Why Soccer will (not) succeed in America

[Scipio Afracanis]

@IWUB:

A small sign of why soccer will succeed in the USA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWOkZ4o4tCY

[Kraut and Tea]

It`s not called "soccer".

And there is your reason why it will never catch on.

[Scipio Afracanis]

I call it "Body Ball Except For The Hands Unless Your The Goalie" or Soccer for short.

Edit: American Football could learn a thing or 2, all we have are commercials like this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlXRengzZoc

[PikeStance]

It`s not called "soccer".

And there is your reason why it will never catch on.

I wish people stop repeating this nonsense. There are FIVE sports that uses the word Football in it.
Association Football
Rugby Football
American Football
Gaelic Football
Australian Rules Football

American football comes directly from Rugby football. In fact the first game of American football actually resemble rugby more than the game today.
Soccer comes from the world "Association." At the time it was common in England (I believe Oxford) to put an "er" on the end of slangs.... so it became "soccer"
The difference is in England, Association Football kept the name "football" while Rugby would become common for the other form of the game. In the US the opposite happened.

Personally, I hate the fact that some clubs in the US insist on using "FC" to refer to soccer clubs. It is not called football, but soccer. Therefore, SC would be moe appropriately. Ironocially, living overseas for over 8 years, I call it football and I refer to "football" as "American Football." In the US, you just so incredibly stupid calling "Football" American Football. Moreover, calling football won't help it succeed in the US either. It is better to call it soccer. You are just making a silly argument to say otherwise.

[chilon]

Umm, no it doesn't. Its squarely 5th among the professional sports leagues in revenue, total attendance and its close with indoor sports for average attendance. And it is a very very very distant 5th considering the 4th place league made 2.8 billion dollars more (nearly 7 times the revenue of MLS) and is only really popular in about 20 of the 30 cities that have a team.
.

This is a horrible fallacy.

You absolutely cannot gauge the popularity of the sport in the USA by MLS attendance and revenue. That is a hugely a strawman.

I watch more Arsenal games alone every year than games in NHL, NFL, NBA and MLB combined, let alone all the other games I watch from Serie A, La Liga nad Bundesliga. But... I don't watch MLS much at all or goto MLS games. I can't tell you how many fans I know that are the same. British pubs that are packed at 5AM with fans here in California watching games, but fans that never watch MLS because MLS is not even close to the top 5 leagues in the world in quality.

So, yeah, you absolutely cannot measure the popularity of the sport in the USA with the popularity of MLS. There are far, far more fans of BPL, La Liga, Serie A , and Bundesliga teams in the USA than fans of MLS teams. Just look how every MLS vs. European Club game in the summer is sold out in minutes.

See the difference in soccer/footy than other American sports is that there is not one "league" to watch. There are multiple and MLS falls way down on the list.

If you really wanted to measure the popularity in the USA you would have to have access to data that simply doesn't exist:

How many Americans watch soccer on streams like found on Reddit?
How many Americans goto to pubs to watch European clubs play every weekend?
How many Americans enjoy the sport but simply don't watch any sports regularly (like many I know)?

You using MLS numbers to compare "popularity" is hugely flawed and inaccurate.

Malcolm Galdwell in his book 'Outliers' looked at the unusually large percentage of Canadian hockey players that were born in the 1st quarter of the year (Jan, Feb and Mar). His studies found that the cut off date for age groups in Canadian ice hockey is Jan 1st. Someone born on 1st January would have a years growing (height and weight) advantage over someone born on 31st December. Bigger and stronger the more they tended to get selected for school and club teams. Playing for schools and clubs they got additional training and were more likely to get selected for representative honors and got more additional training and support. This process continued right up until the national hockey league, because there are an unusually large amount of players with birthdays in Jan, Feb & March. He did a similar study with football in the UK where the cut of date for age groups is Sept 1st. As you might expect he found an unusually large amount of professional footballers with birthdays in September, October and November.

You can't forget the other part of Outliers where Gladwell mentions the 10,000 hours of practice rule. yes you are absolutely correct that some sports benefit from exaclty the phenomenon that you mention but world football as a whole does not.

The main point about "playing since you are a kid" is that gives the most time to hit 10,000 hours of practice that Gladwell also highlights in Outliers as being essential to any skill mastery.

Sure, some people can reach 10,000 hours of practice not starting in childhood, but that's much, much more rare and requires a certain dedication later in life. 10,000 hours of practice was the critical point of Gladwell's Outliers.

