During the Euro Cup final between Spain and Italy yesterday, ESPN commentators said that they were hoping for a spectacular game to show off the greatness of soccer to an American audience– as opposed to the ugly final between Spain and the Netherlands at the World Cup two years ago. As it turned out, the final showed the worst of soccer.
As anyone who watched the game can tell you, it was unwatchable after 60 minutes. All the air went out of the balloon because Thiago Motta, an Italian midfielder, suffered a hamstring injury and had to leave the field. Because Italy, down 2-0, had substituted three of its eleven players at that point, and three is the limit under soccer rules, Italy could not replace the injured Motta. So it played with ten men for the rest of the match. Those ten men were wiped out, and Spain scored two fairly easy goals. The final score was 4-0.
You would think that the final 30 minutes of the most important game in international soccer over the last couple of years would be the most gripping 30 minutes of all. The two teams were well-matched, I still hoped that Italy would climb back in. The loss of Thiago Motta made the game a farce. My friend and I switched to the Yankees game and Wimbledon.
The substitution rule is crazy. I understand the warlike discipline of the rule, but it damages play in countless ways. For one, you see only about 15 members of a much larger squad in these tournaments, and that’s not much fun. For another, the great Italian midfielder Andrea Pirlo, who is 33 and was flagging yesterday, might have played more of a role in the final if he got a breather.
The lack of substitution also affects soccer’s great limitation, the lack of goals. In the last few days two major scoreless games had to be decided by Penalty Kicks — a warm bucket of spit (to quote John Nance Gardner), a shootout between offensive players and goalkeepers after 120 minutes of playing expire with a tied game. Spain Portugal semifinal was 0-0 till Penalty Kicks. So was the England Italy quarterfinal. The Times lead on the Italy England game: “Neither team wanted this. Not the caprice of penalty kicks.”
I don’t want it either. Soccer would be a much better game if they allowed unlimited substitutions. We’d see a lot more players, the quality of play would not sag off quite as wearily as it does now in the second half, and the farce of yesterday’s final would have been averted.
You want Americans to watch this game; change the capricious rules.
John Nance Garner, who was already 64 years old when he became vice president, lived to the ripe old age of 98, dying in 1967 two weeks shy of his 99th birthday.
He may not have liked being vice president, but he ended up having the last laugh.
It would honor Garner to de-sanitize his famous saying, which was spoken “bucket of warm piss.” I think we can handle that now, and it conveys the sentiment more accurately.
thanks david didnt know that
Robert Caro, in the new volume of his biography of LBJ, confirms that the desanitized saying is what Cactus Jack Garner really said. He speculates that Sam Rayburn must have told Lyndon Johnson the real version of what Garner said.
But, Phil, you must have appreciated the beauty of much of the Spanish play.
i do, yes; even this soccer boob could see that!
“My friend and I switched to the Yankees game and Wimbledon.”
I wanted to switch to Wimbledon, but there is no play on the “Middle Sunday”, which is considered a rest day.
So i went to bed.
RE: “You want Americans to watch this game; change the capricious rules.” ~ Weiss
MY COMMENT: Wrong again, Phil! If you want Americans to watch soccer then you need to add beaucoup T&A (like the NFL cheerleaders).
Rah, rah, sis boom bah!
• NFL Cheerleaders in slow mo (VIDEO, 04:02) – link to youtube.com
P.S. At any rate, brighter teeth and fresher breath are what Americans really care about!
VIDEO (04:21) – link to youtube.com
“MY COMMENT: Wrong again, Phil! If you want Americans to watch soccer then you need to add beaucoup T&A (like the NFL cheerleaders).”
Nonsense. The greatest football team of all time — the Pittsburgh Steelers — has the most rabid fanbase in American sport but no cheerleaders.
It was (mostly) a joke!
HENCE: “Rah, rah, sis boom bah!”
Also, I do not watch sports of any type.
Spectator sports have become the new “opiate of the masses.”
But anyway, who wants to emulate Pittsburgh, for heavens sake!
Isn’t that where Richard Mellon Scaife hails from?
This is from Roger Domal, via email:
I’m not going to launch into a hissy fit about unlimited subbing in football matches. I’m going to try to explain what a match would look like if you could do that. The game would fundamentally change. There would not be any flow or passing, it would be non stop pressure, almost like full court in basketball. Every touch of the ball would be pressured, the defenders would be up on the half way line playing an offside trap, and the midfielders and attackers would be closing down all over the field. The game would be unwatchable. You have to realize that football is like a 15 round prize fight. The better fighter wears the other fighter down and then knocks him out. That’s what Spain did yesterday. They knocked Italy out. Brilliant. If you turned off the game, that’s fine. But, if you changed the rule, you would have an unwatchable game.
I referee a lot of youth soccer at fairly high levels with unlimited subs. The game is way different because of the pressing. The game isn’t built for a press. It’s built to be played back and forth. The closed-down game is boring.
Then the answer is somewhere between (1) unlimited and (2) limited even if it means you play with one fewer player and the second half of what started as an interesting final becomes a bore.
If unlimited substitutions will fundamentally change the game, then the answer is to retain the 3-sub limit, with the exception of being able to substitute for injured players beyond the 3-sub limitation.
This will not lead to endless subs, as the frequency of injuries after having already made 3 substitutions is an aberration.
Forza Gli Azzurri!
@Exiled At Home
I agree. I think that is the correct way to go. I think that forcing Italy to play shorthanded cheapened Spain victory (through no fault of their own.)
My man Phil!! Awesome post.
Im not a big fan of the Spanish teams style – Im a samba style guy, but they are a tremendous side. The substitution rules are a problem, but they pale in comparison to the flopping that is allowed. To me, thats the number one reason why soccer will continue to have a hard time in the states, americans (especially american men) dont want to watch guys roll around on the ground faking injuries. Very, very unmanly.
Also, the NBA is starting to have the same problem – and I blame the Euro influence in today’s NBA 100% – but at least David Stern has made it clear that flopping will get you a technical foul. To me, the flop is soccer’s fatal flaw.
I don’t think the flopping is the problem. I think the problem is the lack of scoring. When one team scores two times before the first half is even done and pretty much the whole world knows it’s over absent a miracle, that a big problem for American audiences. If the average game were to be more likely to end up 5-4 than 1-0, you would have a chance at American audiences. (And I say this as an American who likes the game.)
I like soccer and played all my life, still do. hockey is low scoring, baseball is mostly low scoring, golf is, well, golf. all pretty popular. as a former Reagan baby, I was part of the first big time “soccer” generation. and I can say the knock on the game wasn’t that it was low scoring (and its really only low scoring at the top levels) the knock was that soccer was for wussies. for most kids in my generation, soccer was what you played until you were old enough to play football, because in most places soccer is a fall sport, opposite football. I remember the ’94 world cup like it was yesterday, and I remember how offended most americans were by the flopping – even my father and my coaches, who all liked the game. If soccer is going to be popular, and widely played in the US, its going to have to take kids from football – and the flopping hurts that big time. Ive talked about it with umpteen million kids.
And along the same lines – soccer was for too long sold in the US as a kumbaya love fest for youth, the birth of the participation trophy. soccer is the game of the poor around the world, but here in the states, its kind of country clube-esque. So, soccer faces many challenges.
I’m not saying it’s not a problem; I’m saying that it’s not the problem that the lack of scoring is.
And I am talking her about the top level, because my impression is that this is where the emphasis is; to entice Americans to watch professional soccer.
And both hockey and baseball are both high-scoring compared to soccer. (Indeed, hockey has gone through many rule changes in the last, say 25 years, to increase the amount of scoring and offense.) In both, a 1-0 end score is not terrible unusual, but it’s not particularly common, either. In soccer, that is not the case.
