From the 2006 World Cup (ps HOLY CRAP I have been doing this for a long time).
This is what makes soccer so farcical and unwatchable to the average American:
1. Player One slide-tackles Player Two, making minor leg-to-leg contact
2. Player Two goes limp and crumples to the turf in a near-perfect (and no doubt well-rehearsed) re-enactment of Frame 323 of the Zapruder film
3. Player Two grabs his calf/shin/ankle and makes a grimacing face as though he is attempting to defecate a shattered beer bottle
4. Player One throws up his arms, gesturing a combination of "I'm innocent" and "This man is an enormous vagina" to the crowd, followed by "Surely you aren't buying this horseshit" to the ref (who is always from a neutral yet vaguely dislikeable country, usually Argentina)
5. A team of doctors rush over to Player Two with a stretcher, neck brace, donor kidney, gas cromatograph, and the Jaws of Life.
6. After carrying Player Two off the field on said stretcher, he waits until the crowd's attention is diverted back to the game before getting up, walking it off for about 10 feet, and then "heroically" re-joining the action moments after his near-crippling injury.
buy fluoxetine online blackmenheal.org/wp-content/languages/new/noprescription/fluoxetine-no-prescription.html no prescription
Let me add a couple of questions that continue to plague me:
Why is there a clock? It operates in the wrong direction and seemingly at random, being ignored by everyone on the field and seemingly having no effect on the game whatsoever.
Why do goaltenders wear neutral colors?
buy aciphex online blackmenheal.org/wp-content/languages/new/aciphex.html no prescription
Why are fans allowed to employ whatever kind of noisemaking implement they choose? This would be like having a basketball game where everyone in the stadium had a whistle.
Why are substitutions treated like the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknowns?
Help me understand, soccer people.
My brutish, ignorant American mind does not get it.
Maren says:
They stick injury/stoppage time at the end of each 45 minute half, because the clock never gets paused, and kind of randomly announce how much time they're giving about a minute into the overtime. No one cares all that much because if you haven't been able to score in the last hour and a half, chances are you won't score in the next minute and a half either.
Got me on keeper uniforms. And sometimes big stadiums sound so noisy on TV I think for a minute someone is watching Formula One racing with all the buzzing.
HoosierPoli says:
The goalkeeper colors thing is obvious if you think about it: The ref has be able to know which player is allowed to touch the ball with his hands.
Injuries need to be fixed though: if a player starts bleeding, he either has to be subbed out (at the next convenient stopping point) and can never re-enter, or he has to sit on the sideline waiting for his blood to clot while his team is down a man.
Don't even get me started on video replays.
The worst part for me is the TIMING. It's like a 90-minute handjob where maybe you come at the end, but maybe you only come once, four minutes in, and you have to sit through an 86-minute anticlimax, and maybe you never even come at all (I'm looking at you, 0-0 ties).
Marinus says:
The keeper uniforms are that colour so that all the players and officials can immediately see who is the keeper and who isn't. There are a few ways how the rules treat keepers differently than other players (not just that they get to use their hands): the rules about physical challenges are much stricter, for one.
Yes, fans can use any noisemaker they want, short of those that fall foul of safety regulations (like fireworks). The list of ludicrously loud accessories is long and distinguished, from football rattles through to cowbells through to entire brass or percussion bands.
Substitutions are pretty laboured because for the first few decades of the sport they weren't allowed at all, and were first introduced with a bit of apprehension. The rules for substitutions, which are effectively unchanged from then, show that reticence.
OliverWendelHolmslice says:
Right on Hoosier
Those 0-0 ties are what freaking kills me and prevents me from ever truly enjoying soccer. Occasionally on ESPN Sports Center, they will show some soccer highlights. Invariably, it is a bunch of almost goals, close calls, and other assorted cock teases, inevitably resulting in a blue-balls inducing 0-0 tie that is inexplicably deemed a "fantastic game" by the commentators.
Is it really any wonder that soccer fans get violent and break shit so frequently after games? All that pent up energy that should have been nutted after a great win or a heartbreaking loss is left just idling around after an indecisive tie. Solution: take your sexual frustration out on the nearest destructable object/person.
c says:
football is not so wrapped up in the final score as most/all american sports are. yes, there is a contest but it's a contest of both a team playing across an enormous field while also being a showcase for individual talent. to be good at it you need to have the endurance to run 6-8 miles in a game, but almost all of that is at breakneck pace. you have to have the guile and cunning to set up elaborate plays with your team across said giant pitch of turf, but be ready to snap a play together for a goal with nothing more than an errant pass from the other team sent your way. so much of the game's appeal is based simply on the skill at which it is played. winning the match is a great feat but how it's won almost matters more.
it's a wholly unamerican game. it's not built on instant gratification, territory control or simply whiling the day away with some unnecessarily complex ruleset. it's one of the only games still played that really upholds the purity of the word "sport"
Zebbidie says:
'take your sexual frustration out on the nearest destructable object/person'
Well that explains WWII and Korea- thank God Playboy came along when we had developed nukes.