I think you missed Gladwell's actual point by the way you quoted him because the point with him mentioning the cut-off date in youth leagues was to highlight the psychological effect of seeming to be behind other kids "your age" and being discouraged or not encouraged enough to REACH the 10,000 hours of practice mark. His point was that more kids at the older end of youth age brackets receive more encouragement and thus as a group are more likely to be motivated to reach that critical 10,000 hours of practice.

[PikeStance]

This is a horrible fallacy.

You absolutely cannot gauge the popularity of the sport in the USA by MLS attendance and revenue. That is a hugely a strawman.

I watch more Arsenal games alone every year than games in NHL, NFL, NBA and MLB combined, let alone all the other games I watch from Serie A, La Liga nad Bundesliga. But... I don't watch MLS much at all or goto MLS games. I can't tell you how many fans I know that are the same. British pubs that are packed at 5AM with fans here in California watching games, but fans that never watch MLS because MLS is not even close to the top 5 leagues in the world in quality.

So, yeah, you absolutely cannot measure the popularity of the sport in the USA with the popularity of MLS. There are far, far more fans of BPL, La Liga, Serie A , and Bundesliga teams in the USA than fans of MLS teams. Just look how every MLS vs. European Club game in the summer is sold out in minutes.

See the difference in soccer/footy than other American sports is that there is not one "league" to watch. There are multiple and MLS falls way down on the list.

If you really wanted to measure the popularity in the USA you would have to have access to data that simply doesn't exist:

How many Americans watch soccer on streams like found on Reddit?
How many Americans goto to pubs to watch European clubs play every weekend?
How many Americans enjoy the sport but simply don't watch any sports regularly (like many I know)?

You using MLS numbers to compare "popularity" is hugely flawed and inaccurate.

I find it ironic you argued that Pugs used a strawman, but you responded with a strawman yourself. There are many ways you can judge the rise in popularity of a sport. Pugs mentioned one. I earlier included statistics that suggest a rise in popularity. There are also no absolute way to measure it. Its ok, we can speculate on a number of factors already mentioned in this thread.

You can't forget the other part of Outliers where Gladwell mentions the 10,000 hours of practice rule. yes you are absolutely correct that some sports benefit from exaclty the phenomenon that you mention but world football as a whole does not.

The main point about "playing since you are a kid" is that gives the most time to hit 10,000 hours of practice that Gladwell also highlights in Outliers as being essential to any skill mastery.

Sure, some people can reach 10,000 hours of practice not starting in childhood, but that's much, much more rare and requires a certain dedication later in life. 10,000 hours of practice was the critical point of Gladwell's Outliers.

I think you missed Gladwell's actual point by the way you quoted him because the point with him mentioning the cut-off date in youth leagues was to highlight the psychological effect of seeming to be behind other kids "your age" and being discouraged or not encouraged enough to REACH the 10,000 hours of practice mark. His point was that more kids at the older end of youth age brackets receive more encouragement and thus as a group are more likely to be motivated to reach that critical 10,000 hours of practice.

I was actually elaborating on the point, not disputing or presenting an alternative view point.
I didn't miss the point. I see no point and taking his data beyond what I was arguing.

In any case, the problem with development has little to do with recognition of talent or training. Its geography. The size of the US makes it difficult to develop young talent that are spread out over 1000s of miles. While we may be able to trained our young, we lack the quality of training to adequately get them to the next level.

[Halie Satanus]

No one calls Rugby 'Rugby football.' Rugby League or Rugby Union.

[PikeStance]

No one calls Rugby 'Rugby football.' Rugby League or Rugby Union.

Do you know what "RFC" stands for at the end of Rugby teams names?
I give you one guess!

[chilon]

I find it ironic you argued that Pugs used a strawman, but you responded with a strawman yourself. There are many ways you can judge the rise in popularity of a sport. Pugs mentioned one. I earlier included statistics that suggest a rise in popularity. There are also no absolute way to measure it. Its ok, we can speculate on a number of factors already mentioned in this thread.

Uh, I made no strawman. Are you sure you know what a strawman is?

I pointed out the flaws in using MLS attendance and revenue as a gauge of popularity of the entire sport and pointed out why using MLS was flawed. No strawman there.

I was actually elaborating on the point, not disputing or presenting an alternative view point.
I didn't miss the point. I see no point and taking his data beyond what I was arguing.

In any case, the problem with development has little to do with recognition of talent or training. Its geography. The size of the US makes it difficult to develop young talent that are spread out over 1000s of miles. While we may be able to trained our young, we lack the quality of training to adequately get them to the next level.

No you tried to downplay "playing the game since you were kid" as not that relevant and you tried to mistakenly insert Gladwell's example from Outliers as somehow supporting your point.

