Why are some Americans ignorant about SOME sports?

So I turned on the local sports station while driving, and some espn dude was expressing his opinion that soccer sucks and baseball is vastly superior. He said baseball has so much intricate strategy while soccer has nothing.

Don't get me wrong. Baseball can be fun to watch if you have a team to root for, or if it's the World Series with all its tension. But the espn guy is forgetting that the best part of sports is the movement. A typical baseball game has a small handful of beautiful plays, but there's only a limited menu for these plays. Soccer, on the other hand, is 90 minutes of improvisation by every player on the pitch. The opportunity to be creative in soccer is much greater than is available in baseball. In terms of movement, soccer is much superior to baseball. It flows like no other team sport.

When I've occasionally watched Australian Rules Football I've thought it looks like a good team sport. It's not part of my Canadian culture but I'm not going to say it sucks. There is an arrogance to some American sports media guys that is very unappealing. And they sometimes trash hockey for the same reason they dismiss soccer. I think it's called ignorance.

EDIT : I change the title to make it more appropriate.
Evilo

I think most americans only care about sports that are big in the Country and dont understand sports like Soccer/Hockey anything thats outta the Norm for them

i have no idea - signed living in an igloo , ice fishing , and snow sledding - ( live from kits beach vancouver )

I don't know.

Chances are, they don't know either. Nor do they care.

It's OK. Not everyone has to like soccer.

please.... both sports are great. It has already been proven that baseball strategy is much more advanced than soccer (pitch movement, pitch location, where to postion the players, you have to look at who is up to bat, who is up next)... there is much more involved in baseball than in soccer.

I love soccer (i have a dutch girlfriend -- if that doesnt explain enough). Soccer players are very skillful, but an average joe can work hard and be a decent soccer player. But it takes a surperior athlete to play baseball and rarely (eckstein is the minority), do you see a player that isnt athletic be good at baseball.

I dont know if you are relying just on tactics, or on skill about the sports. But each sport has something that makes it unique. Soccer its the buildup of the attack (much like chess), ect. ect.

But if your point of soccer being a better sport because there is more movement... then i guess curling is the worst sport ever, and NBA basketball is the best. You arent going anywhere with the point you made.

The same reason some Canadians, Japanese, Germans, French etc. are? :dunno:

4But it takes a surperior athlete to play baseball and rarely (eckstein is the minority), do you see a player that isnt athletic be good at baseball.

LOL.

I guess you've never heard of Harold Baines.

Some nations like one sport better some nations the other sport.

You can't explain things like that rationally.

Ive found it commonplace that one will talk up a sport that they like by talking down on one that they dont.

Soccer does have more movement than baseball, but the important thing is that it's often attractive movement. The running of the bulls in Pamplona has lots of movement but it isn't attractive movement. By the way, I respect baseball. Like golf, it's a slower paced sport that moves at a pace that allows us the time to fully consider strategy.

I like it when American blowhards (Jim Rome) call soccer boring, yet the only time I've seen people in the stands sleeping is at baseball games.

I love soccer (i have a dutch girlfriend -- if that doesnt explain enough). Soccer players are very skillful, but an average joe can work hard and be a decent soccer player. But it takes a surperior athlete to play baseball and rarely (eckstein is the minority), do you see a player that isnt athletic be good at baseball.



Either you have never seen live elite soccer or have never played the game. Unless you're saying a decent soccer player is one in a beer league or something, most players in the top 4 (Liga, Premiership, Serie A, L-1) are freaking fenoms in physical conditioning and ball skills. And it's pretty much the same for the elite in every sport.

I don't get all these "American" threads. What's the point?

Either you have never seen live elite soccer or have never played the game. Unless you're saying a decent soccer player is one in a beer league or something, most players in the top 4 (Liga, Premiership, Serie A, L-1) are freaking fenoms in physical conditioning and ball skills. And it's pretty much the same for the elite in every sport.


Physical conditioning... exactly. Thanks for proving my point. You can work hard and get in shape great physically. And ball skills ill give you credit for. But ball skills are taught much easier than hitting a baseball or what-not.

By the way, id say ive done alright for myself in soccer (all-state), played D-1 soccer and have a best friend playing for San Jose in MLS. And my GF babysits for an AJAX player. Id say ive met some good soccer players in my day...

But yes, the elite in every sport is good, im not denying soccer that. But the different is, other than the elite (top athletes playing soccer), a regular joe can become a great soccer player, IMHO.