You are right about how it’s been sold in the US. It’s a niche and growing sport in the US. The question is whether it will ever be more than that.
I think it can/will be more than just a niche sport – (american) football is not only expensive, its really dangerous. More and more parents will want to keep their kids playing soccer, and if the MLS continues to grow and they add better players, bigger salaries, that will only help as well.
“So, soccer faces many challenges.”
Depends, Dan. To me soccer is a street game. All you need it something round, like a big nut, and two people. The rest goes automatically. You don’t even need shoes or a common language; soccer is the language. It unites, everone can join in, or give his opinion – even Phil.
I played – and watched – all over the world. The best place for watching is, no doubt, the MidEast – Cairo in particular. Go see the Egypt Cup final and we’ll never talk about Spain anymore.
I used to think lack of scoring was a problem– and obviously a 4-3 game would be more exciting than a 0-0 penalty kick thing. But there is a logic to making goal-scoring very difficult: it equalizes. How many games which are 3-0 at half-time would be exciting? None. And unlike baseball, there is no chance the weaker team would ever catch up.
“But there is a logic to making goal-scoring very difficult: it equalizes. How many games which are 3-0 at half-time would be exciting? None.”
How many 3-0 games are exciting now? If scoring 3 goals in a half was anything other than a miracle, there is always the chance that the team that dominates in the first half could cool off or the trailing team could catch a few breaks.
DC: Very, very unmanly.
You want manly Dan, watch rugby. Lots of contact but no faked injuries. And certainly no namby-pamby protective padding and helmets. Even better you get scores surely big enough to satisfy even Phil’s need for continual gratification.
That said, American football wins hands down with its cheerleaders.
I have no doubt that if american football hadnt been invented, we’d be a huge rugby society. I really wasnt trying to be chauvinistic – just honest; ive seen the reaction to the diving and faking of injuries from americans (especially american men) too many times to not think it has something to do with its status as a second tier sport in the states.
Gah, it’s called football! (Soccer isn’t a word, it’s an accident).
As for the points raised in the comments’ section and the main post… actually the ESPN ratings of major football games have been increasing many times over just the last 10 years.
I think it does have quite a bit to do with the Hispanic influx, as Latin America and Europe have been the two dominant forces in Football since, like, forever. Even if Mexico historically have always done far worse than the giants of Brazil and Argentina. Football is actually pretty huge in Asia too. Just like Basketball is.
Premier League(the English highest division in football) has a huge following in China, especially teams like Manchester United which tours those countries each summer for exhibition games etc.
For some reason the entire world hates American football except America.
But even America is starting to see the light, thanks in large part to the immigration of those who are wiser(athlectically, speaking, of course!).
As for the quality of the game.. finals tend to be nailbiters. But Spain is the best team in the world, not just now, but of all time. No team has won three major trophies in a row(Euro, World Cup, Euro again), ever. So it should be expected that they wipe the floor with Italy.
Besides, Italy has always been a team which weasel its way forward, lots of diving and cowardly defending. Who likes that kind of playing?
“Gah, it’s called football! (Soccer isn’t a word, it’s an accident).”
Well, in America we already had a great sport called “football,” so we had to come up with some other label for the one where the people run about in short-shorts.
“As for the points raised in the comments’ section and the main post… actually the ESPN ratings of major football games have been increasing many times over just the last 10 years.”
Yes, but it started from so low that it had no where to go but up. I think the smartest thing that they’re doing is scheduing friendlies of top clubs in the summers in the US. I think if there is a chance of it becoming big in the US, watching MLS won’t do.
“For some reason the entire world hates American football except America.”
No, the Canadians like their version of it well enough.
“But even America is starting to see the light, thanks in large part to the immigration of those who are wiser(athlectically, speaking, of course!).”
Not really. It’s a niche sport for sure and likely will be for the foreseeable future. It will grow to be an uncontested 5th sport behind football, baseball and basketball and perhaps challenge hockey for 4th and even defeating it in some regions.
Pleasantly surprised that there is a post here concerning European football/soccer. As someone who is half-Spanish I am obviously delighted by the victory. Spain can now probably stake a claim as being one of the greatest sides of all time (yes even better than Pele’s Brazil).
Football/soccer fans, generally, want as fewer stoppages/interference to the game. The use of unlimited substations would brake the ebb and flow of the game, for sure. As for Prandelli, Italy’s Coach, he made a school-boy error in using all three of his substitutions so early in the second-half. Although, I will concede that Italy with 11-men would have made the remaining 30 minutes a more nerve-wracking/exciting game.
With unlimited substitutions, wouldn’t soccer simply become a depth-of-pocketbook matter? Whoever could afford more talented, fresh players would win. There’s also , with unlimited substitution, the possibility of ‘special teams’ players, who’s job is to incapacitate players on the opposing team and get out.
are 3 substitutions too few?
Maybe it could be increased to five Subs in the knock-out stages, especially when players in all teams are going to be carrying light injuries and fatigue. What do you think?
So, true. A manager, with the benefit of unlimited subs, could send in a designated player to ‘take out’ the other team’s talismanic playmaker or striker and sacrifice himself with a yellow card before being subbed.
Well Phil, if one thing should change it’s the financing. Yesterday’s final saw the only two European countries that are not obliged to have a proper financial household. Football in Spain is in the same shape as the Spanish economy. Italy same same.
Teams like Barcelona and Real Madrid by now have a debt of 1,5 billion euros. A team like Ajax Amsterdam will by Dutch law be taken out of competition if they do not show positive financial results. That’s why for so many years teams from Spain and Italy have been able to rule the European competition. Barcelona has a budget of 350-400 million euros per year, Ajax less than one tenth of that.
Now that, after 10-15 years, UEFA finally realizes this is wrecking the game (stadiums are half full, and all over Europe teams like Barcelona and Madrid have lost sympathy), they will be coming up with drastic changes over the next years, which is of course heavily protested in Spain and Italy. Still, it will happen. The chance that the top teams from these countries will be playing in the top competitions a few years from now is marginal.
The chance that the top teams from these countries will be playing in the top competitions a few years from now is marginal.
you wish! Sponsor money follows winners.
Would Americans please stop trying to change the way the “beautiful game” is played – the rest of the world is quite happy with it as it is!
we’re just trying to improve it a little
Like food?
“Would Americans please stop trying to change the way the “beautiful game” is played – the rest of the world is quite happy with it as it is!”
Well, “the rest of the world” has been trying for decades to sell their game to Americans, and have been repeatedly told that the supposed beauty of the game is definitely in the eye of the beholder. To the average American there are some things about the game that are defective. You don’t want to hear them? Great. Then make sure that FIFA is satisfied with being a niche sport in the world’s largest economy. And instead of perhaps learning whether some of the suggestions could improve the game, you can sit around feeling smugly superior to all the American stereotypes you can conjour. It really makes no difference to us; we have real football to pay attention to.
I’d like to jump on the back of woody’s comment here….if there is one area in which an americans advice should be welcomed, its sports.
Let’s be honest – we’re better at sports than the rest of the world. thats just a fact. and we’ve also invented some pretty kick ass sports -.
One last thing, the rest of the world should be thrilled that Americans aren’t that into soccer – if we were, we’d dominate the same way we dominate all the other sports. So, don’t wake up the sleeping giant with the insults.
what about australian rules football?
[i]“if there is one area in which an americans advice should be welcomed, its sports.
Let’s be honest – we’re better at sports than the rest of the world. thats just a fact. and we’ve also invented some pretty kick ass sports -.
One last thing, the rest of the world should be thrilled that Americans aren’t that into soccer – if we were, we’d dominate the same way we dominate all the other sports. So, don’t wake up the sleeping giant with the insults.”[/i]
Ah, the good ‘ol “USA! USA! We’re number one!” “We’re the best in anything we do and if we’re not, it’s because we don’t care, that’s why”. American exceptionalism at its finest.