However a more careful read of Gladwell's entire Outliers book, not just the snippet you clipped somewhat out of context, in fact implies the reverse as what you said, that indeed getting 10,000 hours of practice at the earliest age is important.

And no you are incorrect about geography as well. MLB, Basketball and American Football don't have problem developing talent because its "spread out over 1000s of miles" Neither do other large countries with football like Brazil and Argentina.

You are somewhat correct about lacking 'quality of training' but again it goes back to the 10,000 hours of practice more so than lacking quality coaches here.

[PikeStance]

Uh, I made no strawman. Are you sure you know what a strawman is?

I pointed out the flaws in using MLS attendance and revenue as a gauge of popularity of the entire sport and pointed out why using MLS was flawed. No strawman there.

Actually you did when you suggested that Pugs only talked about the popularity of MLS as the only means to determining the popularity of the sport.

Also you wrote this,...

If you really wanted to measure the popularity in the USA you would have to have access to data that simply doesn't exist:

How many Americans watch soccer on streams like found on Reddit?
How many Americans goto to pubs to watch European clubs play every weekend?
How many Americans enjoy the sport but simply don't watch any sports regularly (like many I know)?

This is also false. If you were to collect data on this information it would only be part of the equation and not the total picture. As I stated there are many things you can look at to determine if the sport is popular. As I noted, I included a copy and paste of statistics.

You using MLS numbers to compare "popularity" is hugely flawed and inaccurate.

I wouldn't call it flawed. It does gauge the acceptace of the sport. I do not see how it is useless in helping determining the popularity of the sport.

No you tried to downplay "playing the game since you were kid" as not that relevant and you tried to mistakenly insert Gladwell's example from Outliers as somehow supporting your point.

However a more careful read of Gladwell's entire Outliers book, not just the snippet you clipped somewhat out of context, in fact implies the reverse as what you said, that indeed getting 10,000 hours of practice at the earliest age is important.

I didn't downplayed it I emphasized it. I didn't misused the data. If a child born at a certain time allows him/ her to get better training etc... and this leads to getting increase hours of practice, just how am I misusing the data. You seemed more upset I didn't go on about 10,000 hours of practice.

And no you are incorrect about geography as well. MLB, Basketball and American Football don't have problem developing talent because its "spread out over 1000s of miles" Neither do other large countries with football like Brazil and Argentina.

First, Argentina is a really bad example to use... its population is concentrated in the Northeast of the country.
Second Brazil is also concentrated along the coastal region, but it is also urbanized. However,...

Brazil soccer and American football has something in common: Infrastructure. Brazil has a highly develop system. Moreover, much of the population engages in the game. There is litle competition with other sports, so there is a lot of participants providing plenty of competition. Again, Brazil is also a bad example.

As I mentioned before,... there is NO MAGIC PILL. That is no ONE reason for why a nation can develop exceptional athletes. There is a series of factors. There is infrastructure, tradition, culture, money, climate, geography all play a role in the success or the lack of success in a sport. In the case of the US, it lacks the history, culture, and tradition to have successful players. In addition geography plays a part because it lcks the infrastructure that other sports enjoy. These other sports also have the history, the culture and tradition that allowed the US to produce great athletes.

You are somewhat correct about lacking 'quality of training' but again it goes back to the 10,000 hours of practice more so than lacking quality coaches here.

Well, not just the 10,000 hours of practice.... see above.
Coaching goes hand to hand with quality of players.

[chilon]

Actually you did when you suggested that Pugs only talked about the popularity of MLS as the only means to determining the popularity of the sport.

Also you wrote this,...

This is also false. If you were to collect data on this information it would only be part of the equation and not the total picture. As I stated there are many things you can look at to determine if the sport is popular. As I noted, I included a copy and paste of statistics.

First, I never suggested that those measures were sufficient to measure such a nebulous things as "the popularity of a sport". You have misunderstood the point of my post.

The point of my post was simply to counter the argument Pugs made that listing a few MLS statistics is sufficient evidence to prove that soccer is the nth ranked popular sport in America.

The examples and questions I gave were simply to show that there is indeed a significant if difficult to measure portion of the population that soccer/football is their most favorite sport but they are going unmeasured by any statistics like MLS attendance.

Your mistake is assuming I argued anything like my own definition for defining a sports popularity.

So no, I made no strawman logically since I did not posit my own argument. I simply pointed out how using MLS only numbers was flawed and gave examples of people who would choose soccer as favorite sport but in no way be included in MLS statistics.

Its pretty basic stuff man. When soccer has numerous popular leagues around the world, you can't just measure a popularity of an entire sport based on just one league.