John says:
It is slow. But not slow like baseball as when played well there is near continuous play. There are stars but no pitcher or batter, most players have the ball roughly the same amount of time: no more than 1/4-2 minutes per match. Due to the size of the field and the continuous play the impact of one individual player is always limited, except psychologically where one player can lift the others. It is truly a team game as you can't swap players every two minutes: everyone (nearly) is in for the 90 minute ride. You can't afford to ditch a player because of a mistake or because a player is not at his or her absolute peak.
Sometimes it is like hockey or basketball. Fast. You get a pass, the ball is bouncing and within less than a second you have a two spaniards on top of you that may only be 170 centimeters tall, but are quicker than anything you have ever seen and are all muscle. When Xavi and Iniesta come charging you at breakneck speed you are supposed to deliver a 30 meter pass – with your feet — and you remember that you have virtually no protective gear. If it is Terry Butcher, you wish you stayed at home.
Soccer may be un-american (although perhaps the biggest sport in the US?), but I like the US team. They always impress. Tonight they drew against England. That's an achievement. They're roughly on the same level as South Korea and Nigeria. Two very good teams. But not the best. Don't despair however: I like you anyway.
George says:
I don't understand why Americans think football is boring, yet you enjoy one of the most boring sports known to man: American football
I mean honestly, what is exciting about a bastardised version of rugby where everyone stops playing every five minutes to discuss their next move? The only positive thing I can say about american football is that its actually pretty impressive that someone managed to make rugby less exciting.
Marc says:
C'mon, Ed. For someone who likes hockey so much, you should be able to appreciate soccer. Yeah, the diving might be a bit much at times, but that sport takes a lot of skill.
Don't be so douchie.
Crazy for Urban Planning says:
After watching the 06 world cup in Europe I came away with a couple thoughts about this topic.
1) Is it the fact soccer has so few laws? Does it say something about the litigious nature of America? Americans have been so conditioned to have laws and many rules that we don't like the simple game?
2) I think it contributes to the identity of the world – everyone loves playing and watching football no-matter where you go (except usa). It may be one of those things where we go "up yours world, we rule (with American Football) and you suck (with pussy soccer)."
3) I had more, but I can't remember anything anymore…
Wes says:
You know what I hate about soccer? The people who love it. Is there a bigger bunch of smarmy douchebags on planet Earth than these guys? Seriously, there is no way I could ever get into any sport whose fans describe it the way soccer fans describe their sport.
sjelly says:
I cannot understand why Americans who don't like/get football/soccer, feel the need to constantly tell everyone, everywhere, all the time, that "we just don't get your foolish little game, so it can't really be worth the time and effort you foolish little people spend on it." Yes, I'm exaggerating, and yes, it's an unfair characterisation, but jeebusonamoped, ENOUGH ALREADY! So you don't like/get the game. Ignore it. That's what I do with all those other sports I don't like/get. I can't see myself expending any energy carrying on about how I don't see the point of American football, or why on earth would anyone watch an utterly boring sport like baseball (see what I did there?)
J. Dryden says:
I'll just join all the other Yanks in affirming that this is a bone-deep cultural divide that cannot be bridged by desire or will. To wit: Tie Games. (Hell, even NHL hockey had to eventually buckle to the necessity that American fans just won't put up with that crap.)
There's no doubt that soccer takes a ridiculous amount of skill and (especially) stamina–short of long-distance runners, those bastards are the most enduring of pro-athletes I can think of. But to what end is all that skill and discipline and tirelessness being put? The athletic equivalent of plate-spinning or fire-twirling. It's a game (sport, if you prefer) that often amounts to, as others have intimated, a multi-hour dry hump with no release. 0-0? Are you *fucking kidding me*?! That's not a game–a game, like any good narrative, has a beginning, middle, and end. Get that last part? END. A tie is not an end; the screen might as well fade to black, reading "Sorry, we just didn't know what comes next. But thanks for the eight bucks!"
Say what you will about the potential for baseball to be mind-numbingly boring, at least this most leisurely of pastimes recognizes that, fuck it, we don't care if this fucker takes all night, it will end when someone *wins.*
A tie is like a compromise–everyone goes home disappointed. Just slug it out unless the lesser man drops.*
*This message brought to you by Hobbes, Nietzsche & Co.
Prudence says:
Wes,
I love footy. I love that it can be as well-played by a bunch of rich brats in $300 boots, as a bunch of shoeless kids in Ghana. I love that every four years, people from all over the world get together to cheer their teams, meet people who are cheering theirs, and share their love of the beautiful game. This year's final may end up being the second most watched event in human history, a positive world-wide experience, I hope. And frankly, even if it's not, it's brought a shared pride and joy to literally millions of South Africans, a country that's come a long way in a short time.
So, thanks for calling me and the rest of the world "smarmy douchebags". I'll just go ahead and put your misplaced rage down to your being/having a sad little man.