Ball skills are no easier than hitting a baseball. You can teach technique but you cant teach talent. A regular joe certainly cannot become a "great" player just because he's in good shape. Nor is it "proven" anywhere that baseball has more strategy. That list you provided showed nothing of the sort. Heck you could argue that the dynamics of 11vs11 at all times are more exponential.

In baseball you dont even have to be athletic to be a star (just look at all those pot bellies). American sports have often been mocked for having such grossly overweight "sportsmen" and "athletes" in football and baseball.

Ironically baseball is also derided equally for being an infantile game played by little kids here. There's ignorance on both sides but dont think it doesnt apply to American sports just as much.

Physical conditioning... exactly. Thanks for proving my point. You can work hard and get in shape great physically. And ball skills ill give you credit for. But ball skills are taught much easier than hitting a baseball or what-not.

By the way, id say ive done alright for myself in soccer (all-state), played D-1 soccer and have a best friend playing for San Jose in MLS. And my GF babysits for an AJAX player. Id say ive met some good soccer players in my day...

But yes, the elite in every sport is good, im not denying soccer that. But the different is, other than the elite (top athletes playing soccer), a regular joe can become a great soccer player, IMHO.

I think this is exclusively true in North America. Soccer, while it's an extremely popular sport among young children, loses out to the major North American sports to kids when they get older and are choosing between sports. The elite athletes in North America who might be playing several sports up until the time they are 10 or whatever, will almost always choose hockey (in Canada) or baseball/football/basketball (in the States) over soccer. Conversely, in most of the rest of the world, soccer is the major sport, everyone plays it, and the best athletes will typically choose soccer over other sports. For this reason, I think the exact opposite of you; I think at an elite level such as the World Cup or European professional leagues, the athletes are truly THE best in the world. The fact that almost none of the American national side plays at the highest level in the world supports this argument as well. Even the top players on the American team are not able to make it at the highest professional level in Europe, because they simply aren't the same calibre of athlete. So basically, maybe in North America you can become a decent soccer player with a little work, but in the rest of the world you have to be among the greatest athletes in the world.

I'm a bit surprised that baseball is called a "sport", when in fact, it is more like a "game".

A baseball player spends most of a game

1-chewing in the dugout
2-standing on the field without much to do

Don't get me wrong, I like baseball, but as a sport, it can't compete with soccer, hockey, or football.

Now why Americans don't like soccer? In my opinion it's too different from what they're used to. America's 2 most popular sports were invented by Americans, and most people consider them to be the best sports.

But it's funny how America likes to dominate the sports world in general, and at the same time it totally fails in the most popular sport in the world.

I can honestly say that we are ignorant about some sports is either that we dont like the sport or we dont understand it and dont take the time to see what it's about. The biggest example that pops into my head is my dad. I play the two sports that he cant stand the most (soccer and ice hockey). Its really funny cause whenever he would come to see my play soccer, he would always complain about it being slow, boring, and pointless, but the only reason he said that is because he doesnt get whats going on. When he was watching the world cup, he was so into it cause he kinda had an idea what was going on from watching me play. So now he kinda likes it. As for ice hockey, he never grew up watching it so he never understood what was going on. Because i have been watching a lot of it he now understands whats going on, but he still hates it. I dont know, i guess he's just hypocritical, or maybe its just that we're stupid. Ice hockey isnt a big thing on my side of PA, so maybe thats why he doesnt like.

I don't think it so much about "understanding" etc, if a sport never really gone big in a country it is really hard to get interest in it. Like basketball is quite a big sport in the world right? In Sweden it is a very small sport and gets very little attention, does that make us ignorant for not liking or understanding it too?

(Not saying all swedes are not into it, just giving an example)

So I turned on the local sports station while driving, and some espn dude was expressing his opinion that soccer sucks and baseball is vastly superior. He said baseball has so much intricate strategy while soccer has nothing.

Don't get me wrong. Baseball can be fun to watch if you have a team to root for, or if it's the World Series with all its tension. But the espn guy is forgetting that the best part of sports is the movement. A typical baseball game has a small handful of beautiful plays, but there's only a limited menu for these plays. Soccer, on the other hand, is 90 minutes of improvisation by every player on the pitch. The opportunity to be creative in soccer is much greater than is available in baseball. In terms of movement, soccer is much superior to baseball. It flows like no other team sport.

When I've occasionally watched Australian Rules Football I've thought it looks like a good team sport. It's not part of my Canadian culture but I'm not going to say it sucks. There is an arrogance to some American sports media guys that is very unappealing. And they sometimes trash hockey for the same reason they dismiss soccer. I think it's called ignorance.