I wouldn't call it flawed. It does gauge the acceptace of the sport. I do not see how it is useless in helping determining the popularity of the sport.

Not entirely useless but not really accurate. Personally I find the useless bit in arguing the "popularity" of sports in some ranked list something is nebulous and not even operationally defined.

I didn't downplayed it I emphasized it. I didn't misused the data. If a child born at a certain time allows him/ her to get better training etc... and this leads to getting increase hours of practice, just how am I misusing the data. You seemed more upset I didn't go on about 10,000 hours of practice.

Fair enough, I probably misread your first post. I thought you were trying to downplay the fact that playing earlier has advantages because of the age cut off date phenomenon.

First, Argentina is a really bad example to use... its population is concentrated in the Northeast of the country.
Second Brazil is also concentrated along the coastal region, but it is also urbanized. However,...

Well the population, especially the breeding ground for US soccer is also fairly concentrated as well in California and Pac Northwest, pockets of Texas, New Jersey and New England and few other spots. Its not like there is a problem with infrastructure as it was there even in the 80s when I was growing up. Its not like most kids that play don't have leagues or organized structures available and just like any sport of course there are a few talents from the middle of nowhere.

Brazil soccer and American football has something in common: Infrastructure. Brazil has a highly develop system. Moreover, much of the population engages in the game. There is litle competition with other sports, so there is a lot of participants providing plenty of competition. Again, Brazil is also a bad example.

Well you kind of reinforced the point I was making.

My point was that geography is not an impediment to growth of a sport or exceptional athletes when you have:
1. Population concentrations - which the US does have
2. Infrastructure (both physical transportation and sports infra) and money - which the US does up to a degree- basically until high school).

This is why I don't see geography being a significant factor in the US impeding development of soccer. its not because the country is physically large that is why we don't have American Messi (Freddy Adu? haha). Its not like geography is an impediment on the US producing plenty of other world class athletes.

Like you imply culture, tradition and history are the two big obvious factors there. But then again the history is not entirely absent either...

My grandfather immigrated from Scotland in the 1930s and was involved in soccer events in the USA ever since until he passed away here. Many families and even areas (like where my family was from in New Jersey and California) have large numbers of immigrants from both Europe and South America that exported the sport here and have been involved for decades. Yes its not part of typical mainstream American water cooler culture. But the accessibility that internet and satellite now provides makes it far more accessible than it ever was. The thing is there is huge numbers of Americans from European and South American families that still follow the sport regularly if not perhaps MLS.

As I mentioned before,... there is NO MAGIC PILL. That is no ONE reason for why a nation can develop exceptional athletes. There is a series of factors. There is infrastructure, tradition, culture, money, climate, geography all play a role in the success or the lack of success in a sport. In the case of the US, it lacks the history, culture, and tradition to have successful players. In addition geography plays a part because it lcks the infrastructure that other sports enjoy. These other sports also have the history, the culture and tradition that allowed the US to produce great athletes.

Never said there is a magic pill. In fact I pointed out just about all the things you mentioned and agree except geography which I don't see being an impediment to soccer growth in the USA. The infrastructure and money is there now mostly so not sure why you think geography such a factor in the USA at all for reasons I outlined. Other things like culture and tradition change slowly and they are changing now but who knows how long.

Other than that, yes I agree about the combination of factors and said so in every other post

Well, not just the 10,000 hours of practice.... see above.
Coaching goes hand to hand with quality of players.

Sure but for instance there are other ways to go about it that many what many Americans I met think. Clearly the US lacks infrastructure in the high school level. But, many top players from other countries are already at big club teams at that age. I don't see the USA needing to import coaches to be successful here. We can easily just maximize the youth infrastructure already in place and send our best youth to clubs around the world for experience and coaching.

[PikeStance]

First, I never suggested that those measures were sufficient to measure such a nebulous things as "the popularity of a sport". You have misunderstood the point of my post.

You need to stop saying its nebulous, because it isn't. There are ways we can judge the popularity of a sport. Soccer presents a little problem because of the existence of "better" leagues, but it isn't nebulous.

The point of my post was simply to counter the argument Pugs made that listing a few MLS statistics is sufficient evidence to prove that soccer is the nth ranked popular sport in America.
The examples and questions I gave were simply to show that there is indeed a significant if difficult to measure portion of the population that soccer/football is their most favorite sport but they are going unmeasured by any statistics like MLS attendance.

No, what you argued is that it is impossible to judge the popularity of a port because it is nebulous. Then you listed incredibly silly data you HAVE to consider in order to ascertain the information. Of course, you took greate care to ensure the improbability of actually obtaining the data. You presented a flase and disingenuous argument.