Elle says:
It's there to set out the parameters of the game. It doesn't stop and start, like it does in basketball and ice hockey, but stoppages and time taken up with injuries are added on at the end in a kind of estimated way.
However, time is important. All sports have their own rhythm, and leagues and teams have their rhythms within that. Serie A games tend to have a different pace and arc than Premier League games. I have a sense, like you probably do when you watch whatever sports you watch, of how a game should flow at certain points of time in the game, irrespective of the score on the board. When my team is sitting too far back, or flat, or when a goal should happen if we're going to dig ourselves out of whatever shit we're in. There's always the glorious exception, when your team scores twice in injury time, and they're headfizzingly fucking awesome, but mostly things go by the script that goes bone-deep after a lifetime of watching.
The flip of the timer from 69 minutes to 70 minutes is always capable of inducing head-melting tension, because anything is possible, but it isn't probable.
Historical sidenote: in the English Premier League they used to all wear green, and referees used to all wear black with white collars and cuffs. The convention (rules?) changed about when the Premiership was created and it totally freaked me out for about two seasons. When Man U introduced their black away strip, that was as odd as if the Yankees started wearing black and white stripes with white trousers.
Convention? All countries have their own football crowd base noise. The vuvuzela is the noise of the African Nations' Cup.
Because they're infrequent? They're also an indicator to the thought-process of the manager at any given point, because of what that will mean for the formation of the team. Sometimes they're a comment on the fitness/injury-recovery/temper of the player being subbed. In domestic settings, and possible even at international level, they might be the first glimpse of a new player or player new to the squad.
Elle says:
A tie is like a compromise–everyone goes home disappointed. Just slug it out unless the lesser man drops.
Not all football games end in ties. Only the ones where it doesn't matter to the external environment that there is no outright winner.
Extra-time (and FIFA tinkered with golden goal and UEFA with silver goal options, which was used in some domestic competitions and the European Championships, although both only use the vanilla flavour now) exists, and there's always the stomach-churning experience of the penalty shoot-out.
In the context of a season-long championship, ties can be as full of sturm and drang as outright victories, and they always contribute something in terms of points and goal difference.
Ed says:
Prudence,
I think Wes's comment speaks to a general problem, not to a blanket indictment of all soccer fans.
Read the comments again, particularly by C, and note the classic non-American response to this debate: You ape-like Americans couldn't possibly "get" soccer because it is not based on instant gratification and violence, the only thing your reptilian brains can comprehend.
This may be shocking, but few Americans are persuaded by the classic Condescending Arrogant Continental Asshole argument. Likewise, I doubt many Europeans are persuaded by the Soccer Is Stupid, Why Do You Watch It? line of argument.
The reason you like it is no doubt very similar to the reason we don't: tradition and force of habit. You grow up on soccer, we don't. We grow up on baseball, you don't. These things are not inherently pleasing or displeasing. Our responses to them are learned. Watch something enough times with a strong enough implication that you are supposed to like it, and you learn to like it.
That aside, "The game is not built on instant gratification" seems to be a very fancy way of rationalizing that a soccer match is 90 minutes long and almost nothing happens for the vast majority of it. This argument – in essence that Americans like 3 minute rock songs while Europeans are cultured and enjoy 2 hour operas – is curious given that soccer in the UK and Europe is driven largely by hooliganism and fans so low-brow that they would stand out as morons even at a NASCAR race in the US.
danthelawyer says:
Maybe it's time for a USA-born and bred soccer fan to weigh in? Ed, I love your take on almost everything, but to say that "a soccer match is 90 minutes long and almost nothing happens for the vast majority of it" is exactly wrong. In fact, the action never stops. That's precisely why I like watching it, and can't stand watching American football or — especially — baseball. And don't get me started on golf!
I have a short attention span; if I'm going to spend time watching grown men run around (instead of, say, playing with my kids, or working in my garden), it had better be pretty continuously interesting. On the few occasions I've had the misfortune to go to a baseball game, I really wished I brought a book.
Elle says:
I think that it's grotesquely unfair to suggest that football is driven by 'hooliganism', and that you're perhaps swinging at a straw man?
You're right about tradition and socialisation being the reason that people find particular sports entertaining. I love sports, and when I'm in countries other than my own I go and watch whatever professional sports are available to me. I've been to a couple of baseball games while in the States, and, despite reading a shit-ton of information before I went, had almost no clue about what was going on. I got the broadest of strokes (whether a run had been scored, whether someone was walking) but I didn't know who anyone was, and didn't understand whether anyone involved had made the right choices or even what the choices were. I hadn't had the experience, as I did with football, of asking someone who did know 5424523542 million questions during my childhood. I loved it though, because it was different to what I know and that's always exciting.
Baseball strikes me as something like cricket, which is all about patience and incrementalism, with flashes of amazing things happening. I get that at an intuitive level, even if I can't remember what any of the acronyms or statistics mean. I like the sense of unfolding drama, but I can't spot the moments when the plot turns.
