IBS, Newbury, Berkshire, England
Friday, 14th June 2002 13:45 BST
Re: Football, Soccer, whatever...
Sorry gang, but as a 30-something American who has lived in the UK for the
past 12 years, and both loves and follows sport(s) on both sides of the
pond, I couldn't resist adding my two pence worth...
First of all, thanks to Rich Lindsay for posting that brilliant Mitch Albom
piece on the tepid U.S. reaction to World Cup Mania. As a 'Yank' who avidly
follows Football (hereafter referred to as Soccer), but has spent many a
lunch hour attempting to explain why "The Beautiful Game" hasn't (and
probably won't) take-off with the American sporting public, that article was
a God-send. I distributed it to a number of my colleagues, who found it
both enlightening and amusing.
To his observations, I'll add a few of my own thoughts why the game is
unlikely to make a significant impact on the USA despite it's global
popularity.
1. (Television). The vast majority of revenue from the four major team
sports in the USA comes from television rights. Absolutely massive sums of
money. But given that Soccer has two 45 minute running-time halves, it's
just too TV-unfriendly to be taken to by U.S. networks -- no opportunity for
commercial breaks every 7 minutes. And the revenue from putting advertising
on team uniforms isn't done in the U.S., and wouldn't come close to matching
television revenue. Hence, teams can't raise the revenue to compete with
the rest of the world for the best club talent.
2. (The Calendar). The U.S. sports calendar is already filled to
overflowing. That's not to say that Soccer will never penetrate the
sporting psyche, (there's MLS) but that it's likely to remain a niche
market, given what it's up against. (Sports in the U.S. are like buses; if
you miss one, fear not, there'll be another one along soon). When I was
watching ESPN's nightly Sport Centre in the USA last week, the highlights of
the victory over Portugal (!) came on 38 minutes into an hour-long
broadcast. Ouch.
3. (Style). Hear me out on this one. I think that there's something in
Soccer that offends an American sense of precision. The structure of
American sports is rigidly adhered to. Games are stopped so that three
seconds can be put back on the clock. In the last minute of action, game
clocks keep track of -tenths- of a second. First downs are measured to the
fraction of an inch. Time outs are taken so decisions can be reviewed by
instant-replay. Huge game-stopping arguments can ensue over whether a
single pitch was a ball or a strike...
Whereas in Soccer, the only 'accurate' clock is held by the referee on the
field, and no one else knows what it says. (how much time is left??) Goals
are scored in the "nn-th minute" (when? I want to know -precisely-).
Throw-ins and free-kicks are taken in only the loose general vicinity of
where the ball went out of bounds/ violation occurred. (he's cheating!
that's not where it went out.) etc. It may seem like nit picking, but I
think there's something to it. It's just too free-form, bordering on
chaotic, to be in tune with an American sporting sensibility. I personally
love it, but it just doesn't play in Peoria.
4. (Distances). I can't argue with how fanatical Soccer club-team supporters
(fans) are across the world. Their fanaticism is unparalleled. (Being at
Fenway against the Yankees doesn't even come close) Many of them do indeed
travel to -all- of the away-matches for their teams, usually within their
own country, but sometimes outside of it too. There is no question that
this adds tremendously to the atmosphere at many matches, which is rarely
equalled by U.S. fans for ANY sport. Having said that, it also means that
fans regularly come face to face with rival supporters, and that the results
are frequently regrettable and sometimes downright ugly. Something of a
tribal/ gang/ feral mentality. It is something that I abjectly fail to
understand or appreciate. Perhaps it fills a void for some.
However, none of this, for good or bad, would be much of a factor in the
USA, because of the vast distances involved -- it would be an economic and
chronological near-impossibility to travel to all the away matches. It's
one aspect that just wouldn't translate. Hence, tickets & seating sections
most certainly aren't going to be set aside for opposition fans, nor would
any American city tolerate the costs involved with policing widespread
hooliganism.
5. (Scoring). Soccer has an uphill climb in the USA as long as it remains
as low-scoring as it is now. Don't get me wrong, I Love the sport, and
follow it avidly, but I've seen too many dreadfully boring nil-nil matches
to believe that this game will ever really take off in America at large.
And that's not to say that I haven't sat through Baseball & Ice Hockey games
that weren't dreadfully boring, (because I have, and I say that as someone
played both sports at university), and I find professional Basketball dull
precisely because scoring is happening almost constantly. But because of
the supposed 'honour' of drawing one's away matches, Soccer teams
frequently wind up playing NOT to lose, rather than to win, with less-than
exciting results.