EDIT : I change the title to make it more appropriate.
Evilo

How on earth can baseball even possibly have more tactics than football? I realise i'm going to be ignorant of some parts of the game here but surely it's throw it low, high, curve or straight and the batsman can only hit it? With football you have 11 men to command against another 11. You have to create a formation to neutralise the opponents whilst releasing your most dangermous men. Football has infinitely more variety and excitement than baseball in my opinion (and i've watched a LOT of baseball over the years) and i struggle to see how it could possible be deemed a more tactical sport. American football maybe, but never baseball.

I don't know.

Chances are, they don't know either. Nor do they care.

It's OK. Not everyone has to like soccer.

I don't mind people not liking football, it's when they're completely ignorant to it that it gets my goat.

I don't get all these "American" threads. What's the point?

Sorry, it must seem like the world is against you but whilst your sports people keep embrassing themselves, we're going to keep making them.

Why doesn't America like soccer? Who knows? Maybe it's because of the energy involved. Look at the two most popular sports - American football and baseball. You don't exactly have to be toned to play those games, look at the porkers that you have in the MLB and NFL for that. This reflects on the nation. The USA isn't a fit nation at all, widely reknowned as being the most clinically obese nation on gods green earth is always going to choose a game that even the most flabby of people can play. Maybe basketball and hockey are the exceptions to this rule, but there is a reason why they're always going to be the #3 and #4 sports in the country. You cannot play basketball, hockey or soccer unless you are fit.

Physical conditioning... exactly. Thanks for proving my point. You can work hard and get in shape great physically. And ball skills ill give you credit for. But ball skills are taught much easier than hitting a baseball or what-not.

By the way, id say ive done alright for myself in soccer (all-state), played D-1 soccer and have a best friend playing for San Jose in MLS. And my GF babysits for an AJAX player. Id say ive met some good soccer players in my day...

But yes, the elite in every sport is good, im not denying soccer that. But the different is, other than the elite (top athletes playing soccer), a regular joe can become a great soccer player, IMHO.

Yeah okay, not to denigrate your acheivements but college play isn't that high of a level. It might seem so because college sports in general in the USA are the pinnacle before pro sports. However that's just not true in soccer. I play right now divison two in Montreal and most of us got partial or full rides to D-1 schools (well mind you our team is a caliber division one team). Myself I got an invite to Syracuse and St-Lawrence (I didn't make it). Now the Q elite league is where the best players are and most teams in that league owns the Impact (resident USFL team). So while to us (North American), these guys and the MLS are great players, they are pretty much nothing compared to Europe.

There is a reason why the MLS produces almost no exports and when they do it's to the weaker leagues (Bundesligua par example), it's just not that good of a league. When I watch on the TV, the quality is clearing lacking.

Trust me, if you want to play in Europe's top leagues; you got to have the actual talent (elite ball skills, which cannot be taught. We're not talking about the fundamentals here) and the physical fitness.

As far as strategy goes, I would say baseball is the most strategic. The beautiful part about baseball is that every pitch means something - from the first pitch of the game to the final out. Of the major team sports out there, I believe that baseball is the one where coaching makes the most difference. It's not just a matter of throw high or throw low, and hit the ball, it's choosing the right pitch and the right time every at bat (usually a decision between the pitcher and catcher) and deciding how and even if to hit the ball (usually a decision by the manager/coach, relayed to the hitter). The hitter has many options: swing for the fences, bunt, advance the runner, sacrifice fly, go for a single, etc. On the basepads, there are decisions of whether to steal, and whether to try to turn a double into a triple. Until you really sit down and watch the game and try to understand it, you don't realize how much strategy is actually going on with every pitch.

As for physical conditioning/athleticism, I can't think of a sport that requires more physical conditioning than soccer. A top player is on the field, and constantly in motion, for two 45-minutes stretches. I remember listening to a U.S. sports talk show a few years ago, and they said one of the big reasons that soccer tends to lose interest as kids get old is you can't stick a chubby kid in right field. You have to be in incredible physical condition to play middle infield, third base or centre field, and catchers have tremendous lower body strength (anybody else here able to crouch like that for three hours a day?) but in terms of overall conditioning, there are few sports that combine explosiveness and endurance like soccer. Hitting a 95-mph fastball 420 feet the opposite way is an incredible athletic feat, but so is kicking a ball in midair, curving a ball past a netminder, and jumping into their air and headbutting a soccer ball past the goalie.

Its the same as other thing, the vast majority of American are ignorant about lots of stuff outside the US.