I guess that, like most things, sports is in the eye of the beholder. If it's your team and your sport then it's Tristan and Isolde and The Charge of the Light Brigade. There have been moments, usually at big European games, where you can feel the crackle in the air at 'my' stadium and the hair on the back of my neck has stood up. If it isn't your team and your sport, then it's a bunch of overpaid dudes doing something incomprehensible. And possibly dull, as most incomprehensible things are.
heydave says:
Yeah, yer all wrong. I can watch baseball, football and soccer. And even some golf; tho that stuff is often presented so badly and disjointed as to turn a possibly Zen-like experience into incredibly self indulgent bullshit.
But fuck basketball and hockey (yay Hawks anyway!) on teevee. Snore.
What really pisses me off is the soul-dwindling enthusiasm anyone has for a college football team. My budget gets raped every year and all people wet themselves about is who's in which fucking conference? Fuck that.
Scott says:
@Wes – Yes, there is a group of smarmier douchebags on the planet. They're called cricket fans. Here is some evidence of this fact:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/opinion/23tharoor.html
@sjelly – The reason why the "soccer is so painfully boring" crowd is so loud right now is because the "soccer is the most vital component of mankind" crowd is out in full force on the internet and ESPN.
Wes says:
Thanks for proving my point. "A positive worldwide experience" — Jesus Fucking Christ, get some perspective. I've never heard fans of any other sport describe their sport this way. When I start hearing volleyball fans declaring that volleyball is the salvation of mankind, I'll stop believing that soccer attracts some particularly smarmy douchebags.
Elle says:
But it is if you're from a country that plays football. It's bigger than the Olympics, and Lord knows there's enough platitudinous crap spouted about that.
It's not hard to tell when things are important to other people. I get that the Superbowl is a massive cultural, media and sporting event in the US, even though I've never been in the States when it's been on. The notion of the World Series has permeated popular culture, even if I couldn't tell you how it works.
If you have a need to convince yourself that the World Cup isn't as important to the people who it's important to as they say it is, then knock yourself out. It just seems a bit silly.
duverger's Outlaw says:
Given that taste in sports is, to a certain extent, acquired (as ed details above), I have to say that football/soccer does seem to have a certain universal appeal relative to many other sports (I mean, just objectively there are far more soccer lovers/fans than any other sports, and by miles; and the sport itself was rarely externally imposed etc.). Finally, about results v. the process, again, I think for many soccer/football lovers how the game is being played is almost as important as the result (the Brazilians were once welcomed as heroes after losing a close fought but brilliant game to Italy, while fans have often booed when Brazil has won dull games by just holding on to leads. Similarly, many draws of high quality are exceedingly popular). To take some recent examples, the most entertaining part of Germany's victory over the Aussies for me was not the goals scored, but the brilliant skill demonstrated by the young Mesut Ozil; similarly Messi is just a feast to watch, irrespective of whether he is scoring goals or not. (Btw. I predict that both Messi and Ozil will be in the running for the golden boot)
Brandon says:
Wes: all right, I'm not a soccer fan myself, but I'm not sure what exactly you're arguing about. When Elle says that the World Cup offers a positive world-wide experience, I don't find that remotely offensive or contestable. She's merely referring to the fact that a billion plus people will be closely following the contest. Your volleyball analogy will make sense when volleyball enjoys anywhere near the popularity of soccer. The fact that I myself don't exactly share in the World Cup fervor doesn't make me deny that it is very real to many people.
Wisakedjak says:
This is kind of amusing – there are plenty of people who view the World Series, the Stanley Cup Playoffs and the Superbowl the same way America views the World Cup. What kind of debate is there? People enjoy fundamentally different pasttimes for fundamentally different reasonings. None are inherently better than the others; generally, they are different flavours of competition for people of different tastes to enjoy.
So I'm just going to go out with a blanket statement of fuck sports, fuck sportswriters and commentators and especially fuck atheletes for getting paid more than me.
Twisted_Colour says:
Is there a bigger bunch of smarmy douchebags on planet Earth than these guys?
Yes. Aussie Rules supporters, which I proudly identify myself as. Well, maybe not smarm. It's hard to do smarm with all the missing teeth.
It's got violence (without the body armour. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BOzQwj4fSE&NR=1 ).
Continued play (American football, Good God! Stop standing around).
Lots of scoring (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoJ70X2WuvE)
BIG FUCKIN' AIR (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w81w9Bw19xQ&feature=fvst)
Ed says:
Ah. The rugby/Australian Football people are here.
I have heard many times the argument about how American football is insufficiently Manly because of the amount of protective gear worn. Here is my counter-argument;
The purpose of that equipment has nothing to do with the line between getting hurt and not getting hurt. It is to keep players on the correct side of the line between getting hurt and getting crippled.
There's a lot more wide open space in our version of the game, meaning that a lot more people are running into one another full-speed (esp. compared to rugby). My conclusion is that people get beaten up a lot worse playing Aussie or rugby, but American is more likely to get you crippled. I see it as the guarantee of pain and injury in rugby/Aussie versus the possibility of the kind of injuries seen only in car accidents in American football.
tommytimp says:
Super Bowl. TWO GODDAMNED WORDS. Not "Superbowl."