So no, I made no strawman logically since I did not posit my own argument. I simply pointed out how using MLS only numbers was flawed and gave examples of people who would choose soccer as favorite sport but in no way be included in MLS statistics.

Which would had been more than fair elaboration on Pugs point. However, you inexplicably chose to be contradictory.

Its pretty basic stuff man. When soccer has numerous popular leagues around the world, you can't just measure a popularity of an entire sport based on just one league.

The point that is being addressed here is that the sport is GAINING popularity. Demonstrating the growth of interest in MLS is just one data point that suggest an increase in popularity of the sport within the US. It would have be preferable f you had demonstrated a rise in viewership/ ratings for foreign leagues. I would had liked to see these numbers; it is shame you dropped the ball on this, but there is still time

Not entirely useless but not really accurate. Personally I find the useless bit in arguing the "popularity" of sports in some ranked list something is nebulous and not even operationally defined.

I agree "ranks" can be misleading. For example the US has the Third highest population in the world behind China and India.

Fair enough, I probably misread your first post. I thought you were trying to downplay the fact that playing earlier has advantages because of the age cut off date phenomenon.

I was also implying a speculative explanation for while there is a lack of quality in soccer; The luck of birth and choosing other sports in which they receive better training earlier. The entire theory would rest on when registration is compared to other sports. I don't think it can be proven one way or another.

Well the population, especially the breeding ground for US soccer is also fairly concentrated as well in California and Pac Northwest, pockets of Texas, New Jersey and New England and few other spots. Its not like there is a problem with infrastructure as it was there even in the 80s when I was growing up. Its not like most kids that play don't have leagues or organized structures available and just like any sport of course there are a few talents from the middle of nowhere.

Well you kind of reinforced the point I was making. [???]

My point was that geography is not an impediment to growth of a sport or exceptional athletes when you have:
1. Population concentrations - which the US does have

2. Infrastructure (both physical transportation and sports infra) and money - which the US does up to a degree- basically until high school).

I attempted to find data on how much money advertisers spend sponsoring sporting events in the US. My hypothesis is that a significant greater amount is spend on the big three than on soccer to date. More sponsorships mean more money, more training, more equipment etc... This translate into a more develop sports infrastructure for recognizing young talent.

Geography
What you discovered is that the US has large pockets, but there are also smaller pockets; like Dallas- Ft Worth, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Detroit, Minnesota, Chicago, etc....

This is why I don't see geography being a significant factor in the US impeding development of soccer. its not because the country is physically large that is why we don't have American Messi (Freddy Adu? haha). Its not like geography is an impediment on the US producing plenty of other world class athletes.

Because for some reason you viewing geography within a vacuum when it is part of an whole argument. As you can see, there is more to it than distance. However, if the US was smaller country, it will take less money and less infrastructure to identify top athletes.

Like you imply culture, tradition and history are the two big obvious factors there. But then again the history is not entirely absent either...

My grandfather immigrated from Scotland in the 1930s and was involved in soccer events in the USA ever since until he passed away here. Many families and even areas (like where my family was from in New Jersey and California) have large numbers of immigrants from both Europe and South America that exported the sport here and have been involved for decades. Yes its not part of typical mainstream American water cooler culture. But the accessibility that internet and satellite now provides makes it far more accessible than it ever was. The thing is there is huge numbers of Americans from European and South American families that still follow the sport regularly if not perhaps MLS.

Again with another fallacy. Of course there was soccer in the 30s, of course there was soccer in the 70s and 80s, but nothing like we have now. We do not have the history of Germany, France, Brazil, or Colombia. Moreover, if each failed attempt to establish a professional league in the US, it made it that much harder to start one up. There was no promises that MLS would succeed. In fact, the pundits predicted yet another failure. So, in balance, I wouldn't scream history when it comes to soccer in the US.

Never said there is a magic pill. In fact I pointed out just about all the things you mentioned and agree except geography which I don't see being an impediment to soccer growth in the USA. The infrastructure and money is there now mostly so not sure why you think geography such a factor in the USA at all for reasons I outlined. Other things like culture and tradition change slowly and they are changing now but who knows how long.

Other than that, yes I agree about the combination of factors and said so in every other post

Geography is an inpeiment if it means more money and a more developed infrastructure.

Sure but for instance there are other ways to go about it that many what many Americans I met think. Clearly the US lacks infrastructure in the high school level. But, many top players from other countries are already at big club teams at that age. I don't see the USA needing to import coaches to be successful here. We can easily just maximize the youth infrastructure already in place and send our best youth to clubs around the world for experience and coaching.

