I understand that soccer is all the rage these days and I have been following the world cup just like many others. But…
One often hears the question, “Why isn’t soccer more popular in the US?” Of course there are many reasons. Ninety minutes of running around only to end up nil nil is not very satisfying. I mean real sports shouldn’t end in a tie and they certainly shouldn’t end 0-0.
When my boys were little and started out playing little league, the rules said not to keep score. Of course, even though they weren’t supposed to, the kids knew who really won the game. Even these little ones understand that sports are supposed to have winners.
While I certainly don’t endorse hooliganism, I sort of understand it. Thousands of men continually bored to tears have to find something to do, no?
Of course, even if match after 0-0 match is not enough to to drive you from the sport perhaps this will.
The star of the England National Team soccer and powerhouse Manchester United, Wayne Rooney, sat down to a press conference yesterday to discuss this week’s tie with the US team (another tie, what a surprise) and their forthcoming match. Probably because even soccer reporters are bored with the sport they are paid to cover, the questioning strayed from soccer to religion. A reporter asked Mr. Rooney why he wears a prominent cross and rosary beads around his neck when he’s not playing.
Mr. Rooney responded “I’ve been wearing them for about four years now and you don’t usually watch training (to see them.) I obviously can’t wear them in games. It’s my religion.” At which point a media officer for the Football Association jumped in and put an abrupt end to the discussion saying curtly “We don’t do religion.”
Soccer doesn’t do religion.
Reason #5,467 why we don’t do soccer.
For those who love soccer and wholeheartedly disagree with me , let’s just agree to disagree. You know, kind of like a tie. You should be used to that.
Comments
Post a Comment
The scoring thing is reason #1 not to like soccer, and it’s pretty much the only reason I can think of. Soccer’s athleticism, grace and strategy far surpass sports like football and basketball. It is lovely to watch. But the players work and work and work and WORK, executing one beautiful play after another—and nobody scores. There’s no reward for all that effort. It’s disproportionate. It’s just plain wrong. But I like to watch it, just as I like to watch figure skating simply for the grace and skill of it, irrespective of competition or rewards.
Basketball has the opposite problem: the players score so easily and the score changes so quickly that it cheapens the whole business. Just as games should not end 0-0, they should not end with scores like 127-122. The numbers are too big. You might as well skip the first half of the game.
Baseball has an excellent balance of effort and achievement. Scores like 5-2 are eminently reasonable. And I like the fact that there’s no clock in baseball, no arbitrary stopping point. OTOH, there is a LOT of standing around, and the athleticism is confined to fairly short bursts on the part of comparatively few players at a time, which makes it much less visually exciting than more athletic sports.
Football also has too much standing around and play confined to short bursts. Plus the rules are too complicated and the scoring system is weird. And it’s violent and dangerous, and they wear all that armor. In all these respects it lacks elegance, although it is not without moments of grace.
Golf. The scale and precision of the game is just inhuman. Compared to other games with some kind of target or goal, such as soccer, archery, basketball, or darts, golf involves a target so ridiculously small and far away, and a sheer scale of the field of play so vast and unforgiving, that it seems like a game designed for creatures other than human beings.
Golf is so hard that no one can play it. As I wrote six years ago in my review for Bobby Jones: Stroke of Genius, “Losing is a fact of life in any sport. But golf seems uniquely unkind even to its top contenders. Last month, Tiger Woods tied for 22nd at the Master’s; last year he tied for 29th at the Deutch Bank-SOP Open. These were disappointments, certainly—but how often does a player like Serena Williams or a team like the Lakers or the Yankees finish outside the top twenty?”
Tennis. There’s not much wrong with tennis, other than the silly way of calling scores. Not long ago men’s tennis could be comparatively boring to watch because rallies tended to end quickly, but I understand that’s been changing in the last few years. I still think women’s tennis is more enjoyable to watch.
Can you tell I’m a critic? :)
Soccer does do religion. The English Football Association on the other hand…
And it’s called a draw not a tie :)
Soccer is called “the beautiful game” for a reason. Stop counting. Pax,jb.
The World Cup game could be taking place in my back yard, and I don’t think I could muster enough interest to go watch it.
Sorry, Mark Whittle does not speak for all soccer players or all soccer spectators. I will agree that, in this case, you are disagreeable. Further I will tout this column as reason #7,456 not to like the National Catholic Register.
Soccer does do religion. Just watch Orthodox and Catholic players make the sign of a cross before (and sometimes, during) a game.