Fuck.
-g says:
This is a bit of a derail, but I think an important thing to realize is that there is, possibly, a class component to the love of soccer. For the commoners, playing football requires, at the very least, owning a funky ball…and knowing a bunch of rules. Baseball requires a tiny, heavy throwable ball-like thing and a stick that won't fall apart when you hit. Basketball, a hard surface an especially bouncy ball, and all sorts of hardware. Hockey…ice and a bunch of expensive equipment.
What does soccer require? I've seen games played with a bunch of rolled-up shirts with the goals being more shirts. As for the rules, there's only really one. The point I'm making is that soccer is more democratic than most American sports. I'd be willing to bet that more pick-up soccer games are played on any given weekend than pick-up football or baseball by men over the age of 25, even in the US (granted they might be immigrants, but hey, a game is a game).
Soccer is more accessible than other sports because its easy and requires less investment in rules and resources. What does this have to do with watchability? The more you play a sport the more watchable it is to you despite the ridiculousnesses. I'd venture that a whole lot more soccer is played around the world than any other sport.
And FWIW, flopping is not exactly unknown in the NBA and NFL.
Matthew says:
Man, everybody on both sides of this debate kind of looks like a dick.
Me? I love tennis. Go tennis! Woooo!
Elle says:
Sorry, I thought that looked wrong somehow, but didn't go and look it up.
Aslan Maskhadov says:
Football does indeed suck for the following reasons:
1. If you live in Europe like I do, you will quickly notice that virtually every advertisement involves football. If you are incredibly lazy and want to get into marketing, move to Europe(Croatia would be a good choice). At every board meeting, just pitch the following:
1. Football star holding the product.
2. Kids playing football and then using the product.
3. The product being kicked around like a football, goal is scored.
4. Your product playing football with a competing product, your product scores.
5. Two footballs playing football with your product. Stadium seats are full of footballs.
6. An airplane from your airline lands on a football field while a game is in progress. Think this is a joke? I actually SAW just that in a Turkish Airlines ad. And the team wasn't even Turkish. WTF?!
The other problem is the issue of racism and nationalism in football. The Yugoslav wars actually began on the football field between hooligans of Zagreb(actually Dinamo but usually known only as Zagreb) and FC Partizan or Red Star(both Belgrade teams anyway). Zagreb's hooligans, the Bad Blue Boys, later formed militias during the war.
Skinheads and neo-Nazis are synonymous with football. You guys ever read those stories about how Russia is like skinhead Nazi capital of the world right now? The truth is you will see very few if any Neo-Nazis in Moscow, but all that goes out the window if you hang around any football stadium.
In England and a few other countries, black players, even when on the home team, are harassed. Fans in the crowd make monkey sounds, and in some countries frozen bananas are thrown. As if the racism weren't bad enough, there is the hypocrisy issue. If you don't like foreign players on your team, DON'T WATCH THE GODDAMNED GAME.
Football has also become intertwined with women trafficking as well. In the 2006 world cup, pimps took advantage of the increase in customers to integrate their business with the attraction. While prostitution is still legal in Germany, many of the girls are trafficked in as there is a demand for cheaper sex without condoms.
Football is also rife with corruption, and as Ed pointed out, the players are whiny bitches.
The main problem with the rest of the world and football isn't that football itself is such a terrible game(though there is room for improvement), it comes from the fact that for so much of the world it is practically the ONLY game, or the only one that gets attention. In the US, Canada, Cuba, Mexico, etc., we all at least have a variety of sports. That's why in the US when we endure long commercial breaks we don't have to see ten football-themed advertisements. That, coupled with public drinking fountains, represents the true greatness of America.
bookwormz says:
Ed, Ed, Ed:
THe fallen player should not be signaled as "an enormous vagina," but rather as a "useless dick." Vaginas are strong, expandable, resilient, and offer protection, comfort and utility. Dicks, on the other hand, crumple at the slightest interruption, are notoriously unreliable, and often need assistance to "finish the game."
Oy.
a says:
I don't get it, but I also don't get Hockey – so why don't you start by explaining that one.
Matt says:
Ed, I must disagree. Pads make people do stupid things. Aussie Rules/Rugby players are trained from a young age to tackle safely so as not to hurt either party. I have no evidence, but I bet there are fewer real injuries in Aussie Rules/Rugby than in Gridiron, despite the pads.
Besides, it's not a "manliness" issue, despite what Aussies/Kiwis/Poms/ROW will mock you Americans for in the bar… It's just that there is no flow to a Gridiron game. I'd prefer to watch field hockey.
Of course, this is exactly what makes American sports ideal for Americans… The stop-start action allows the audience to be inundated with their favourite TV fodder — ads!
Aren't the "iconic" American sports only popular in the US because that's what the networks make easy money from? Now there's the momentum behind tradition and force of habit!