While I enjoy North American sports myself (I was born and raised in Toronto, played league hockey, went to Blue Jays games etc), let’s not kid ourselves:
1) Until the fall of the communism, I recall communist countries kicking butt in the Olympics, not the US.
2) There are hundreds of sports in which people participate and/or watch. The USA hardly dominates the majority of them.
3) As Woody said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Tennis, anyone? Cricket? Who am I to put down England and Pakistan cricket fans, just cause I don’t like it?
4) Face it, when it comes to sports, the US isn’t really “in sync” with the rest of the planet. Fine by me, I’m not judging it, but please, don’t try to claim that the American Way in sports is the correct way.
Soccer is the number one sport in the world by far yet in the US it doesn’t have a mainstream following. So what’s popular in the US? Football, that few other countries care about. Baseball, a little more popular worldwide but still far from being “global”. Basketball? Even in countries with great national teams and clubs (such as here in Greece), it’s still #2 or 3 behind soccer. Motorsports? The world has Formula 1, the US has stock cars looping in a circle zzzzzzz.
In short, America has its own sports tastes – which is fine – and is different from the rest of the planet. Geographical isolation plays a huge part, not whether Americans are better, smarter, whatever. Another huge part is what environment you’re in. If you live in the US, you’ll love football and baseball and follow your team. If you go live abroad, you’ll most likely start following other sports simply because you’ll be exposed to them. I, for example, loved, played and watched hockey and baseball when in Canada. I didn’t watch basketball. After a year or two in Greece, I developed a love for soccer and have since also religiously followed my team Olympiakos in basketball (European Champions this year!).
Enjoy your sports, some of them are indeed kick ass, some are not. In a few sports the US is No. 1, in many others it’s hardly so. When I see how Americans love their football and dozens of “Bowls” or their NASCAR, I shrug my shoulders but do enjoy seeing them lovin’ it. I can’t relate, but I can respect it so I’ll hardly ever put them or their “weird” (in my eye) sports tastes down. Well meant criticism is fine, of course, and should be welcomed by all.
Hope you understand what I mean with all this and that of course it’s with respect and not to argue wrongly :)
As an inhabitant of the city that is the home of Australian Rules football I find it lacking in all of the subtlety and finesse of “soccer”. My “fair dinkum” fellow citizens would probably kill me for saying so! On the other hand at 7am yesterday morning in the dark dank dreary drizzle of Melbourne in winter, I walked down the Italian Restaurant Street of that city to discover a large crowd of people standing around a restaurant in which there was a television showing the last few minutes of the game. The Italians were quiet and downcast. The Spaniards were nowhere to be seen.
@ Aristotelis:
I think Dan was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. Anyway, I have no problem with every society having its own preferences. I, for one, love watching other countries sports and wish there was more opportunity to see such things as Twenty/20 Cricket or Austrialian Rules Football or things like curling.
(And I don’t think your point about the USSR in the Olypics was well founded, as those athletes were the equivalent to professional athletes, whereas American professionals were not permitted to participate.)
“As an inhabitant of the city that is the home of Australian Rules football I find it lacking in all of the subtlety and finesse of ‘soccer’.”
That’s okay. Subtlety and finesse are not something you want in every game.
@ Aristotelis:
I think Dan was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. Anyway, I have no problem with every society having its own preferences. I, for one, love watching other countries sports and wish there was more opportunity to see such things as Twenty/20 Cricket or Austrialian Rules Football or things like curling.
(And I don’t think your point about the USSR in the Olypics was well founded, as those athletes were the equivalent to professional athletes, whereas American professionals were not permitted to participate.)
Hi Woody,
Written responses tend to limit communication which is why I apologized to Dan, realizing that we don’t know each other and could easily misunderstand. Sorry again, Dan, I’m sure you’ll love me in due time :)
You have a point about US and USSR athletes. Yeah, the US basically sent amateurs to various tournaments cause the pros were too busy making money and their teams wouldn’t let them compete. If I recall correctly, the US hadn’t won Mundobaskets for the first few tournaments because of this.
Mind you, when it came to the Olympics in the 50s, 60s and 70s (when the USSR was in existence), US athletes were “professionals” too, bar a few team sports which award only one medal per team. The US sent its best but I may be wrong :)
Thanks for the banter.
DC: One last thing, the rest of the world should be thrilled that Americans aren’t that into soccer – if we were, we’d dominate the same way we dominate all the other sports. So, don’t wake up the sleeping giant with the insults.
Dan, talk about sport being war by another name. Substitute “countries” for “sports” and we have the American Empire you love to hate
To be more serious, perhaps Americans could master the fluid, organic play of “soccer” and field a world-beating squad. Though no doubt we’d be forever bickering over the significance of the Israeli coach.
But you’re never going to convince me that the sleeping giant could ever master the strategic subtleties of five-day test cricket, where patience is the cardinal virtue.
FIFA are a bunch of geriatric tossers who should tell Americans to take football as it is or leave it. I would guess that most football supporters would agree with this.
BTW, there was probably no way that Italy could come back from 2-0 down against a team with such form as Spain even with a full squad. That they only conceded another two goals while down to ten men is to their credit but a really good defensive team could have held it to 2-0. I suppose what I really object to about American or their brown-nosers trying to change football is that they seem incapable of understanding that a draw does not mean that the game was boring and that a great defensive side can be as good to watch as a great attacking side.
As for unlimited substitution it is like the American love of war of attrition, give me a war of manoeuvre or asymmetric warfare any day. At the end of some of the greatest games I have ever seen half of each team (slight exaggeration) have been flat on their backs on the pitch immobilized with cramp because they have played their hearts out.
Just like “purist” baseball fans would love to watch a 11 inning, 1-0 game. I totally get that.
I dont think the lack of scoring is footy’s problem, I think the lack of a light at the end of the tunnel for soccer players in america has something to do with it, I also think soccer’s perception as a preppy endeavor has really hurt.
And I think (and woody will disagree) that the WC in ’94 in the cemented soccer’s image in the US as a sport full of small men who take dives and fake cry to get calls. When you can change the channel and watch a 6ft8 guy fly through the air and dunk on a 7ft guy, or a guy on skates ripping a 100 mph slap shot while getting decked ( I could go on and on) are you really gonna watch or play a game that this kind of behavior is associated with? I played cuz my parents wouldnt let me play football, and I ended liking it – but I caught endless sht for it from friends and other kids.
our sports culture is one that doesnt take well to ballerinas on a ballfield, and soccer for a long time has done a terrible job of change this perception
“FIFA are a bunch of geriatric tossers who should tell Americans to take football as it is or leave it. I would guess that most football supporters would agree with this.”
And that’s fine. Americans aren’t busting down FIFA’s doors .
“I suppose what I really object to about American or their brown-nosers trying to change football is that they seem incapable of understanding that a draw does not mean that the game was boring and that a great defensive side can be as good to watch as a great attacking side.”
I disagree. If it ended in a 3-3 draw, that can be exciting. A 0-0 draw? that’s another question. And an occassional great defensive game can be exciting, but to American audiences, it the fact that most games are defensive games is what makes it seem, to American eyes, to be fundamentally boring. When most every game is a low scoring afair, the sport, itself, appears boring because it seems fundamentally pointless. You might as well just get rid of the goals and just kick the ball around and give style points.
“And I think (and woody will disagree) that the WC in ’94 in the cemented soccer’s image in the US as a sport full of small men who take dives and fake cry to get calls.”
I disagree with the importance of this. The thing that i’ve heard more than anything is: “it’s boring. They just kick the ball around. They never score.”
