because it's not the same style of sport as those which already exist in the US, with the exception of hockey maybe.

I'm not sitting in a high-chair in some country where soccer is the #1 sport and looking down upon Americans or anything, I just felt that the situation was similar to Australia, where there are already established sports, and the mentality about soccer is that the only people who play it are "Sheilas, wogs and poofters". That's not a racist or sexist remark on my part, it's a term coined by Aussie soccer commentators
Australia is better than America in terms of footy, but it's still not good.
 

Majed

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,630
#10
i agree Ian that we have to get over the fixiation with women's soccer.

anyhow, I think it's improving at a reasonable rate... more and more now, i see little kids with Manu, Real Madrid, and Arsenal kits in the malls and stuff.

Many people see that it's only a kids game here, but in 15 years, these kids will grow up loving the game... It's more realistic to target the younger generation to get them hooked on soccer just to build a solid base for supporters. It's great to see all these soccer acadimies everywhere now. I've also seen really really good young teams. technical skills and all. I like nike's commercial campaign that tries to push soccer away from the field/organizedl sport, to a more street and casual sport. It's still too organized here, but it's getting better.

anyway, I think older generations are also opening their eyes to the beautiful game. In my City, there are quite a few city-wide leagues in addition to inter-college and inter-highschool competitions. Indoor facilities are being built too. I only see improvement.

I really see our national team winning the World cup within 20 years. all the resources are there and there's the growing popularity...i dont see what could stop us.
 

gray

Senior Member
Moderator
Apr 22, 2003
30,077
#11
++ [ originally posted by Majed ] ++

I really see our national team winning the World cup within 20 years. all the resources are there and there's the growing popularity...i dont see what could stop us.
Plus the US has the advantage of sheer numbers. Out of all those people, surely they can produce at least 11 good footballers
 

Majed

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,630
#12
++ [ originally posted by Graham ] ++


Plus the US has the advantage of sheer numbers. Out of all those people, surely they can produce at least 11 good footballers
yeah, that's inculded in "resources," but thanks for stressing it anyway.
 

gray

Senior Member
Moderator
Apr 22, 2003
30,077
#13
Oh i thought u meant the money for facilities, land for football fields and advertising power ;) Saying humans are resources is a bit crude, isn't it? :LOL: Reminds me of the Matrix :p
 
Jul 12, 2002
5,666
#14
++ [ originally posted by Graham ] ++
Plus the US has the advantage of sheer numbers. Out of all those people, surely they can produce at least 11 good footballers
So why hasn't China dominated football?
 
OP
OP
Elnur_E65

Elnur_E65

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2004
10,848
#16
Yes, the interest is high, more and more schools and colleges now have teams. But I think that young people take their parents to see games not too much because they cheer for a certain team, rather because they enjoy the game as a sport.
 

gray

Senior Member
Moderator
Apr 22, 2003
30,077
#17
++ [ originally posted by Ian ] ++

So why hasn't China dominated football?
Or India for that matter?

As we discussed before in the case of the US, perhaps it's just the lack of facilities and training systems
 

Majed

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,630
#18
++ [ originally posted by Graham ] ++
Oh i thought u meant the money for facilities, land for football fields and advertising power ;) Saying humans are resources is a bit crude, isn't it? :LOL: Reminds me of the Matrix :p
i did mean all resouces... being "Labor resources (human)" and "Capital resources (non-human)"

you could say it's crude to put humans and capital in the same catagory, but it's not something strange. AFAIK, pretty much all Business texts confirm this...it's not just the matrix. :)

.........

that's why i just said resources... you need both.
Labor itself help: China, India.
Capital iteslf wont either: Saudi Arabia, UAE.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)