I agree.

---

I found these interesting article looking for the article I mentioned above.
The ‘Big Five’ in North American Pro Sports
It is a comparison of google searches to judge popularity.
MLS and the Mexican League is included. International soccer is mentioned, but it is not included in the data.

Will Soccer Ever Be as Big as Football in the United States?
excerpt
Soccer is a passion, but the creation of new teams should be looked at in the same way as other new business launches. Should they attract reasonably large followings, they will be extremely profitable. In the European leagues, selling sponsorship of top teams’ equipment is already a $709 million industry. The Bayern Munich soccer team was valued at $896 million this year, with Real Madrid following at $768 million and Manchester United at $739 million. What entrepreneur in the U.S. wouldn’t want to see these numbers assigned to American teams?

What World Cup ratings mean to future of American soccer and its tech-savvy young fan base
Excerpt
A lot of what's happened so far with the American World Cup viewership is a grassroots movement unrelated to advertising. This country's American fan base has been generated relatively on its own.

If the ad men decide to start sinking spec money into soccer, it makes sense that it will trickle down in greater exposure for the sport, greater interest and even more viewers.

[Holger Danske]

Klinnsmanns did the best thing for US Soccer when he said we couldn't win. Don't tell Americans we can't do something or we'll try it. Whether its going to the moon, invading random countries or Soccer.

The US has better odds of solving all of mankind's problems than winning the World Cup.

[chilon]

You need to stop saying its nebulous, because it isn't. There are ways we can judge the popularity of a sport. Soccer presents a little problem because of the existence of "better" leagues, but it isn't nebulous.

No, what you argued is that it is impossible to judge the popularity of a port because it is nebulous. Then you listed incredibly silly data you HAVE to consider in order to ascertain the information. Of course, you took greate care to ensure the improbability of actually obtaining the data. You presented a flase and disingenuous argument.

You are misstating my argument a little bit and it is hardly "disingenuous" as you suggest.

What my ACTUAL argument is that its impossible to determine true "popularity" of a sport the degree it takes to rank them in some definitive list.

What you CAN actually measure are things like jersey sales, which is generally which sports marketing bases things on because that is measurable and it contains valid data to inform marketing decision making.

You lot haven't even defined what "popularity" means. So its you who is being disingenuous. MLS attendance and revenue doesnt reflect "popularity" of a sport. It reflects the marketability of a specific league.

Whats disingenuous is to suggest that a few statistics somehow measure a sport's "popularity" to a level of accuracy that the sports can be ranked.

Thats utterly ridiculous. At BEST, the measures of data we have available provide a loose and rough gauage to how willing people are to spend money on a sport.

The point is you can't collect accurate data to determine the "popularity" of a sport unless you operationally define "popularity" to include some kind of spending that can be measured.

Which would had been more than fair elaboration on Pugs point. However, you inexplicably chose to be contradictory.

Whatever. It was a bad argument as he stated it. It didn't need elaboration because people are arguing something as pointless as "which sport is the nth most popular".

You seem to misunderstand it is the assertion of ranking sports popularity based on incomplete measurement that I am arguing against.

The point that is being addressed here is that the sport is GAINING popularity. Demonstrating the growth of interest in MLS is just one data point that suggest an increase in popularity of the sport within the US. It would have be preferable f you had demonstrated a rise in viewership/ ratings for foreign leagues. I would had liked to see these numbers; it is shame you dropped the ball on this, but there is still time

When did I EVER argue that soccer was NOT gaining popularit?

I agree "ranks" can be misleading. For example the US has the Third highest population in the world behind China and India.

Glad you agree that trying to rank a sports "popularity" is a useless exercise.

I attempted to find data on how much money advertisers spend sponsoring sporting events in the US. My hypothesis is that a significant greater amount is spend on the big three than on soccer to date. More sponsorships mean more money, more training, more equipment etc... This translate into a more develop sports infrastructure for recognizing young talent.

What counts as "sponsorship"? I have friends who play semi-pro or older leagues here in Cali that are still "sponsored" by major companies but its quite different.

What you discovered is that the US has large pockets, but there are also smaller pockets; like Dallas- Ft Worth, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Detroit, Minnesota, Chicago, etc....

Because for some reason you viewing geography within a vacuum when it is part of an whole argument. As you can see, there is more to it than distance. However, if the US was smaller country, it will take less money and less infrastructure to identify top athletes.

Obviously. If you read more carefully you would see my point was that in the USA geography is not an impediment and its really not.