Love your work Ed, BTW. But stick to politics, sports are too complex.
Cheers!
BK says:
Ed – I think you're wrong about pads in American football…
They aren't there to protect players from crippling injury, they are there to assure that players CAN run as fast as possible and then HURL themselves into another player while making an extraodrinarily loud sound. Helmets and shoulder pads do precious little to protect the neck from compression or fracture – the leading causes of crippling, immediate injury.
Maybe they save some bones from breaking or concussions from happening, but to day the pads are their to protect the players is a bit of a stretch… they are there to enhance the fans' enjoyment of the game, sell more ads and minimally protect the investment made by the owners…
@ says:
"It doesn't matter how you try to sell it to us, it doesn't matter how many celebrities you get, it doesn't matter how many bars open early, it doesn't matter how many beer commercials they run, we don't want the World Cup, we don't like the World Cup, we don't like soccer, we want nothing to do with it… I hate it so much, probably because the rest of the world likes it so much, and they riot over it, and they continually try to jam it down our throat."
— Glenn Beck
I am now a Proud American Fan of Soccer!
Nick says:
American born soccer nut here. I didn't give a shit about any sport, least of all soccer, till 2006. Then I watched the World Cup that year and was impressed by the skill and athleticism of the players–having watched very little soccer previously, all I really knew was "Haha, 0-0 draws and divers!" So after the World Cup ended, I decided to go to a Real Salt Lake match. I instantly fell in love–not so much because of the game itself, but because of the support. At most sports in America, you get people clapping or cheering when something good happens, occasionally chanting when the Jumbotron tells them to, and that's about it. Maybe you have one or two drunk guys yelling really loud, and eventually someone tells them to quiet down "for the children." Soccer, though–at least if you go with the right people–is very different. Someone up above (I'm too lazy to reread) mentioned the "cocktease" aspect of it, and there is some truth to that. It's a very fast-paced game with lots of chances, like basketball, but at the same time it's a very low-scoring game, and a single goal often determines the flow of the game and/or the winner. So instead of people just thinking "oh cool, we've got another chance at a basket–only 100 more points till the end of the game," any chance at a goal is seen as a chance to win the game. Thus, the first minute of a soccer game is as important as the last minute of a basketball game. Having this kind of emotion for 90 minutes leads to extremely passionate support. Yes, that occasionally spirals out of control (although it was a Phillies game that had some guy deliberately puke on a little girl, so clearly no sport is immune to assholes) but overall it improves the atmosphere and experience of the game.
Really, watching a soccer match on TV doesn't compare, unless you're watching with a large group of passionate fans. It's hard to understand the level of support unless you actually go.
Oh, and as far as the idea of smarmy, douchey fans goes, I have three words for you: Jim Fucking Rome.
Allison says:
it is extremely disrespectful and short-sighted to mock anything that gives people hope on such a large scale. this is the same reason that I am very careful about criticizing religion. As out-of-control zealous and used to justify evil in so many forms as it is, there are people so poor and destitute, so hopeless in their shanty towns and hospitals and prisons, that it is only the belief that things will get better and God will take care of them that keeps them going. For some, sport holds the same requirement of faith: the pride they can feel in their nation, the joy that a ball made of rags, if that is all they have, can bring can similarly keep one's emotional and spiritual state intact. As Americans, the richest country, the most privileged country, who has, for the duration of our lifetime, bowed only to the almighty dollar, it is very difficult to understand how necessary it is to believe in something bigger than you, be it Pele or a hat trick, just to be able to hold your head high. The fact that the World Cup is loved the world over except the US (although everyone I know, including myself, is glued to this and the last two tournaments) should be enough to leave it alone. Hating something you don't understand has, historically, led to unhealthy results. You don't have to like it to respect it.
Jon says:
> Why are fans allowed to employ whatever kind of noisemaking implement they choose? This would be like having a basketball game where everyone in the stadium had a whistle.
How to properly use the vuvuzela: http://i.imgur.com/rEAil.png
@ + 1 says:
@ @:
Don't forget about all of those damn brown, soccer-loving people infiltrating America:
MRC's Dan Gainor: "Soccer is designed as a poor man or poor woman's sport," "the left is pushing [soccer] in schools across the country." Also on the June 10 G. Gordon Liddy Show, Media Research Center's Dan Gainor said, "the problem here is, soccer is designed as a poor man or poor woman's sport" and that "the left is pushing it in schools across the country." He added: "generally football games in this country don't devolve into riots or wars." He later added that the sport of soccer "is being sold" as necessary due to the "browning of America."
http://mediamatters.org/research/201006110040
Daniel says:
I'll watch the World Cup because it is something different sportswise for me to watch. There's a lot of nuance to the game that doesn't include scoring goals or goalie saves. Not a fan of the ties though, but it makes sense for the Group play. Unlike hockey where goals can be scored in flurries and it is a furious pace, soccer just doesn't feel that way. I think that is what disengages North American sports fans. In baseball, any pitch can leave the yard. Hockey, a goal can happen in a split second off of a turnover. Basketball goes without saying, and same with American football. Of course the goal that the Brits gave up to us was a huge boner, so maybe I do have to watch every second just to see if a goalie lets one through his hands.