Wow, you don’t have a clue! Having watched my three daughters grow up playing soccer, I can attest to the commitment and athleticism involved. Two of my daughters played in college, one at a D3 school and one at a D1 Big East school. She still plays semi-pro soccer. The skill and strength at that level are just unbelievable. The game is all abut team work, commitment, and work ethic…. great life skills. If the Football Association says “we don’t do religion,” don’t blame the sport and don’t blame the players. Look at the furor over the Tebow ad during the Super Bowl. As for religion, it is my belief that in little leagues, no practices, games, scrimmages, etc. should be scheduled before 1 PM on Sunday so that families do not have to make a choice between sports and religion.
I can think of. Soccer’s athleticism, grace and strategy far surpass sports like football and basketball.
Have a soccer player endure a couple of weeks of mid-summer OTAs and then tell me they’re more athletic than football players.
the scoring system is weird
A touchdown is 6 points, a point after touchdown is 1 point, a safety (being tackled in your own end zone) is 2 points for the defensive team, and a field goal is 3 points. You don’t need an advanced degree to figure that out.
In all seriousness though, I don’t think that soccer players are unathletic, and I appreciate the game in spurts. But I think one of the local sports talk guys made a good point about why soccer hasn’t caught on here. What adds to the tension and thrill of sports is the comeback. Practically every memorable game in the history of the big four involved a comeback. In soccer, comebacks are incredibly difficult. How often does the team that scores first lose? And up 2-0? You might as well call it a game.
Soccer? What’s that?
The real football is the most beautiful and engaging sport—its realm is in the heart though. You don’t get it. Had you grown up in Brazil, like me, you would join me in defending it fiercely against the reigning ignorance in this country.
“Have a soccer player endure a couple of weeks of mid-summer OTAs and then tell me they’re more athletic than football players.”
Bah. Sleight of hand. I didn’t say the players weren’t athletic or didn’t train hard, I said the game isn’t as athletic. Soccer is graceful, elegant and fluid; the players and the game are always in motion. Everything but the score. American football involves a lot of guys built like refrigerators crashing into each other in gladiator outfits and running around for ten or twenty seconds at a time, then standing around scratching their butts for like five minutes. Bo-ring. Of course anything is exciting if you’re invested in the outcome, but visually there’s just not much going on.
The “Revocation of Indepedence” letter has a point:
“What adds to the tension and thrill of sports is the comeback. Practically every memorable game in the history of the big four involved a comeback. In soccer, comebacks are incredibly difficult. How often does the team that scores first lose? And up 2-0? You might as well call it a game.”
I don’t disagree. It’s the sport’s Achilles heel: You can’t score. Make the goals bigger and harder to defend, and you’d still have a beautiful game, but one that could actually be played.
In many sports a person can use all his/her athletic abilities, talents, gifts - and one’s entire body, all or nearly all muscles. Soccer limits one physically. It’s like saying “only partial persons can play this game.” These limits on what one can do contribute to both soccer’s wide appeal - anyone can do it - and to its wide rejection - boring to watch rule-limited people use only part of their total gifts to achieve a goal. Soccer - via its regulations/limitations - is the opposite of “Be All You Can Be” and the epitome of “All Men Are Created Equal,” a microcosm of laissez faire vs. totalitarianism.
It seems childish to seek a reason such as the one you noted as the reason soccer is not a popular sport in USA.
Did you ever think of the business angle?
Millions of people in USA are following this World Cup.
Dont you feel Lackers/Celtics is a great example of business in sports.
Continents such as Europe with a vast civilization and deep culture,which I will not say is ahead of other countries cant live without it.
Therefore??????
Where did the sports ocome from? some of our sports are European adaptations, correct???
Other than that you are doing a good job in writing.
Robert
Well, I think we’ll agree to disagree on the relative athleticism of American football players. Yes, there’s not a lot of action between plays (then again, is running around really “action”), but on any given play a football player is doing a tremendous amount of work. Even those seemingly tubby linemen are engaged in intricate blocking techniques - not just blocking 250+ pound, super jacked up defensive linemen, but also moving their feet and pulling out to block on running plays. And let’s not forget the swift thinking, immediate decision making ability, and then throwing ability of NFL quarterbacks. They have to make reads in the blink of an eye and then deliver the ball on a rope to a receiver who’s got a cornerback hounding him. And the cornerback himself has to stay step for step with a blistering fast receiver who can probably run a 4.4 40, and is also making fast cuts.
The two sports involve different levels of athleticism, so it’s not quite fair to compare. Soccer players have to be in excellent cardiovascular shape and have great foot skills. American football players require different skillsets. They’re all great athletes in one way or the other, but I think soccer aficionados misinterpret the time lag in between plays as a sign of relative athletic inferiority.