They dont care about the sports because they aren't big in the US and they are force fed the US sports.

Obviously the people on here are more likely not to be in that category because they've gone outside the mainstream to be a hockey fan.

Between this thread and the one back at the beginning of the world cup, it's positively laughable the attitudes (or arrogance) of the posters attacking the US for, how dare they, not love soccer.

How on earth can baseball even possibly have more tactics than football? I realise i'm going to be ignorant of some parts of the game here but surely it's throw it low, high, curve or straight and the batsman can only hit it?

If you think that's all the tactics (strategy) there is in baseball then you truly are ignorant of the game as you suggest.

Why doesn't America like soccer? Who knows? Maybe it's because of the energy involved. Look at the two most popular sports - American football and baseball. You don't exactly have to be toned to play those games, look at the porkers that you have in the MLB and NFL for that. This reflects on the nation. The USA isn't a fit nation at all, widely reknowned as being the most clinically obese nation on gods green earth is always going to choose a game that even the most flabby of people can play. Maybe basketball and hockey are the exceptions to this rule, but there is a reason why they're always going to be the #3 and #4 sports in the country. You cannot play basketball, hockey or soccer unless you are fit.

You think American football is full of "porkers"???? Some of the lineman are obviously overweight, but cardiovascular conditioning is far from the only measure of "conditioning". Would you care to have some of your soccer players challenge football players in a weight lifting competition? How about putting comparing sprinting speed, they likely be fairly even at best with WR's and RB's. Looking for coordination, look at the pure talent required for a QB to hit a WR on the run in tight coverage. Also, when considering coordination, hitting a baseball is widely considered one of, if not they most, difficult tasks in all of sports.

Why don't Americans like soccer - there is no heritage of the sport in this country. American kids grow up watching baseball, football, basketball and to a lesser extent hockey (in the north), golf, tennis, nascar etc. The youth soccer leagues are largely recreational and lack quality coaching and organization, whereas in the "major" sports have an abundance of qualified (or at least experienced) coaches with leagues that have traditionals going back decades and decades, if not a century in some cases.

As to American's being fat and lazy, why do they essentially dominate the olympics? In every olympics this decade, the US has finished either first or second in total medal count. Does the U.S. just win the "lazy" sports? As of 2000, the US had more than 3x the total number of medals of any other country still in existance. If you look at gold medals only, the US has almost 5x the number of golds of any other country still in existance in 2000. If add up the total number of medals won by Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland, Turkey, Norway, Poland (can't forget them), Netherlands, Finland, and Sweden they would have nearly 25% less medals than the US alone. If you combine England, France, Germany and Italy, they barely exceed (5%) the total the US has won. Not bad for a fat and lazy country.

Between this thread and the one back at the beginning of the world cup, it's positively laughable the attitudes (or arrogance) of the posters attacking the US for, how dare they, not love soccer.



If you think that's all the tactics (strategy) there is in baseball then you truly are ignorant of the game as you suggest.



You think American football is full of "porkers"???? Some of the lineman are obviously overweight, but cardiovascular conditioning is far from the only measure of "conditioning". Would you care to have some of your soccer players challenge football players in a weight lifting competition? How about putting comparing sprinting speed, they likely be fairly even at best with WR's and RB's. Looking for coordination, look at the pure talent required for a QB to hit a WR on the run in tight coverage. Also, when considering coordination, hitting a baseball is widely considered one of, if not they most, difficult tasks in all of sports.

Why don't Americans like soccer - there is no heritage of the sport in this country. American kids grow up watching baseball, football, basketball and to a lesser extent hockey (in the north), golf, tennis, nascar etc. The youth soccer leagues are largely recreational and lack quality coaching and organization, whereas in the "major" sports have an abundance of qualified (or at least experienced) coaches with leagues that have traditionals going back decades and decades, if not a century in some cases.

As to American's being fat and lazy, why do they essentially dominate the olympics? In every olympics this decade, the US has finished either first or second in total medal count. Does the U.S. just win the "lazy" sports? As of 2000, the US had more than 3x the total number of medals of any other country still in existance. If you look at gold medals only, the US has almost 5x the number of golds of any other country still in existance in 2000. If add up the total number of medals won by Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland, Turkey, Norway, Poland (can't forget them), Netherlands, Finland, and Sweden they would have nearly 25% less medals than the US alone. If you combine England, France, Germany and Italy, they barely exceed (5%) the total the US has won. Not bad for a fat and lazy country.