twiffer says:
asking why people like particular sports is ultimately pointless. it's a matter of taste and what you grew up with.
anyway, i have no strong feeling on soccer. i like baseball, that's all i follow and everything else is background.
i'll venture to say that, perhaps more than ties, americans have a problem with not being able to use their hands (other than the goalie) in soccer. as a species, most of what we claim seperates us from animals is the result of our hands. hands are important. hands are the most dexterous and essential of our limbs. why the hell can't we just pick up the damn ball?
twiffer says:
@ -g: i've heard the class argument before, and don't really buy it. the price of a soccer ball, football and basketball, for instance, are pretty much the same: any where from 10 to 100 bucks. baseball, sure, a bit more (and more likely to lose a ball), if you don't want to use a wiffle ball and bat. there are no lack of basketball courts to play on. for free. football and soccer and baseball all merely require a field and some shirts (for goals or bases) for a playing field.
for 5 to 10 bucks at any garage sale in the US you can probably get everything you need to play any sport you want. and if you don't want your own gear, someone has it, somewhere. it's not really a question of cost, unless you want to get serious about playing the sport.
Aslan Maskhadov says:
Twiffer, the idea is that by limiting players to the feet, it will be more challenging.
mothra says:
Funny how hardly any of the pro-soccer commenters defended the ridiculous overreactions of the "downed" players. That's the part of soccer I feel is quite silly. They act as though they've been mortally wounded, yet bounce right back up after a decent bit of over-acting. It's like watching Violetta die during the whole last act of La Traviata…
Bob says:
I follow the NFL and NBA seriously, pay a bit of attention to the NHL and don’t care about MLB at all. Grew up in Chicago where all 4 major US pro sports had a team. I’ve been in so many thousands of discussions of sports over the course of my life that I find it kinda embarrassing….probably should have better used that time.
Based on all the above, here’s my take on this debate: I have spent hours in a bar with friends whose worship of baseball made Annie Savoy look like an atheist; they blather on and on about baseball and I blather on and on about how insanely boring I find it. At no point does anyone psychoanalyze anyone based upon their preference. At no point does anyone accuse one on the other side of having some character flaw. At no point are geographic insults thrown based upon sports preferences. Conversely, no one announces how superior he/she is due to his/her love of the sport. No one claims their sport is followed by a better type of person.
Those of us on the “it sucks” side are content to let the others love it and vice versa.
The ONLY time the “if you don’t love sport _______, you just don’t get it” argument comes up is with soccer fans. And it’s all but automatic with them. Non-soccer fans don’t have the attention span, or they demand instant gratification, or ain’t we superior because we appreciate the subtle beauty of the game, etc.
Only soccer.
Bob says:
this:
“it's a wholly unamerican game. it's not built on instant gratification, territory control or simply whiling the day away with some unnecessarily complex ruleset. it's one of the only games still played that really upholds the purity of the word "sport"”
is perhaps the single smarmiest thing I have ever read. And bonus points for the notion that “territory control” is some sort of uniquely American quirk. Of the four major sports in the US only 1 – football – can be said to be about “territory control”. But more to the point, the English, Germans, Portuguese, Japanese – to name a few – can be shown to posses both a long-term interest in “territory control” and a love of soccer,
Territory control…..shit cracks me up.
Stephen says:
I'll point out, here, as a US soccer fan:
Members in the United Nations – 191
http://www.un.org/en/members/index.shtml
Members of FIFA (Soccer's international governing body) – 208
http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/federation/associations.html
I (shamefully?) wrote my Poli Sci senior seminar in part on the international political ramifications of World Cup/ Olympic type events. The World Cup is, without fail, always one of the most-watched events in the world in any 4-year timeframe.
Bob says:
Stephen: No one is disputing soccer
Bob says:
Sorry, don't know what happened:
Stephen: No one is disputing soccer’s popularity. The discussion is about why soccer fans find it so necessary to attack those who don’t like it. I have no problem with your liking it but you obviously have a problem with me not liking it…..”but, but, but it’s got more member nations than the UN…..”
So effin what? I don’t like it. Try to accept that.
C says:
i'm pretty fucking American, i don't know what you all are going on about. soccer isn't a "european" sport, it's wholly international.
and as far as the english go, well they are english. they go similarly apeshit over cricket.
TR says:
"Why is there a clock? It operates in the wrong direction and seemingly at random, being ignored by everyone on the field and seemingly having no effect on the game whatsoever."
http://www.drblank.com/slaw7.htm
"Allowance for Time Lost
Allowance is made in either period for all time lost through:
* substitution(s)
* assessment of injury to players
* removal of injured players from the field of play for treatment
* wasting time
* any other cause
The allowance for time lost is at the discretion of the referee. "
The match is 90 minutes. However time is continuous; it's not paused for any of the reasons above. The actual time remaining is left to the referee's judgment on the field. For this reason, two watches are required for referees: one that runs continuously, and one that he can start/stop at his discretion to try and estimate the amount of 'injury time' he adds to make up for time lost for reasons above. Which include 'any other cause'.