Again with another fallacy. Of course there was soccer in the 30s, of course there was soccer in the 70s and 80s, but nothing like we have now. We do not have the history of Germany, France, Brazil, or Colombia. Moreover, if each failed attempt to establish a professional league in the US, it made it that much harder to start one up. There was no promises that MLS would succeed. In fact, the pundits predicted yet another failure. So, in balance, I wouldn't scream history when it comes to soccer in the US.

And yet again you miss the point.

The point is that even here in America, we do have a history , tradition and culture of soccer even if it exists in smaller pockets relative to the general sports fan. The point isnt we have history like Brazil or Italy. The point is its not lack we lack history, tradition and culture it just doesn't exist on the same level.

Geography is an inpeiment if it means more money and a more developed infrastructure.

And America is the richest country on the planet and has well established infrastructure up until high school level which is why I said for the USA geography is not an impediment to producing a Messi even close to as much as other factors.

[PikeStance]

You are misstating my argument a little bit and it is hardly "disingenuous" as you suggest.
What my ACTUAL argument is that its impossible to determine true "popularity" of a sport the degree it takes to rank them in some definitive list.
What you CAN actually measure are things like jersey sales, which is generally which sports marketing bases things on because that is measurable and it contains valid data to inform marketing decision making.
You lot haven't even defined what "popularity" means. So its you who is being disingenuous. MLS attendance and revenue doesn't reflect "popularity" of a sport. It reflects the marketability of a specific league.
Whats disingenuous is to suggest that a few statistics somehow measure a sport's "popularity" to a level of accuracy that the sports can be ranked.
That's utterly ridiculous. At BEST, the measures of data we have available provide a loose and rough gauge to how willing people are to spend money on a sport.
The point is you can't collect accurate data to determine the "popularity" of a sport unless you operationally define "popularity" to include some kind of spending that can be measured.

As a geographer (geography teacher) the best way to look at any data is as indicators. Most things we "know" are simply an analysis of data that indicate "something" as one thing or another. Using one measurement to determine something maybe superficial and you were fair to point out that popularity of a sport can and should include several measurements to do so. I do not think that "popularity" needs defining. I think we all know we are comparing the likability of a sport relative to other sports within a certain geographical area, namely the US.

As been point out, all of the indicators used to measure the popularity of a sport indicate that the sport is growing; from MLS attendance, sales, tv ratings, etc,...

Whatever. It was a bad argument as he stated it. It didn't need elaboration because people are arguing something as pointless as "which sport is the nth most popular". Glad you agree that trying to rank a sports "popularity" is a useless exercise. You seem to misunderstand it is the assertion of ranking sports popularity based on incomplete measurement that I am arguing against.

People tend to discuss the ranking of soccer because it used to be rank at #10. So to argue that it is now lower seems to demonstrate that there has been growth.
For the record I am not against "ranking" anything. But doesn't always tell a complete picture.

What counts as "sponsorship"? I have friends who play semi-pro or older leagues here in Cali that are still "sponsored" by major companies but its quite different.

Yes, Bob's Crab Shack Restaurant would be considered sponsorship. LOL
I used to referee a Latin Semi pro League in New Orleans. The trams were mostly made up of Central American expatriates. They would sponsor youth teams within the community. The sponsorships of the league and individual teams did a great deal to promote thre sport within the Latin Community (There was one Celtic [Irish] team). These sponsors helped a great deal by allowing Latin American, who otherwise would not have the income to participate, to play in a competitive league. The same is rue in the non- Hispanic community as well. Most of the larger clubs would have "scholarships provided by sponsors that allowed youth of lower socioeconomic classes to participate in a more competitive league. So, yes, sponsorships at the grassroots level can be an important impetus to promotng the growth and accessibility of the game.

Obviously. If you read more carefully you would see my point was that in the USA geography is not an impediment and its really not.

And, if you read my post you will see it is but one impediment for the development of the game.

The point is that even here in America, we do have a history , tradition and culture of soccer even if it exists in smaller pockets relative to the general sports fan. The point isnt we have history like Brazil or Italy. The point is its not lack we lack history, tradition and culture it just doesn't exist on the same level.

As I noted the history you speak of is that of repeated failures of professional leagues. As a kid growing up soccer was something you did while you waited to play Baseball after basketball. When I told my dad my favorite sport was soccer he looked at me like he just found out I was not his son. Another anecdote. Around 2000, I was refereeing a playground league. They had set up the soccer field where a part of it overlapped into the infield on the baseball diamond. The soccer field lines abruptly stopped at the sand. I told the field guy that I need lines. He said he is not messing up his baseball diamond. I compromised; I allowed the use of cones instead.