[i]“Well, “the rest of the world” has been trying for decades to sell their game to Americans, and have been repeatedly told that the supposed beauty of the game is definitely in the eye of the beholder” …… “It really makes no difference to us; we have real football to pay attention to.”[/i]
With utmost respect and friendship, when “the rest of the world” tries to sell you on soccer, you claim that “the supposed beauty is in the eye of the beholder” yet, without breaking stride, go on to say “WE have REAL football to pay attention to”. That sounds a little…. inconsistent :)
[i]“you can sit around feeling smugly superior to all the American stereotypes you can conjour”[/i]
I used to get these kinds of responses in forums from Americans when I’d argue about US interventions (all over the globe).
“With utmost respect and friendship, when ‘the rest of the world’ tries to sell you on soccer, you claim that ‘the supposed beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ yet, without breaking stride, go on to say ‘WE have REAL football to pay attention to’. That sounds a little…. inconsistent :)”
I was just joshing around a bit. Most Americans don’t get why the rest of the world loves soccer and doesn’t love American football, but they really don’t care all that much about it. We love ours, you love yours.
“I used to get these kinds of responses in forums from Americans when I’d argue about US interventions (all over the globe).”
I know, I was being ironical (kind of.) It was somewhat of a broad comment on the attitude by many soccer supporters that appear to suggest that American’s non-appreciation for soccer can be linked to various stereotypes of Americans being brutish, etc., coupled with an unmistakable whiff of self-superiority about the whole thing. We have a different culture, so we like different games. I, for one, am happy about the entire spectrum.
Aristotelis is incredibly wrong. WOW.
First, the USSR did not win more gold medals than the US when it was in existence. And the East Germans shenanigans speak for themselves – if communist countries kicked butt at anything, it was turning women into men.
This isn’t an american exceptionalism thing – its a fact thing. In any sport where there is a critical mass of americans playing it – we dominate. Our sports (baseball, basketball, volleyball) universal sports: track and field, swimming, for a long time tennis and golf – the list goes on. Its the most athletic society on the planet, we might be fat, but we’re also the best at sports. Again, just facts.
Like I said before, the next time you turn on the NBA and see all those 6ft5 and under guys flying around at warp speed, just be thankful they didn’t grow up playing soccer. I hate to sound like USA! USA! guy – but in this instance, its true.
Your points are well taken. While from different cultures, it seems we’re nevertheless on the same page :)
Dan, I clearly remember the USSR being No. 1 by far in the Olympics throughout my life. I’m not gonna spend 2 hours providing the breakdown with citations for this, so I’ll go with wikipedia for now:
“The Soviet Union first participated at the Olympic Games in 1952, and competed at the Games on 18 occasions since then. At seven of its nine appearances at the Summer Olympic Games, the team ranked first in the total number of medals won, it was second by this count on the other two. Similarly, the team was ranked first in the medal count seven times and second twice in nine appearances at the Winter Olympic Games.”
Don’t bother getting into semantics about “golds” that you turned it into (which the USSR probably was way ahead in too). The fact of the matter is, in 9 Summer Olympic Games and in 9 Winter Olympic Games, the USSR was first 14 times and second four times. So, please explain to me how “incredibly wrong I was WOW”, when the USSR came first 14 out of 18 times and second the other four.
Geez, go ahead and believe whatever you want, just don’t expect others to fall for your baseless exceptionalism, especially non-Americans.
Fact of the matter is, with half a continent to draw from in terms of resources, population and the plundering of about half the planet to boot, the US kept getting its clock cleaned from the likes of the USSR and East Germany in sports.
So, your responses are very much “an american exceptionalism thing”. And the record books put paid to your claims about being “the best at sports”.
Man, when the US Olympic hockey team won the gold at Lake Placid, it was a frikkin’ miracle if you recall. I’ve been watching the NHL since the mid-70s. You remember how the Red Army team would come play NHL teams? You remember how the Soviets would skate circles around our guys and just about the only thing the NHLers knew how to do was to play dirty, ie. no talent relatively speaking? Vladislav Tretyak, Fedorov etc? Remember those dudes? They weren’t American. That’s facts for you.
Communism was the best at sports by far. It had its shortcomings but no one in their right mind would deny them their excellence in sports and the arts.
And don’t even bother mentioning “East German shenanigans” and communist countries “turning women into men” from the minute that just about all American sports legends have turned out to be nothing but juiced up freaks themselves.
BTW, sorry for being argumentative, Dan, no offence :) Just arguing while meaning well. If I’ve overdone it with my response, I apologize. I’m saying this especially since I’m new and we don’t know each other, so, sorry again for the adversarial tone. My parents always say I shoulda been a lawyer :)
BTW, your warp speed NBAers lost to the Greeks last time they met them at the Mundobasket (semis 2006), just to needle you with some sports rivalry :D
Oh no worries at all – its sports. The US is at 2600 total medals – the Soviets had 1204, Russia 410 and the other fmr soviet satellites about 200 hundred – about 1000 short of the americans. And we sat one out.
link to en.wikipedia.org
The Gold medal count (current) is almost 4-1 over russia/soviet satellites
The US sent terrible teams to the Olympics in basketball, last time we sent a real team and won Gold. Just saying, the US has tons of good athletes, that could be playing soccer, but the game as it is now needs some “americanizing” first. Woody brings up a lot of good points of emphasis
All I am saying is, soccer
“Man, when the US Olympic hockey team won the gold at Lake Placid, it was a frikkin’ miracle if you recall.”
Well, yeah. They were college kids who were playing together for a couple of months, going up against a Soviet Team that was the equivalent of the NHL All-Star team — if the NHL All-Star team played together all the time.
“I’ve been watching the NHL since the mid-70s. You remember how the Red Army team would come play NHL teams? You remember how the Soviets would skate circles around our guys and just about the only thing the NHLers knew how to do was to play dirty, ie. no talent relatively speaking?”
I remember the Summit Series of 1972, when the Canadians beat the USSR. I remember the Canada Cup, whereby the Soviets lost to North America’s best 80% of the time.
“Communism was the best at sports by far. It had its shortcomings but no one in their right mind would deny them their excellence in sports…”
Oh, come on. They were professional “amateurs” who got to compete against college kids and real amateurs.
“Well, yeah. They were college kids who were playing together for a couple of months, going up against a Soviet Team that was the equivalent of the NHL All-Star team — if the NHL All-Star team played together all the time.”
The point is, that’s the only time the US beat the USSR. In hockey, the USSR was waaaay ahead of the US and neck in neck with Canada. The truth of the matter is, when the USSR was around, the US had hardly any hockey players of note. Those college kids that surpassed themselves once in 1980 were just about the best and only thing the US had for decades compared to the USSR. Look, being born and raised in Canada, I’ve watched every single hockey game there was on TV and read all sports sections the day after. The fact is, when it comes to hockey, Canada and the USSR were miles ahead of any “talent” Americans had. The US hardly had any NHL calibre players. The NHL was comprised of what, 90% Canadians, 5% Americans, 5% other, and your assertion is “the US never won because it sent amateurs against pros?” Who was it gonna send?
“I remember the Summit Series of 1972, when the Canadians beat the USSR. I remember the Canada Cup, whereby the Soviets lost to North America’s best 80% of the time. ”
Canada won the Summit Series 4-3-1 and it’s deeply ingrained in Canada’s history and culture. The Canada Cup was always held in Canada so it could field its best players in a home tournament before the season started, which it won something like five times. The Soviets won it once. The USA zero. You’re talking about Canadians again, though. The subject was how USA is No. 1, not how the Canadians were on par with the USSR. American talent, teams and results were a distant third, whether at the Winter Olympics, world championships, NHL-Soviet league tournaments or summit series.
“Oh, come on. They were professional “amateurs” who got to compete against college kids and real amateurs.”