As with every rule it's completely at the referee's discretion how it's applied. It even says so in the rules.
http://www.drblank.com/slaw5.htm
"The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play are final."
This is the same reason there will never be instant-replay review. The interpretation of this rule helps soccer keep the flow it does have by allowing the referee to award 'advantage' after a foul; if the fouled player or team can gain an advantage from continued play after a foul, he can opt to not signal for play to stop. Unfortunately, the way a referee signals this is with arms out in something near a shrug; play continues and it sometimes look like he 'missed' the foul.
"Why do goaltenders wear neutral colors?"
http://www.drblank.com/slaw4.htm
"Goalkeepers
* each goalkeeper wears colours which distinguish him from the other players, the referee and the assistant referees "
Long sleeves too, so you can tell which arm in the crowd is allowed to handle the ball coming in high. This is also part of the reason that referee jerseys have changed from the solid black, white collar uniforms to black pin stripes on one of five colors; yellow, black, red, blue or green. That way even if a yellow team with a keeper in red plays a green team with a keeper in black, the referee crew will have something to wear. They even come in long sleeves for cool weather.
"Why are fans allowed to employ whatever kind of noisemaking implement they choose? This would be like having a basketball game where everyone in the stadium had a whistle."
The referee's jurisdiction is only the field of play, the player bench area and the technical area from where coaches can coach. As far as I know, FIFA has decided it's easier to just allow the noisemakers, cowbells, horns, catpianos, etc. so long as they can't be confused for the referee's whistle, the only instrument used to officially start and stop play.
"Why are substitutions treated like the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknowns?"
http://www.drblank.com/slaw3.htm
"Official Competitions
Up to a maximum of three substitutes may be used in any match played in an official competition organised under the auspices of FIFA, the confederations or the national associations. "
And further down
" To replace a player by a substitute, the following conditions must be observed:
* the referee is informed before any proposed substitution is made
* a substitute only enters the field of play after the player being replaced has left and after receiving a signal from the referee
* a substitute only enters the field of play at the halfway line and during a stoppage in the match
* a substitution is completed when a substitute enters the field of play
* from that moment, the substitute becomes a player and the player he has replaced ceases to be a player
* a player who has been replaced takes no further part in the match
* all substitutes are subject to the authority and jurisdiction of the referee, whether called upon to play or not "
This is part paperwork, part control. You have a very small number of substitutions per game to work with. As in baseball, pinch hitting or running removes the player from the game entirely. But from a purely administrative point of view, the important bit is that the player coming out remove himself entirely from the field making him no longer a 'player'. There are certain actions and penalties the referee can only take against 'players' that have recognized consequences beyond the game. Specifically he may only caution (yellow card) or send off (red card) one of the 11 'players' on the field. The substitution process makes it crystal clear who is and is not a player.
The thought experiment at referee clinics is as follows:
'Player 13 subs in for player 5. Player 13 enters the field before player 5 has left. Before stepping off the field, player 5 strikes an opponent in the face. What is the penalty?'
(A- Player 5 gets sent off with a red card (guilty of violent conduct) and possible assault charges, Player 13 gets cautioned with a yellow card (enters or re-enters the field of play without the referee's permission). No substitution is allowed because players sent off can't be replaced, so the team plays with only 10 players.)
As to the player coming back on after the injury, that's allowed only so long as he hasn't been replaced by another player in a substitution. Similar to how a player can't play while bleeding or with broken equipment, he has to leave the field and fix it while his team plays one man down. If he's replaced, it's as a substitution, and he can't return. If he's sent off on a stretcher and then comes back, it's at the very least a yellow card for being 'guilty of unsporting behaviour' i.e. taking a dive. They have been stepping up enforcement of those for this cup.
Prudence says:
Ack, I wrote a reply to Ed and then got an error 404 type message (except it was a different number). Anyway, it's just fucking football, so what if a fraction of the world's population don't like it? And some of them, like Wes, are miserable gits. Meh.
Though, C, as an English person, I can tell you the English don't go as universally batshit about cricket as with footy. Except when we win the Ashes, or some such miracle.
smmo says:
I'm not a huge soccer fan but I do enjoy the World Cup, mostly the delightful anguish of the English fans. I mean really, only Red Sox fans are more absurd but somehow far less entertaining. If England doesn't make it out of the group they will have to content themselves with hating my new favorite person, Diego Maradona.
It would be nice to read a post and comments like this without the misogyny, ya know?
soccer in the UK and Europe is driven largely by hooliganism and fans so low-brow that they would stand out as morons even at a NASCAR race in the US.
Well. I don't think so. I think they would be about equal in lowbrow-ityness.