Very good points. I'm a US citizen who's very fond of European football and doesn't like baseball, but I get very tired of hearing constant bias from some of our European friends on this board. Just because America doesn't like European football doesn't mean that we're all fat, overweight cretins.

As for the loudmouths that make fun of European football, just ignore them. Each country has citizens who are radical or who say things that are stupid and ignorant.

To typify America as fat and lazy just because most of us don't like one sport is just ignorant and shows a complete lack of understanding of American culture.

Its the same as other thing, the vast majority of American are ignorant about lots of stuff outside the US.

They dont care about the sports because they aren't big in the US and they are force fed the US sports.
Obviously the people on here are more likely not to be in that category because they've gone outside the mainstream to be a hockey fan.

So we are being force fed the sports we love? Interesting. I think the ignorance and arrogance in this case falls on the European football fans. The sporting landscape in the US is like no other in the world. What other country has as many professional leagues and events as the US; NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, NASCAR and the PGA tour. Then throw in all the college sports like college football and basketball. Regionally college hockey and baseball are huge. Most European countries don't have any major sports leagues in direct competition for fans with their football league. Many of the stadiums in Europe would be considered pretty small by US standards even for college teams. The point is there are many more major sporting events or leagues in the US than in any European country. I'm a Sabres, Bills , Notre Dame fan and cheer for various college football and basketball teams. Yet I could care less about Baseball or Nascar. I follow the US national team in qualifiers and during the World Cup. As a kid I played soccer and hockey, now I coach my kids in both. That seems like a pretty full sporting plate.

Most Americans have this diverse interest in sports here but you expect on top of that for them to follow International football? I understand the game and can follow it no problem but to many they don't get it and so won't have interest in it. But you expect them to take time to learn the game because the world loves it? I notice many posters from Europe list favorite teams but don't list any European sports teams that aren't football teams. Which goes to prove that Football dominates the landscape over in Europe not much else. Yet Americans are ignorant because we can follow many sports in many leagues but since football isn't one we are ignorant?

It's fine if many Americans choose to not follow soccer because their sporting plate is full with other sports. And I can understand why some people might think soccer doesn't have enough goals, and consequently reject it. But how could anyone be blind to the fact that there must be something special about the sport that dominates planet Earth's sporting scene.

So a person could say soccer isn't for me but I recognize that the world's favourite sports deserves to be respected. The espn guy wasn't respecting soccer. I don't enjoy classical music but I'm never going to say it sucks. It would be arrogant of me to say that my taste in anything, including music and sports, should be accepted by everyone as the definitive standard. Being open-minded and respectful towards other cultures and traditions helps a person be accepted after crossing other countries' borders.

So we are being force fed the sports we love? Interesting.Of course, you have got to be joking if you dont think TV has an impact on people liking different sports.

I think the ignorance and arrogance in this case falls on the European football fans. The sporting landscape in the US is like no other in the world. What other country has as many professional leagues and events as the US; NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, NASCAR and the PGA tour. Then throw in all the college sports like college football and basketball. Regionally college hockey and baseball are huge. Most European countries don't have any major sports leagues in direct competition for fans with their football league. Many of the stadiums in Europe would be considered pretty small by US standards even for college teams.

The point is there are many more major sporting events or leagues in the US than in any European country. I'm a Sabres, Bills , Notre Dame fan and cheer for various college football and basketball teams. and they are all mainstream sports and all from the US, kinda proves the point of the thread.

Yet I could care less about Baseball or Nascar. I follow the US national team in qualifiers and during the World Cup. As a kid I played soccer and hockey, now I coach my kids in both. That seems like a pretty full sporting plate.

Most Americans have this diverse interest in sports here but you expect on top of that for them to follow International football? I understand the game and can follow it no problem but to many they don't get it and so won't have interest in it. But you expect them to take time to learn the game because the world loves it? I notice many posters from Europe list favorite teams but don't list any European sports teams that aren't football teams. Which goes to prove that Football dominates the landscape over in Europe not much else. Yet Americans are ignorant because we can follow many sports in many leagues but since football isn't one we are ignorant?

I never mentioned about football, Americans just dont care about sports outside their country. Ask the average American if hes ever watched a rugby, cricket or Aussie rules match and I think Ill know the answer. Also NASCAR is more popular than F1 because its US based.

The fact is most Americans only care about mainstream US sports and you proved that with your list.

I don't think it so much about "understanding" etc, if a sport never really gone big in a country it is really hard to get interest in it
Thats kind of true but its not exactly true. Different sports are bigger in different areas of the US than others. Where i live in PA, the 3 biggest sports are basketball, football, and baseball. But if you go to somewhere like Minnesota, everyone plays ice hockey. In the Boston area ice hockey and soccer are huge. It sort of depends on what sport is popular in the country but its not true for the US cause each state has a different favorite sport.