The fact that we do not have the history of playing the game like other countries around the world plays a significant factor on why we have trouble developing top talent.

And America is the richest country on the planet and has well established infrastructure up until high school level which is why I said for the USA geography is not an impediment to producing a Messi even close to as much as other factors.

Ok, I thought you understand its organizational infrastructure. (physical maybe if you talking about playing areas and the quality there of)

[Phier]

Begin 4 more years of not caring about soccer.....now.

[Scipio Afracanis]

Isn't there soccer in the Summer Olympics?

[Basil II the B.S]

Begin 4 more years of not caring about soccer.....now.

>USA team gets an half assed decent performance during the World Cup group
>'Murikah fans get overexcited and think they can make it to the end
>USA gets kicked out in the second turn
>still wet fanboys make a thread about MLS or the USA team becoming as good as top tier European ones in xx years
>interest lost after 1 month, 4 year pass, nothing has changed, start from step 1 again

[chilon]

As a geographer (geography teacher) the best way to look at any data is as indicators. Most things we "know" are simply an analysis of data that indicate "something" as one thing or another. Using one measurement to determine something maybe superficial and you were fair to point out that popularity of a sport can and should include several measurements to do so. I do not think that "popularity" needs defining. I think we all know we are comparing the likability of a sport relative to other sports within a certain geographical area, namely the US.

As been point out, all of the indicators used to measure the popularity of a sport indicate that the sport is growing; from MLS attendance, sales, tv ratings, etc,...

I don't disagree its growing. I just think using MLS to measure the popularity of the entire sport is fallacious. Some of us have been fans of PL, Serie A, Bundesliga or La Liga teams for decades and we aren't getting counted in those stats. If anything my point is that soccer is more popular in America than MLS stats are going to reflect.

People tend to discuss the ranking of soccer because it used to be rank at #10. So to argue that it is now lower seems to demonstrate that there has been growth.
For the record I am not against "ranking" anything. But doesn't always tell a complete picture.

I would disagree that soccer was ever actually ranked "10th most popular sport". I'd like to see what data that is based on and I guarantee I can point out a lot of flaws in whatever measures were used to rank soccer 10th.

Yes, Bob's Crab Shack Restaurant would be considered sponsorship. LOL
I used to referee a Latin Semi pro League in New Orleans. The trams were mostly made up of Central American expatriates. They would sponsor youth teams within the community. The sponsorships of the league and individual teams did a great deal to promote thre sport within the Latin Community (There was one Celtic [Irish] team). These sponsors helped a great deal by allowing Latin American, who otherwise would not have the income to participate, to play in a competitive league. The same is rue in the non- Hispanic community as well. Most of the larger clubs would have "scholarships provided by sponsors that allowed youth of lower socioeconomic classes to participate in a more competitive league. So, yes, sponsorships at the grassroots level can be an important impetus to promotng the growth and accessibility of the game.

I was talking more about companies like Adidas that sponsor teams at a far lower level than might be expected but going with your hypothetical it wouldn't even matter if it was "Bob's Crab Shack" if Bob was helping to sponsor competitive leagues and competitions that benefited youth. "Sponsorship" of course has many different levels.

... btw as a side note wtf is Adidas doing giving Man Utd 70M a year in sponsorship when their flagship teams (the last two Champions League winners) Real and Bayern get barely over half that amount and their longtime partner Liverpool was refused even 30M a year. Anyway food for thought...

And, if you read my post you will see it is but one impediment for the development of the game.

We can just agree to disagree on how much geography as an isolated factor affects the development of players in America. I don't see geography of America as a country affecting much things. We never had problems with foreign coaches, giant multi state and region tournaments or whatever in California or New Jersey. I agree in some states it might affect a small minority of players, but the effects are minimal in the soccer hotbeds of population concentrations like New England and California and the Pacific states.

The fact that we do not have the history of playing the game like other countries around the world plays a significant factor on why we have trouble developing top talent.

My point was more the combination of history with population. Sure percentage wise we don't have the same. However Uruguay for example is a nation of around 3.5 million. America has 10 times that. In the USA we certainly have more than 3.5 million people with a history and tradition of the sport. So yes percentage wise you are absolutely correct, but sheer numbers wise we certainly have enough citizen population with history to overcome that.

[Thorn777]

Even with 20 million viewers at US games, more than the NBA finals, its funny that the WC magically dissapears from the media once USA is out of the tournament.

My theory is that the WC makes USA look as part of a whole world with many other nice countries. Not a tournament displaying this exceptionalism.

USA is sick. Come back America. Get healthy again. Demand football on your TV.