As I said above, the American pros were basically non-existent. The USSR had Kharlamov, Tretyak, Fedorov, Fetisov, Canada had Lafleur, Clark, Dryden, Esposito and the US had… who?
As for the Olympic Games that the US consistently came in second or worse, who exactly were the “pros” that the US wouldn’t send? The basketball team which only gets one medal out of the dozens anyway, for example?
From your link, during the USSR’s existence, these are USSR and USA Olympic medals:
USSR – 473 Gold, 1204 Total
USA – 402 Gold, 958 Total
The USSR also sat one out. And to give a more complete analysis, when the Eastern Bloc boycotted LA in ’84, the USSR and East Germany, the perennial number one and two, weren’t there which resulted in a grossly inflated medal count for the US (the two countries better than it weren’t even there), while when many Western countries boycotted Moscow in ’80, the USSR’s medal count wasn’t so grossly inflated cause those absent (US, Canada, W. Germany etc) were not #1 or 2 anyway. Any way you slice it, communist countries were better than their Western counterparts in sports. The USSR was better than the US, E. Germany was better than W. Germany, Yugoslavia was better than Canada etc etc.
As far as the US not sending pros in team sports such as basketball, thus missing out on more medals, team sports get only one medal. So, maybe the US could have won 10-20 more medals from ’52 to ’88? And that’s a big maybe because the Soviets, Yugoslavia and Hungary (yes, Hungary), for example, had kickass teams in basketball and other sports such as water polo too.
And as far as basketball is concerned overall (cause that’s where you may argue that the US “dominates”), it’s hardly dominated the sport when it loses to the likes of Argentina, Yugoslavia and Greece, legendary teams in their own right. Yeah, sometimes the US hasn’t sent its pros, sometimes it hasn’t sent its best pros, but the bottom line is that even in the sport that the US supposedly dominates, in reality it never did, regardless of the contingencies.
So, the US was mostly a distant 3rd in the Olympics and in other “international” sports, tournaments, championships, whatever, it hardly dominated any of them. I really thus don’t get where your assertion that the US is the best at sports and that it dominates when having a critical mass of players, is coming from. For the second of argument, let’s say basketball. What else?
Let’s give credit where it’s due: communism made a point of its citizens being very active in sports, arts and culture. It was the communist ethos; a population that didn’t resort to crime, that was highly educated and steeped in arts such as ballet, music, literature etc.
In the US, random violence was and is prevalent, higher education was and is effectively beyond the reach of large swathes of its population, and the arts (ballet, symphonies, etc) weren’t promoted or made available to the population like in communist countries. Of course the US also had great athletes, minds and artists but in the communist system, all those were top priorities by the state for all its citizens. If you’ve extensively read about communism and visited any communist countries back then, they may not have had the luxuries many Americans had (which was also due to the economic war the West waged against it), but the communist ethos stressed and made available for free all the aforementioned things because they were considered essential to the ideology.
The record books show it, historical analyses of the system show it and reality showed it: when it came to the above, the US was a distant second to the USSR and excuses along the lines of “we didn’t send our pros”, while partially correct, barely played a role in skewing the results. I’ve shown this to be so in hockey, in the Olympics which have dozens of truly international sports, and we could break down almost all international sports and strengthen the conclusion.
I know you meant well with your comments and that you weren’t being jingoistic and superpatriotic, and ya know, I have no problem with Americans tooting their horn; in fact I appreciate and enjoy it ’cause I’m Greek-Canadian and know your culture very very well and admire it in many respects. American culture is indeed No. 1 in several things but not in sports, my friend :)
Aristotelis, based on your response, I haven’t made myself clear. I wasn’t arguing for US dominance in Ice Hockey. As much as I would love that to be the case, it is simply not true. (By the way, the US won gold 2x, in 1960 and 1980, both in Lake Placid. Must be the water.) My point was more anti-Soviet, rather than pro-US. I was basically arguing that Soviet sports dominance at the Olympic games was, in very large part, if not exclusively, a result of the systemic advantages to them, built into the rules, which permitted their professionals to participate but excluded western professionals.
In fact, if the rules had not permitted Soviet pros to play or had permitted Western pros to play, I have no doubt that the Canadians would have won the lions’ share of the golds, as they did prior to the USSR’s win in ’56.
Sorry about the confusion.
Aristotelis——- We’re gonna get this right.
link to nbcolympics.com
US Total Gold –929
USSR- 440
Dan, that’s with the US competing from 1896 to this day. This is what we’ve said to one another:
You:
“Let’s be honest – we’re better at sports than the rest of the world. thats just a fact.”
Me:
“1) Until the fall of the communism, I recall communist countries kicking butt in the Olympics, not the US.”
You:
“Aristotelis is incredibly wrong. WOW.
First, the USSR did not win more gold medals than the US when it was in existence.”
Me:
“The fact of the matter is, in 9 Summer Olympic Games and in 9 Winter Olympic Games, the USSR was first 14 times and second four times. So, please explain to me how “incredibly wrong I was WOW”, when the USSR came first 14 out of 18 times and second the other four.”
You:
“The US is at 2600 total medals – the Soviets had 1204, Russia 410 and the other fmr soviet satellites about 200 hundred – about 1000 short of the americans. And we sat one out.”
Me:
“From your link, during the USSR’s existence, these are USSR and USA Olympic medals:
USSR – 473 Gold, 1204 Total
USA – 402 Gold, 958 Total
The USSR also sat one out.”
You:
“Aristotelis——- We’re gonna get this right.
link to nbcolympics.com
US Total Gold –929
USSR- 440″
In short, I stated that until the fall of communism, it was such countries that kicked butt at the Olympics, not the US. You disagreed and claimed that during the USSR’s existence, the US was better (golds, then totals).
No matter how much you now change it to an “all-time” tally, our disagreement was over who was better during the USSR’s existence, it or the US?
So, I repeat:
During the USSR’s existence, these are USSR and USA Olympic medals:
USSR – 473 Gold, 1204 Total
USA – 402 Gold, 958 Total
To be even more accurate, we should exclude LA 1980 and Moscow ’84 as they boycotted each other and didn’t “square off”.
So, when the US and Soviet Olympic Teams both competed in (8 Summer and 8 Winter) Games:
USSR – 400 Gold, 1009 Total
USA – 309 Gold, 774 Total
Any way you cut it, during the USSR’s existence, its Gold and Total medal count was much better than the US’ and it was first 14 of 18 times while the US was first 4 times, second 3, third 4, fifth 1, eighth 1, ninth 2 times.
You can now add US medals from 1896 and 1996 all you want but that won’t change the fact that contrary to your assertion, during the USSR’s existence it won many more Golds and total medals and its ranking was much better (if you do the math, USSR mean ranking 1.22, USA 2.94).
Now, if you want to claim that in the past 120 years or so, the US is the all-time best, you’ll get no argument from me :) I myself look at it a little more closely: pre-WWII, the US was overall the best, during the existence of communism, communist countries were overall the best, post-communism it’s been tight between western and former communist countries. In short, the US dominated the pre-communist era, the communists dominated the Cold War era, and no one’s dominated our current post-communist era. Can we agree on that?
With all due respect of course :)
I didn’t know about the US gold in 1960. You are correct and I apologize.
Regarding how the Soviets had an advantage due to the exclusion of Western pro athletes (whether we’re talking about hockey, the Olympics or other tournaments), my points are:
1) As far as the Olympics are concerned, the West wasn’t really hampered by not sending it’s “pros” simply because there were few “pros” to begin with. The pros were mostly athletes in professional sports such as basketball (which the US usually won anyway) and hockey which are but a minority of the total sports played and medals given. For example, didn’t legendary US athletes like Edwin Moses and Greg Louganis compete? In how many of the hundreds of events that an Olympiad has did American pro athletes not compete in? From what I recall, the West sent its best track & field, aquatics, badminton, archery, equestrian etc etc athletes anyway. You have a point but I believe this issue affected a few sports only.