Of course, you have got to be joking if you dont think TV has an impact on people liking different sports.
and they are all mainstream sports and all from the US, kinda proves the point of the thread..

Would you agree that the same is true in Europe? The sports which are readily available in your community, that are televised locally, and have the strongest heritage in your region are going to be most popular sports in that region. How popular is hockey in Spain? How popular is NASCAR in France? How popular is Baseball in Ireland? How popular is football (american style) in England? Are any of those more popular than soocer in the US? You can make the same arguement against Europeans or people from any other region of the world, people will follow, watch, be interested, etc in the sports to which they are exposed primarily.

It's fine if many Americans choose to not follow soccer because their sporting plate is full with other sports. And I can understand why some people might think soccer doesn't have enough goals, and consequently reject it. But how could anyone be blind to the fact that there must be something special about the sport that dominates planet Earth's sporting scene.

So a person could say soccer isn't for me but I recognize that the world's favourite sports deserves to be respected. The espn guy wasn't respecting soccer. I don't enjoy classical music but I'm never going to say it sucks. It would be arrogant of me to say that my taste in anything, including music and sports, should be accepted by everyone as the definitive standard. Being open-minded and respectful towards other cultures and traditions helps a person be accepted after crossing other countries' borders.

Well lets keep in the mind the primary goal of sportsradio, is to get rating and you're not going to get rating saying "I respect, but don't enjoy, the sport of soccer". They have to be bombastic, it's their job. Too take seriously what a guy on sportsradio says and try to apply it to a nation at large is, frankly, either stupid or just looking to create a problem. Do you take every Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Al Frankin says as truly representative of most Americans, of couse not - their entertainers trying to get ratings.

Let me end this by asking a question of ignorance. How well have American sports been accepted in Europe? Clearly basketball has been well accepted, but what about football or baseball? Could one say that Americans have accepted soccer more than Europeans have accepted Football or Baseball?

Of course, you have got to be joking if you dont think TV has an impact on people liking different sports.
and they are all mainstream sports and all from the US, kinda proves the point of the thread.


I never mentioned about football, Americans just dont care about sports outside their country. Ask the average American if hes ever watched a rugby, cricket or Aussie rules match and I think Ill know the answer. Also NASCAR is more popular than F1 because its US based.

The fact is most Americans only care about mainstream US sports and you proved that with your list.

Being force fed implies no one wants to watch them. The ratings determine what goes on TV. Are you really that dense or just like to argue. Because American TV has American sports on it is the only reason they are popular? Has it occured to you that what is on is what people want to watch.:shakehead
There are so many sports options here at a high level. What is in England that even compares to the amount of major sports that are in the US. In England.. No hockey league of any consequence , or basketball league, or baseball, or Auto racing? Its the Premiership and then coverage of other major soccer/football leagues. We get the Fox soccer channel over here. Sky sports talks about nothing but soccer/football. A little time was spent on cricket , golf and rugby. But most of the sportscast was about football in England and the other European leagues. So it could be argued successfully that most English sports fans care about is their own sports, primarely football. Wow, what a shocker. Yet you attack Americans for the same thing. Wake up

If you just look at the quality of teh coverage ESPN and ABC provided over the last four weeks it is no suprise soccer does not take off. This is the BIGGEST sporting event in the world with Fans from all over the world celebrating 4 weeks together. The whole atmosphere has never been shown. Just look at how much pre and postgame coverage any baseball NFL game gets. And do not tell me people are not interested in the World Cup actually I have seen the opposite being the case. Additionally currently there is no other sport going on outside Baseball.

If you familiarize your viewers more with the sport and the event soccer will be more appreciated. The viewers have no clue about most teams so give them intoduction before the game and for godsake show the national anthems, sorry this shows just direspect. No need for multi hour pregame shows but little 15-30 minute pregame show would be great.

Why so should I care when commentators have no clue what they are talking about (mention wrong player names all the time) only wanna be stars ala Beckham or C.Ronaldo get celebrated. (somehow reminds me how hoeckey coverage is in the US)

Well as the US does not have a competitive soccer league, which lacks stars it is normal that there is limited interest.