Paul Zummo, your points are all well taken, and again, I’m not saying that football players are necessarily inferior athletes. I just don’t think the game itself offers the same level of athletic interest to the spectator. But I do appreciate the points you raise.
Holy smokes, guy mcclung. That’s even crazier than my take on golf as a Calvinist sport.
Almost all sports have rule-based limitations on what you can do, including the kinds of moves you can make. For instance, there’s no kicking in basketball, baseball, tennis or hockey. Even in American “football” kicking has a very limited role, as does throwing—only one guy can do it. There’s no throwing or catching at all in tennis or hockey. In baseball, players have to run in straight lines along a predetermined path in order to score; there is no place for the whole art of dodging, feinting and improvising one’s path—or for shadowing and blocking and all. Tackling, grabbing, interfering and otherwise physically confronting other players isn’t allowed in basketball or baseball. Etc.
Another reason to like Wayne Rooney. But not the FA. Secular fundamentalists haven’t conquered Europe just yet, or they wouldn’t be so fearful and eager to censor and smear Christians.
I think I must agree with Steve Greydanus’s point of view more than anyone else’s - despite not really being a true soccer (sorry, football) maven.
The Rooney quote - it seems unfair to tar the entire sport with the rules of a particular league or competition. In soccer, just as in other sports, this varies. No, the low scoring seems to be the biggest problem with soccer - not that it seems to bother soccer fanatics around the world.
I think for competitive team sports, rugby and baseball may present the best balance, albeit in different ways. Rugby preserves much of the constant flow and athletic art that soccer has while sustaining more of the violence and higher scoring that American football is known for. Baseball, on the other hand, exhibits a more pastoral pace while avoiding the interminable length and complexity of cricket.
I like Steve’s idea of making the goals a little bigger in soccer - probably the best way to fix its weakest aspect. But then soccer has its hoary traditions as well, and I imagine such a change would be fiercely opposed in many quarters…
How is it that soccer is the most popular sport in the world? Is the U.S. some special kind of reserve that must exclude soccer?
There is one great advantage that soccer has for kids - you do not have to be a muscle-bound clown to play it. You have only to be able to kick the ball and to run; and all the players have a chance to do this. It requires much more bodily skill. And the game is constantly moving.
FIFA and the various national associations do attempt to discourage questioning about politics and religion. Regardless of the particular wisdom of THIS case, it’s generally a wise policy, at least in Britain and some other countries, where religious identity defines nationality, club loyalty and frequently can lead to fan violence.
guy mcclung,
I have to say that I find your reasoning odd. In football only one person can use feet. In baseball and basketball no one can use their feet on the ball. It doesn’t really hold.
Patrick,
I used to think that soccer wasn’t popular in the US because the US is very audience-focused when it comes to sports. The popularity of a sport is not based on how many people play it, but how many people watch it. Therefore, even though soccer has some of the highest numbers of players in youth sports, it just is not that popular in the American mindset. So, I figured that since soccer is pretty boring to watch for most people - including me, and I absolutely *love* to play the game - it wasn’t very popular. But baseball in mind-numbingly boring to watch - except live - so that can’t be right.
But I think your observation of soccer’s “weakness” really reveals something about US culture. We are a culture of gratification. We need the “reward” for our actions, and as a society, we don’t have a very well developed sense of actions being their own reward. (I think you see this played out very distinctly in religion, how many people make their religious choices based on the emotional payout?) Soccer is a sport where the “payout” is focused as much on the play as the score. That’s something that doesn’t work well in American culture, and may work as at least part of the explanation for why soccer is very popular with American children but not American adults.
I cannot agree that soccer doesn’t do religion - that’s not a view supported by history: many clubs here in the UK were established by Catholic and Protestant parishes.
I believe the real problem is that the media officer from the Football Association doesn’t do religion and as such he/she needs to be taught a lesson on footballing history.
However I do mourn that fact that the FA cup final no longer sings ‘Abide With Me’ before the match, but oddly enough ever since its removal from the tournament the game has become increasingly commercial.
I’m sure there’s a pun in there about footballers having their crosses to bear, but I’ll leave it for now.
I’d have to agree somewhat with wineinthewater. Soccer is a lot like real life. A lot of work, a lot of running around, little payback. The focus is on excellence in the little things, and whether you’re successful in a huge way, you’ve still a) worked your body b) worked as a team c)performed plays, hopefully brilliantly. Sure, in life you sometimes get big rewards, but often it’s a lot of slogging through the hard stuff.