2) I’m not sure I agree with this point anyway because I believe that money and sports shouldn’t mix. I don’t believe society should pay people to do nothing in their lives except compete athletically. Perhaps this is the ancient Greek ethos in me where the best athletes were not just athletes; they were also farmers, soldiers, couriers etc. Men (only, back then) were expected to be athletic, not as an end to itself (find the best, put ‘em on the dole, give them every resource available to train 24/7 and make them “pros” for “your” side) but as a part of life for everyone (Nous eeyees en somati eeyee, mens sana in corpore sano, a sound mind in a healthy body). Society didn’t pay athletes to train & compete all their lives; the entire society was expected to be, among other things, athletic. Having 300 million citizens working their asses off just to make a living while a few thousand get rich ’cause they’re athletes 24/7 goes totally against what the ancient Greek spirit was about. Of course the victors enjoyed spoils but it was nothing like today’s situation where someone dedicates their life to athletics and athletics only. It shouldn’t be a profession, as I and many others see it.
At any rate, the bottom line for me on this is that if Western “pros” were not allowed to compete, they shouldn’t have anyway, given the nature of their involvement in sports. Why should the American professional boxer, who does nothing but train all day, compete with the Cuban or Soviet who also have day jobs? Yes, communist countries favoured athletes in the sense that they got benefits (didn’t work as hard as the ordinary comrade, communist system was hardly perfect itself) but that’s a far cry from a complete professional getting millions to do nothing but train. Believe it or not, the Soviet Red Army hockey team we’ve been mentioning actually consisted of young Soviet officers. They were active servicemen, not athletes 24/7. In Greece, until its MLS allowed professionals, all Greek players were considered amateurs as they had day jobs since they couldn’t live off the little money they got for their athleticism. Has the emergence of the full-time athlete been a good thing? Aside from the ethical and societal aspect I’ve mentioned, I don’t see a benefit to society by pouring trillions into advertising and sports salaries.
Last but not least, let’s also keep in mind that ever since pros were finally allowed to compete, they usually din’t anyway because they and their teams preferred money over athletic competition. People mention that the reason the US basketball team still loses most tournaments is that it doesn’t send its best players. Ditto for the world hockey championships most of the time, etc etc. Well, if American athletes prefer to stay home so they don’t get injured, because their teams don’t allow them, or because there’s not much money in other tournaments compared to the NBA, NHL etc, it’s no one else’s fault that they were absent and other teams and athletes won the medals, tournaments, etc. If Team Canada and Team USA in hockey and basketball keep sending mediocre players (compared to the stars they have) because their stars and owners are too busy making money, it’s not a “rules” problem and it’s not the USSR-Russia’s problem.
I had mentioned how Greece beat the US in the 2006 Mundobasket semis; I remember American friends giving the excuse that our team beat theirs only because some top American stars weren’t on the US team. Whose fault was that? Why do Greek pros and their teams in all sports always, but always, put the national team ahead of personal profits while the Americans don’t?
One cannot claim, “we weren’t No. 1 because we couldn’t send our best cause they were making money but you know what, now that we can send our best, we still don’t cause they’re too busy making money”
It went beyond merely hockey and basketball. In the Soviet block, athletes were subsidized by the states far beyond that which existed in the West and, these athletes’ profession, in many cases, was simply to be athletes.
Take the Red Army team, for example. No, these were not Army personnel who played hockey in their spare time. These we players in the Soviet League, the top hockey league in the USSR, the equivalent to the NHL. They were professional hockey players in all but name only. (The name “Red Army” was a misnomer. It was an athletic club which were associated with the Army, but they weren’t just Army personnel. (they still exist, but are private, of course.))
“If Team Canada and Team USA in hockey and basketball keep sending mediocre players (compared to the stars they have) because their stars and owners are too busy making money, it’s not a “rules” problem and it’s not the USSR-Russia’s problem.”
Actually, it was a rules problem. The rules were such that the top American career athletes could not compete but their exact Soviet counterparts could because the oppressive system the Soviets lived under was such that they weren’t permitted to be professionals the way the Western athletes were, even theough they were career athletes.
That is a different question than the other one you raised, regarding why American athletes don’t take international competition with the same seriousness as others do. (I think your constant refrain of “fault” is misguided. It’s not a question of fault. One can simply describe the reality of the situation without implicating fault.)
I think that Americans don’t take it as seriously because there is no real history of it in the major sports, primarily because in the days before air travel it was too difficult to arrange logistically. In Europe you have a couple dozen states within the same size geographical area which constitutes the US and Canada. That lends itself to international competition in Europe that wouldn’t apply to the US (Canada is a little different, I think, given its historical connections to the UK).
I think the equivalent, regional competition exist in the US, but in the realm of college sports. You fight over Italy v. Spain and the US fights over Florida State v. THE Ohio State University.
As for the benefit to professional sports, I see nothing wrong with an athlete making as much as the market will bear for his talents, because he’s earned it; the capitalists, team owners, networks, etc., are parasitic on that talent.
Hey Woody,
I apologize for not responding sooner; it’s been hectic for me and me being 7-10 time zones ahead doesn’t help “keep things warm” when discussing.
The last thing I’d want is for you to spend much time and thought to respond and then me disappearing.
I’d be more than happy during the weekend to continue where we left off but hesitate because the back and forth may have become tiresome for you or maybe there’s not much point, it’s “cold” after a few days and the topic’s been relegated to the back pages…
I did carefully read your reply, though, and do have thoughts (agreements and disagremeents) I can share, by continuing now or in the near future as we participate here :)
You want to talk about a tragic flaw in soccer? The fact is, women’s soccer is almost certain to lead to bruised shins and calves.
Hah. There used to be NO subs, Bert trautmann the German goal keeper who played for man city played the final 15 mins of the FA cup final with a BROKEN NECK after being injured in a collision. They don’t make em like they used to…
Americans, having finally come round to adopting the game that has been played by almost every other country in the world for many generations, want to change it. This seems to me to be a metaphor, on a different timescale, for other issues often discussed on this site. As someone who grew up with soccer, I think that the substitution rule is fine – perhaps even a little generous in the number of substitutes since it facilitates tactical substitution rather than substitution for injury; the Italian Coach’s use of it was bad tactics. It was a gamble that failed. In fact contrary to Phil’s assertions, reduced substitution would enable more scoring since goals often happen in the modern game as the almost perfect defences tire.
On the nil all draw – this has long been an issue discussed in soccer (incidentally I abhor that word too but since my adopted country has four codes of “football” – none of which is American – it is a useful sobriquet to distinguish it from the rest). Ways of fixing that might, for instance, be a wider goal area or a change to the offside rule, but any change to the laws of soccer would have to contend with the fact that this is an almost perfect game in its simplicity and elegance.
thanks for bringing in middle east angle.
truth serum: could you even watch the last half hour of yesterday’s game? if not, is that a problem?
“Americans, having finally come round to adopting the game…”
Not really. It’s more popular here than it was a few years ago, but it’s still not terrifically popular. It’s growing, but it seems to be the case that much of the recent immigrants account for a disproportionate amount of that increase. Will that interest be passed on to later generations? Who knows.
“Ways of fixing that might, for instance, be a wider goal area or a change to the offside rule,”
I think that there should be both. Anything to increase the lack of scoring. In fact, I would say that if you eliminated offsides from the penalty area in, it would go a long way toward increasing scoring and improving the game.
“but any change to the laws of soccer would have to contend with the fact that this is an almost perfect game in its simplicity and elegance.”