If you just look at the quality of teh coverage ESPN and ABC provided over the last four weeks it is no suprise soccer does not take off. This is the BIGGEST sporting event in the world with Fans from all over the world celebrating 4 weeks together. The whole atmosphere has never been shown. Just look at how much pre and postgame coverage any baseball NFL game gets. And do not tell me people are not interested in the World Cup actually I have seen the opposite being the case. Additionally currently there is no other sport going on outside Baseball.

If you familiarize your viewers more with the sport and the event soccer will be more appreciated. The viewers have no clue about most teams so give them intoduction before the game and for godsake show the national anthems, sorry this shows just direspect. No need for multi hour pregame shows but little 15-30 minute pregame show would be great.

Why so should I care when commentators have no clue what they are talking about (mention wrong player names all the time) only wanna be stars ala Beckham or C.Ronaldo get celebrated. (somehow reminds me how hoeckey coverage is in the US)

Well as the US does not have a competitive soccer league, which lacks stars it is normal that there is limited interest.

1) They have had a number of 30 minute pre-game previews before some games. I don't know how it's disrespectful to not show national anthems or how showing them will attract more to the sport, but whatever.

2) There IS a competitive soccer league in the USA. It's called Major League Soccer. Sure, it sucks compared to the level of most European leagues. But it's only 10 years old and it has been increasing in terms of talent and in terms of franchises (Toronto and Philadelphia will get teams soon, IIRC). The Mexican League squad Chivas set up an affiliate in LA a few seasons back in LA called Chivas USA. The people at Chivas (and Chivas USA) thought MLS wouldn't be so difficult; but they only got 3 wins in their first MLS season. Clearly they are doing so much better, which is more than I can say for some teams (Metrostars/RedBulls have sucked for most of their 10 year tenure. But Red Bull found it fit to drop a lot of money to own the team, so they must see SOMETHING in it). You're right it lacks superstars, but it's hard to develop a superstar when the league is so young (though Freddy Adu may change that...) and is behind so many other sports (hey, soccer isn't the main thing to follow sport-wise. It's OK, you'll get used to that).

3) Beckham and C. Ronaldo AREN'T stars? Zuh?

1) They have had a number of 30 minute pre-game previews before some games. I don't know how it's disrespectful to not show national anthems or how showing them will attract more to the sport, but whatever.

2) There IS a competitive soccer league in the USA. It's called Major League Soccer. Sure, it sucks compared to the level of most European leagues. But it's only 10 years old and it has been increasing in terms of talent and in terms of franchises (Toronto and Philadelphia will get teams soon, IIRC). The Mexican League squad Chivas set up an affiliate in LA a few seasons back in LA called Chivas USA. The people at Chivas (and Chivas USA) thought MLS wouldn't be so difficult; but they only got 3 wins in their first MLS season. Clearly they are doing so much better, which is more than I can say for some teams (Metrostars/RedBulls have sucked for most of their 10 year tenure. But Red Bull found it fit to drop a lot of money to own the team, so they must see SOMETHING in it). You're right it lacks superstars, but it's hard to develop a superstar when the league is so young (though Freddy Adu may change that...) and is behind so many other sports (hey, soccer isn't the main thing to follow sport-wise. It's OK, you'll get used to that).

3) Beckham and C. Ronaldo AREN'T stars? Zuh?


1) Well national anthems belong to international soccer games, every other country shows them before the game, well guess Paintball championships are more important. In other sporting events it seems no problems to show them in the US why not in the world cup, where players play for their national pride and the national anthem sung by players and fans belongs to the celbration of the game. Actually gives me shacky feelings additionally you can see in the players faces who is ready to go.

Yes some games had 30 minute previews but most did not. If you are showing teams a lot of people do not know much about why not introduce them beforehand. Again at least giving me the Lineup before the start of the game can not be that difficult again that is done in every other country. I have watched Worldcups in various countries "many of them not soccer countries or even having their participate" no country coverage was anywhere close as shocking as in the US.
Despite never having learned spanish I actually reverted to watching the game on hispanic TV station as I just can not cope with the other coverage any more.
Even Soccer bars in the US show the Canadian TV coverage and commentory, rather than Espn or ABC and not High Definition.

2) Well which sports are big in the US. The ones where the American leagues are the best in the world and American talent is dominating or at least has substantial presence
(this is the same in all other countries as well so no attack on the US).
The difference between the MLS and a top european leagues is substantially bigger than between the difference between the NHL and european hockey leagues. Sure the MLS is still young and quality will improve but it will not reach the level of European leagues.

3) Well I think one should focus on players actually playing their hart out on the pitch than 2 whimps crying on the side of the pitch after having been subed.