The English Football Association may not “do” religion (very few of the administrative types in the modern world do), but religion “does” soccer: Pope Benedict XVI likes it.
So there.
(He also likes Mozart. Good man. I like him. He has, um, CATHOLIC interests.)
Americans need to get over their obsession with high-scoring games, and stop searching for reasons (like this one, which is spurious) to dislike soccer.
So go root for USA tomorrow at 9:30, like a good red-blooded American should.
A world in which people take me seriously is almost as boring as soccer.
it takes 3.5 hours to watch a American football game, but the truth is you only watch 20 minutes of action or 10 percent of the time. Here is why. American football last 1 hour. However, players spend 2/3 of the time in hurdle talking and standing around. That’s why there are only 20 minutes of real action.
I appreciate your tongue-in-cheek approach. But, as I read your piece I will admit that the idea that work must end in some tangible reward or it is not worthy sounded a bit like utilitarianism. Just a bit.
The fact that soccer has its appeal is the reality that it requires nothing but a ball and flat bit of dirt. In a world where sports equipment is a luxury most cannot afford, it is simple games at its best. This is why is so appealing for the rest of the world. How many young people (all over the world) find just joy - simple joy - in running and kicking and attempting to score. And joy matters - a great deal!
If the score is all that matters, and if not being able to get one after striving for over an hour to do so is somehow not worthy, then my attempts to defeat the weeds in my garden not to mention to potty train my son are for naught.
“A world in which people take me seriously is almost as boring as soccer.”
Snork! Awesome. Well said. My disparaging comments about various sports were meant in that same tongue in cheek spirit, and part of what I found troubling about guy mcclung’s comments, among others, is I’m afraid he’s totally serious!
“I read your piece I will admit that the idea that work must end in some tangible reward or it is not worthy sounded a bit like utilitarianism. Just a bit … If the score is all that matters, and if not being able to get one after striving for over an hour to do so is somehow not worthy, then my attempts to defeat the weeds in my garden not to mention to potty train my son are for naught.”
Just to be clear, Rachel, your comments are not among those that I find troublingly serious-minded. :)
That said, to respond in the spirit of your comment: Just how “tangible” is a score, or a victory? I can see a goal happen, but I can’t see or touch a score or a victory. Certainly the idea that “the score is all that matters” is silly, but so is the opposite idea that the score doesn’t matter at all. Otherwise, we could get rid of goals entirely and just go out in the field and play keep-away with the ball, and have just as much fun. If in the end it became necessary to declare a winner, we could do it with a flip of a coin.
Just look at the controversy in this World Cup over the behavior of the ball. Both sides are talking about it. The losing team always complains about the ball, but this time even the winners are acknowledging that the ball is behaving oddly.
Obviously you can never take X factors out of sports—there’s always the wind in golf or the angle of the sun in baseball, and God only knows which way the football is going to bounce. But in golf you get eighteen holes, and in baseball you need 27 outs (x 2), and in football you get to play for an hour (or for 20 minutes, as someone helpfully pointed out). You can rack up scores of 5-2, or 11-7, or 21-10, or whatever.
When the final score is counted in something higher than the very low single digits, there’s an opportunity for things to even out and for achievement to be duly rewarded. Goals in soccer are so hard that way too much skill and effort counts for nothing in the end, and it is way too easy for the entire game to come down to a ball dipping unexpectedly. It’s a little bit too close to playing keep-away with the ball and then deciding the winner by flipping a coin!
“What adds to the tension and thrill of sports is the comeback. Practically every memorable game in the history of the big four involved a comeback. In soccer, comebacks are incredibly difficult. How often does the team that scores first lose? And up 2-0? You might as well call it a game.”
Very funny that you say this because today the United States team made that very comeback when it caught up to Slovenia, who scored two goals early in the game, in the second half. Had it not been for that call by the ref, they would have even made a third and thus won the game 3-2.
Reason #3849 Not To Like Catholicism
It’s not just the lack of scoring; it’s the lack of any discrete, numberable successes. Baseball has hits, putouts, strikeouts, double plays, all of which can be enjoyed and counted, even if the game is 1-0. Is there such a thing as a soccer fantasy league?
And yet it is exactly the low scoring that makes a goal so incredibly important. There is plenty to be “counted” in soccer… ball possession, shots to goal, player stats etc etc for those who need to be counting to enjoy a game.
I see that as another reason to love soccer!
Sorry to break it to you, but not everyone is Catholic or even religious.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.