Those who like it see a beautiful, perfect game. Those who don’t, see it as a boring, pointless waste of time. 45 each way to end up 0-0. A waste of time, a lot of running around with no pay off, because defense is simply too easy, as compared to offense.
And I suppose you would have no time at all for the ultimate game – test match cricket – 5 days ending in a draw! And time is wasted? We inhabit a different world.
LOL. I would say that a five day event that ended in a draw would not go over well in America. But I must say that I saw a championship game from the Indian Premier League of Twenty20 cricket and I found it to be a really interesting and exciting game (once I Googled the Rules to see what the heck was going on…)
WT: “A waste of time, a lot of running around with no pay off, because defense is simply too easy, as compared to offense.”
Wasn’t that the lament of General Petraeus?
I fully agree. Case in point: in friendlies where there are unlimited substitutions, the game loses its fluidity and rhythm. Soccer isn’t like basketball or hockey in this respect. You can’t just be swapping players around on the field all the time. In basketball and hockey, you field five players and have another 7-20 players on the bench. When there are 11 players on the field in soccer, you’d thus need around 15-35 players on the bench to effectively substitute. You’re talking about 40-player teams… Think of the budget, the pooling of available talent etc, not to mention the confusion for fans.
Also, the three substitutions limit means that a great coach can turn the match or just as easily lose it. It creates a lot of strategy, tactics, unexpected surprises etc.
Last but not least, it adds an extra element that can change a game. Already done your three substitutions and now have someone injured? Player short for you! Why did you do your three substitutions anyway? Hmmm, your tactics as a coach weren’t working out or you were getting trumped by the other coach, eh? Pay for it. A properly managed team that plays well shouldn’t be making its third substitution until the last few minutes of the game anyway.
So, I don’t see any problem with the substitution limit; in fact it’s very good. Now, the problem of a lack of scoring, yes, there’s room for improvement there, especially when you see not so talented teams putting 10 players behind the ball all game and going for the 0-0; boring as hell. Then again, if you do have a very good team, soccer is extremely exciting. Bear to wit all those fantastic Champions League matches.
Soccer has made changes to its rules to become even more exciting and I imagine will change even more. The passive offside rule and the prohibition to kick the ball back to your goalkeeper with him collecting it, for example were rules that helped.
It must be peculiar to listen to Germans discuss college football.
Spain are one of the greatest teams in history. The display they gave yesterday was peerless.
link to guardian.co.uk
In the end, Spain were the best team in Euro 2012 by a considerable distance. They turned the final into a procession and, when they reflect on becoming the first nation to win three major tournaments in succession, the sense of jubilation should be greatly enhanced by this being the night when they were rewarded for having absolute conviction in their principles.
They never wavered in the face of great scrutiny and Vicente del Bosque’s formation, however unorthodox, was shown ultimately to be based on the strongest of foundations, to the extent it feels bizarre in the extreme that a team of this brilliance could ever be accused of not entertaining
.
And today’s bonus question, children, is : How is Israel guilty of this?
asherpat says:
July 2, 2012 at 8:52 pm
“And today’s bonus question, children, is : How is Israel guilty of this?”
The Israeli Ministry of Propaganda is millions of shekels in the red, and this is what it has to show for it…
Baseball was America’s sport until it wasn’t. Football took over for several important reasons:
1. They play mostly on Sunday when most Americans have time to watch the game. Football watching on Sunday is so enshrined as a national passtime that I doubt there are 200 Americans who haven’t made or changed their Sunday plans because of or in spite of a football game.
2. Profit sharing and the salary cap has given every team a chance to make the playoffs, and only the bottom third of the teams are out of contention by November. This means that there is no NY Yankees of football, not even the venerable Steelers.
3.Well into November nearly half the teams are still in it by the math.
3.Anything can happen in the playoffs i.e. little Timmy Tebow and the Broncos can stomp all over James Harrison’s face mask and drive a stake through the heart of Steelers Nation.
Baseball has none of these things going for it. Hence, Dancing with the Stars draws a bigger nationwide audience than a World Series game. Football may yet give way to futbol as America’s favorite sport. I’m surprised soccer isn’t more popular than it is. It’s been “up and coming” since Pele joined the Cosmos, nearly forty years ago.
“…drive a stake through the heart of Steelers Nation.”
Nah. It was disappointing, but they’ll win another Super Bowl in a year or two.
I think that there are a lot of reasons, many of them marketing-related. (Football is a more visceral and visual game than baseball.) That being said, baseball and football are approaching business in different ways. They have different business plans driven by the differences in the games. And both are wildly successful. Baseball doesn’t need to have a one-day ratings World Series as high as football does for the Superbowl, because baseball is guaranteed 4 games worth of revenue.
Woody,
There’ve been many Steelers teams I’ve liked to watch since the legendary 70′s teams, including the current Steelers, but I just couldn’t pass up a chance to respond to your “greatest football team of all time…” claim.
Baseball imploded in the seventies. Ballclubs were trying everything to get fans back in the stadiums: Disco demolition night in Detroit, 10 cent beers in Cleveland (and the ensuing riots) proved a flop. The White Sox even fielded a team in shorts! However, the all-time baseball low of that era was notched by the Oakland A’s who had a mere 300,000 fans sit in their stadium over the course of the ENTIRE 162 GAME SEASON. Since that low ebb baseball never recovered its place as America’s game in the hearts of American sports fans. Football took over and hasn’t looked back, although the honeymoon faze for football (70′s) is arguably long gone. Baseball is still a cash cow (at least for the winning teams) but thats only because there are so many games. Let’s face it, nobody even watches the World Series unless their team is in it. NBA finals, anyone? Same story.
Soccer, more so than either baseball or basketball, has a chance to push football off the throne someday. I may even live to see it happen ;-)
dbroncos,
Okay, “most successful in the Super Bowl era” would be more accurate than “greatest football team of all time,” but let’s not quibble about semantics.
I think there are two questions here. As to the first, I don’t think it’s contestable that football has the place in the hearts and minds of American sports fans that baseball used to have.
But the second — which seems to suggest that baseball in on the decline — is false. Baseball is very successful as an organization and is a very healthy endeavor. Baseball was in bad shape in the 70′s but has rebounded spectacularly since then. In fact, it’s probably in a better shape than it’s ever been, my many measures. Since the early ’80s, the only team that consistently drew fewer than a million fans/year was the Montreal Expos. They don’t exist anymore. They moved to Washington and drew 1.8 – 2.2 million fans each year.. Many teams are drawing 3 mil. fans/year (in 2011, it was 8 teams, in ’09 and ’10, it was 9 teams each.) And even this year, all but 8 teams have already drawn a million fans, and some teams are closing in on 2 million, and it’s not even at the All Star break.
Yes, the number of games is a factor. As I said, baseball and football work on different economic models. But the fact that teams are averaging 30-40 thousand fans over a 81-game home schedule demonstrates an enduring popularity in the sport.
Further, its not only the winning teams which are profiting. Because of revenue sharing, many small-market owners are making a profit by keeping payrolls low. (Perhaps not too great for the fans…)
And one of the lessons which MLB could learn from the NFL is marketing. Aside from the structural differences between the games, the NFL is king marketers. I would like to see MLB market itself as a national game the way the NFL does. It’s harder, again, because of the structural advantages of having, in essence, one day of action per week. But it can be done.
But you are wrong that “nobody watches the World Series” — it generally does very well, with games often topping the weeks’ ratings. The same with the NBA finals. The real outlier is the Super Bowl. It has the hype, it has the Sunday afternoon in February advantage, it has the one-game-for-it-all significance and it has the marketing. I think the problem is viewing
“Soccer, more so than either baseball or basketball, has a chance to push football off the throne someday.”