Beckham might be a star but he is no star on the pitch anymore and in all honestly does not help the team. As we have learned from the rangers a lot of stars who are not playing in the interest of the team will not be sucessfull. The best english players are others, ok they did not show up at the WC either. Again when it became Crunch time Beckham disappeared. For me that is no star and the great freekick goal he scored was nothing special and a aweful goalie mistake.

Ronaldo is the Starbury of soccer just out to show of himself no team player uneffective. The only thing he showed was ineffective moves followed by dives. That should not be promoted.

If you wanna know the stars of the tournament look at players like Canavaro Viera Pirlo Zidane Klose Frings Kaka, which outside Zidane did not get enough credit.

Why doesn't America like soccer? Who knows? Maybe it's because of the energy involved. Look at the two most popular sports - American football and baseball. You don't exactly have to be toned to play those games, look at the porkers that you have in the MLB and NFL for that. This reflects on the nation. The USA isn't a fit nation at all, widely reknowned as being the most clinically obese nation on gods green earth is always going to choose a game that even the most flabby of people can play. Maybe basketball and hockey are the exceptions to this rule, but there is a reason why they're always going to be the #3 and #4 sports in the country. You cannot play basketball, hockey or soccer unless you are fit.

What an asinine post. :shakehead Have you ever watched an NFL game? With the exception of defensive tackles who just occupy space do you have any idea how athletically gifted the players are? Wide recievers have to be very fast, need to have excellent acceleration to get off the line of scrimmage, have to have jumping ability to outjump db's for balls, and need to have fluid hips to be able to make sharp cuts in their routes. Same abilities apply to corners and safties.

Linebackers have to be able to go sideline to sideline and be able to tackle running backs while fighting off blockers while elite defensive ends are freakishly talented like John Abraham who is 6'4 260 and is able to run as fast as a runningback.
QB's have to be very gifted athletically as they need a cannon for an arm to squeeze passes into tight coverage and need to be mobile to move around in the pocket. Even the so called 'porkers' on the offensive line need to be not only strong but have some speed in order to run pulls during running plays.

Show me the amount of starters in the NFL that are over the age of 31. When players lose a step and aren't in the peak shape they were in during their 20's they are either on the bench or more likely out of the league altogether. In the other three big sports in the US, age 31 is considered to be in a player's prime but this is not so in the NFL. The NFL puts a premium on athletic ability and the amount of starters (excluding kickers and QB's) you find in the NFL over the age of 31 reflect that.

I don't mind people not liking football, it's when they're completely ignorant to it that it gets my goat.

Wow, pot meet kettle. As i proved earlier in this post you have no clue what your talking about when it comes to the NFL. Also, nice job by weaving in a claim that all Americans are fat and lazy even though I proved in my first few paragraphs that your 'theory' on why Americans don't like soccer,hockey, and basketball as much as the NFL and baseball is a joke.

Americans only like sports which they can rule and run and understand

baseball and american football are reasons to get drunk in public

Americans only like sports which they can rule and run and understand

baseball and american football are reasons to get drunk in public

And they say Americans are ignorant. :biglaugh:

LOL.

I guess you've never heard of Harold Baines.

Cecil "Big Daddy" Fielder too maybe :teach:

As the guy who started this thread, I stand behind my 2 posts. But I also have to say that I am fond of many different sports. I like hockey (a lot), soccer, American football, basketball, baseball, tennis and golf. I wouldn't be surprised if I became a fan of Australian Rules Football, rugby and maybe even cricket if I lived somewhere else.

There's a lot of good sports out there. Only a biased person would suggest that any of these sports suck.

As the guy who started this thread, I stand behind my 2 posts. But I also have to say that I am fond of many different sports. I like hockey (a lot), soccer, American football, basketball, baseball, tennis and golf. I wouldn't be surprised if I became a fan of Australian Rules Football, rugby and maybe even cricket if I lived somewhere else.

There's a lot of good sports out there. Only a biased person would suggest that any of these sports suck.

That about somes it up. This attacking of Americans in general because of a few idiots in the media is nauseating. What sports a person likes generally has alot to do with where they live. I love hockey more than any other sport. Thats probably because I grew up in the Buffalo area. That would obviously be less likey in many other parts of the US. But this constant need to find some overarching reason why soccer isn't as popular here as it is in many parts of the world baffles me. Soccer isn't that popular in Canada either yet I don't see threads complaining about that.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting really tired of these monthly "Why Americans hate soccer" threads. They are just as annoying and vomit-inducing as all the Portugal threads. And yet I keep reading them... Why??? :banghead:

I think this thread has run its course.