So at the risk of criticising the world's favourite sport, speaking as a
fan, it must be said that many Soccer games ARE dull; indeed the superb BBC
commentators have no problem saying this repeatedly when it is the case.
(In fact, they openly hope that a team that plays the game "beautifully"
will win the cup, thus admitting that many teams win (or draw) by playing
"ugly"). While Soccer at it's best is unbelievably exciting (i.e. The World
Cup), a season's worth reminds me of a Wagernerian performance -- glorious
highlights, but with long-ish dull stretches. It seems to me that increased
scoring might spice things up a bit. However, at the same time I understand
that if you were to enlarge the size of the goal, or tinker with the
offsides rule to increase scoring, you've just messed with a lot of history
and all of the record books. I'll absolutely defend the right of the sport
to not change itself; but it's unlikely to appeal to most Americans unless
it does.
6. Outcomes. I still have yet to take to the notion that a draw (tie) is a
legitimate outcome to a sporting match. That's like saying that you'd end a
Golf tournament after 72 holes even if two or more contestants are tied.
The point of having a contest is to determine who wins. If not, why bother?
Just call the 2000 U.S. Presidential election a tie? (though plenty might
have preferred that)
Indeed, I accept that there are certain sports where, in a given set of
circumstances, it can be impossible to determine a winner. The point that
was made about Chess matches being frequently drawn is very well taken.
(And I absolutely love test-match Cricket, where something like a third of
matches end in a draw -- it's just a factor of the way the game is
structured.) (Though I've heard it said that if you're an American living
in the UK, and you've grown to like Cricket, it's a sure-fire sign that
you've been here too long.) (Though you've got to love a sport where the
matches take a break so the contestants can Eat Lunch. How anachronistic.
It's positively alternative. Add it to the X games!)
My problem is that it seems like Soccer is a sport where it would be easy
enough to determine an outcome that is NOT a draw, so why settle for one?
How about 3 points for a win, but only 2 for winning on Penalties. (Though
I do wish that there was a better way to determine an outcome than that.
How about aggregate shots on goal?) Though, "sudden death" overtimes (i.e.
Golden Goal) in the World Cup is a start. But there's a ways to go...
+++++
Overall though, Soccer is a glorious sport, and the U.S. is much the poorer
for not appreciating its many charms.
But that's not to say that there isn't a sizeable population in the U.S.
that does follow it. If 72% aren't going to watch, then 28% are, so I make
that out to be roughly 84 million people who will watch at least some of it,
and maybe 10-15 million who will watch most of it. By comparison, the
population of Senegal is under 2 million. (Though it's been great to see
them doing well). (Unless, of course, you're supporting France. Or
Uruguay.)
Right. OK then, one final point, in an off-topic email that is already FAR
too long...
The rest of the world seems bothered that the USA doesn't care much about
Soccer, but to be honest, I don't really understand why. It's the country's
loss, but there's nothing -wrong- with it per se. The U.S. plays the sport,
it participates in the World Cup, and it may (?) even advance to the next
round. True, the country isn't swept by Football Fever, but it's not
totally ignored either, and the players certainly take it seriously.
But given that the world is already dominated by America in so many ways
(Economically, Militarily, etc...), and not always for the betterment (or to
the liking) of the World as a whole... ...does the rest of the world
--really-- want the USA to become a competitive force in the World Cup? I'm
not entirely sure that it does.
Because it may well wind up being a case of "be careful what you wish for",
given that 18 million Americans play the sport competitively (at some
level), and the U.S. population is set to roughly double this century,
largely through immigration. Indeed, it's not outside the realm of
possibility that the U.S. might wind up improving rather a lot in the game
over the next decade. And I'm not certain how well such a transition from
this sporting "isolationism" would be received. Would U.S. success in the
sport promote international understanding, or add to global resentment?
Perhaps we'll find out. But probably not until at least 2010 at the
earliest. (Not that I'd quit rooting for England anyway.)
In the mean time, I'm going to have a blast watching this weekend's matches,
and would encourage everyone on the list, no matter where they're from, to
give it a try if they're at all interested. It's sporting theatre at its
pinnacle, the knock-out round. Those who already know, wouldn't miss it
for... the world.
Cheers,
-Ross
-- Read the List FAQ/Etiquette: http://www.newtontalk.net/faq.html Read the Newton FAQ: http://www.guns-media.com/mirrors/newton/faq/ This is the NewtonTalk mailing list - http://www.newtontalk.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Jul 03 2002 - 14:02:19 EDT