Doubtful. Soccer has a chance to be a solid #4 sport or maybe sharing that spot with hockey. But people have been trying to sell soccer for 45 years in the US, and outside of Seattle and LA, they’re struggling to draw 18,000/game.
Phil,
This diversion has created quite a stir among MW sports fans. Not an unwelcome diversion. Thanks.
dont encourage me
Word.
One theme consistently coming up on this thread is how in soccer the players flop very easily and how they’re little wusses.
Well, I fully agree even though I love the sport and have defended it in replies.
I could never for the life of me understand how someone can be such a wuss, not only in front of tens of thousands of fans but most of all, in front of 10 cameras that will replay how he faked it, acted like they broke his leg and one minute later is running around again. Oh the pain!
I’d be ashamed to act the way soccer players, especially in the major leagues worldwide, act when tackled (in minor leagues they’re more no nonsense). Yes, soccer can be very brutal. In fact, what might seem on camera as a light tap, in actuality is much rougher (you’ll understand this if you play). Even a small tap, some slight contact, at that high level of speed and strength, will instantly send you off balance, tear a ligament and do serious damage while looking like nothing. That said, most reactions are theatrical so as to influence the ref, a farce and indeed a blight unto the sport. Where’s hockey where rivers of blood flow and the gloves come off :)
In N. America, the fans behave well and the players duke it out. In Europe, the fans duke it out and the players are primadonnas. Here in Greece, riot police have to often evacuate all fans from games because of the violence in the stands, and get this: even in women’s volleyball for chrissake! A game of womens’ volleyball and all hell breaking loose in the stands!
Sports are just that in N. America, sports, as should be. Apparently here in Europe, they’re an outlet for organized gangs and stupid club loyalty to the point of harming others. Mind you, the powers that be over here don’t mind that the youth are busy assaulting each other over team rivalries. Sure beats the youth raging against the machine.
Phil, as a citizen of a soccer-mad country I can assure you that a team being left with 10 men because it has already made all 3 substitutions and another player got injured is an extremely rare event in professional play.
If anything needs to be changed in the rules, it is the equal weight given to behavioral offenses, like cursing or arguing with the referee, and personal fouls, which sees many players sent off after two yellow cards without having engaged in violent play.
Other than that, the game is OK as it is. The scarcity of goals is no problem, because it’s the tension that makes the game interesting. What’s more, the fact that so few goals are scored introduces an element of unexpectedness, because a team that its dominating is rival, but leading by a meager 1-0, can suddenly allow two goals and lose the game.
Also, the variety of situations in which goals can be scored, and their beauty, are unrivalled in any other sport. Not to get too nationalistic, but if you had the chance to watch the Argentina-Brazil friendly recently played in NJ, you’ll have to agree that there’s no way a touchdown in football can compare to Lionel Messi’s third goal in that classic game.
Your advice on how to make Americans like soccer more is welcome — but face it, we’re doing just fine without you.
agreed you are doing fine without us and i agree about beautiful goals. that’s why i watch soccer, for that intelligence and atheleticism and creativity all combined. but its rare, like sighting a bobcat up in these parts. i want to see em more often
“Not to get too nationalistic, but if you had the chance to watch the Argentina-Brazil friendly recently played in NJ, you’ll have to agree that there’s no way a touchdown in football can compare to Lionel Messi’s third goal in that classic game.”
See, that’s the beauty in this world. You see this fellow run across the field and kick the ball and think it’s more exciting than any touchdown in football, and my reaction is: “Meh. It’s more exciting than some touchdowns, but most touchdowns are way more exciting. Two touchdowns in Superbowl 43 immediately came to mind. Heck. The Giants had two catches in their last two Super Bowl appearances that that weren’t for touchdowns that were way more exciting than this goal.”
HB, you just pointed out the ‘problem’ with soccer (we americans love to solve problems) from my perspective. elite soccer is out of this world, but average soccer is painful, unlike an average NBA game which can still have its share of excitement. for example, i have tried watching MLS, but it’s terrible. the euro or worlds or upper echelon bundes or english leagues, yes; australia vs. micronesia, no.
(i was living in germany when the germans won the world cup in ’90, and then living in spain when the danes beat the germans for the euro in ’92. some of the best sports memories of my life. in ’92 you’d think that it was VE day all over again, everyone except the germans rooting for the danes.)
Phil:
Your problem is that your opening assumption that European football should function like the rest of the world’s sports is incorrect. Ask any European fan of football (besides the English), and they will tell you emphatically that football is not a sport, and you shouldn’t watch it if you are expecting justice, rational rules, fair play etc. If you ask a European fan what football is, you will get a number of different responses: it is either a religion, a performance, an obsession, a game, play, a drama, a way of life, but it is not a sport, so don’t expect it to be fair! If you want to watch a sport, watch water polo or chess or basketball or cricket or rugby. But don’t expect football to make sense or conform to the logic of other sports.
I was rooting for Italy, but I loved the final. It embodied why soccer or football or whatever it is is the greatest game on earth. But then I also loved Spain Portugal and Italy England as well… hated and loved them.
ok thanks for education madrid, but why did you love the final? the last 30 minutes?
It was tragic and unfair exactly the way that life in general is tragic and unfair. Life and history and human existence usually has a tragic unhappy ending– football is like life. I always feel bad at the end of a soccer game, even though I love watching it, knowing that people have put such a huge investment into it and one side has to lose and their fans go away in misery. I root for Italy, but always feel bad for the opposing team and fans when Italy wins because it always seems to be a question of luck or unfairness, etc. People win and lose all the time, and most of the time it is because of luck and unfairness and injustice.
post football, omni tristem
Yes, same as the old aphorism, every animal is sad after sex except roosters and women. See Trainspotting for the comparison between sex and soccer: “Oh what a penetrating goal!” Also, I guess some women seem to follow soccer, but not many. Won’t go any further than that lest my wife see this. As for roosters or cocks or whatever, well I won’t go there…
“Also, I guess some women seem to follow soccer, but not many.”
That’s really interesting. In America, a lot of women follow professional football.
I’ve always had a hard time understanding the difference between soccer and kick the can.
Sports. Don’t watch ‘em much these days(except for the Olympics).
Baseball was ruined for me by (a) the endless pitching changes, (b) the ridiculously rabbited-up ball, and (c) the demise of the reserve clause.
(a) Makes the game interminable. Baseball games used to take half the time they take now. Did you know that?
(b) turns the game into a home run contest. At its worst, the game now ends 4-1, with the winning team’s runs all having come on solo shots.
(c) may have been just, and may have been good for the players, but made the game suck as a spectator sport. I remember when I stopped following the Giants. I opened the Sporting Green, and there was one player in the starting line up who had been there the year before.
…although I have to admit that I got into it when the Giants won the World Series. My bunny ears perked up when they actually made it to the playoffs. And then they won. And the Rangers were clearly a more talented team, too. That was fun. First time in what? Three hundred years? The Giants never win the World Series.
Football I was ruined for. The one year I really got into it was 1976 when the Raiders went 13-1 and won it all — including doing down the Steelers who had held them to 5 yards rushing in the previous years’ playoff. That season was incredible. It seemed like the Raiders were always down by 11 with five minutes left — and then they would come back. It got to be so common that you wouldn’t even get excited. Stabler would just start knifing those sideline, first down passes to Biletnikoff and the touchdowns would come. Half-way through the season, the Raiders were 6-1 — and the opposition had scored more points than they had. Six close wins and one loss by blow-out, you see.
…But that spoiled me. All football since has been a disappointment — with the possible exception of my son’s Pop Warner team win over a powerful Berkeley team with a singularly vociferous crowd of fans. The sudden silence when we scored the winning touchdown with a few seconds left was extremely pleasant.
Basketball I never got into — and of course soccer is something Europeans and Hispanics and such play.