The obstacle to American liking football? TV

Around the world, nations are celebrating the start of the FIFA World Cup,
the ultimate championship for football (aka American soccer)--except in
America.

Why not? Television.

zaryzary2003...

Every 4 years people say Tsk tsk, the fact that the US isn't interested
in the World Cup is evidence of all kinds of bad things, such as our
supposed insularity, short attention span, excessive TV watcing, etc.

Those faults may or may not be true, but the fact that we don't like
watching soccer is evidence of only one thing: that we don't like
watching soccer. Actually, soccer is hugely popular in the US - but as
a sport to play, not to watch. Practically every high school and
college in the country has a soccer team, both for boys and girls, for
instance.

But for some reason we don't like the World Cup. Is this because we
don't like international competition? Not really, since we love the
Olympics.

Is it because we only like our own, home grown sports? Maybe, but a lot
of our sports are now pretty international. Major League Baseball, for
instance, is probably one of the most diverse sports leagues in the
world, with a number of top players coming from not only the US and
Canada, but Japan, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Korea,
Cuba, and other countries. Basketball and Hockey probably aren't quite
as diverse, but they still have many, many players that come from other
countries.

And of course there are sports that are popular in the US that have a
lot of international players, like tennis and golf.

There aren't the natural breaks for commercial the way baseball, basketball
or American football have between plays.

zaryzary2003...

I'm not convinced that that's the reason soccer isn't popular here.

First, of the "big 4" American sports (basketball, football, baseball,
hockey), all became popular before television was big. (Although, in
the case of football and basketball, they really became popular at the
college level before they became popular at the professional level.)
The fact that those sports have natural breaks does happen to work well
for TV, but it's not as if that's what made them popular to begin with.

Also, it's not as if people in other countries don't watch soccer on
TV, and it's not as if companies don't want to advertise to them. It's
just that corporations have figured out other ways of advertising,
either with on-screen logos or other kinds of promotions.

The camera views tend to be bird's eye pov and make the scene look isometric
and the players indistinguishable. There's a close-up that lets you see the
players and opponents and the ball. Then again the field of play resists
closeups.

zaryzary2003...

Maybe that's true, but are Americans uniquely interested in close-ups?
I can't imagine that we're the only ones that like to look at things up
close.

zaryzary2003...

American football is not actually a natural for TV. The only reason why
it's done well there is that Americans understand the rules of the
games pretty well and can follow it. In fact the game is very hard to
follow if you've never seen it before, and knowing where to put the
camera is far from obvious a lot of the time, because you have to watch
not only the ball, but the receivers, the offense, tailbacks, etc.
Ever try showing football to someone who has never seen it before? They
become hopeless lost.

Not only that, but with all that padding and helmets, it's pretty hard
to tell one person from another down there, which is why they have to
wear gigantic numbers on their backs, so that people will have any
chance at all in figuring out who is who.

Soccer, by contrast, is very intuitive and easy to follow, and a lot
more intuitively appropriate for TV. Basically you have a single ball,
with people who stand fairly far apart (and therefore are less likely
to get confused), and the purpose of the game is clear: to kick the
ball into the goal. Granted, there are a lot more rules than that, but
even someone who had never seen the game before would know where to
look after watching the game for about 10 minutes. Not so with
football.

zaryzary2003...

Basketball is more intuitive than some sports, yes, and therefore is
easier to show on TV. Also, you can see the players faces easily, so
distinguishing them is easy. So I agree with you here.

zaryzary2003...

Yes, but like football, it's actually a pretty non-intuitive game and
hard to show on TV.

Ever try explaining the rules of baseball to someone that comes from a
non-baseball country? Not easy. You end saying things like, "Well this
guy throws the ball to this other guy, and if the guy standing over
there hits it with the bat and it lands on the ground he runs to that
bag, but then if this guy standing out there catches it in the air then
the guy with the bat has to try hitting it again, and if the guys who
were touching the other bags with their feet don't get back there
before ball is hit there they're out, and..."

zaryzary2003...

Distance from the camera isn't really the issue here, in my opinion.
Attending a game in person you're also very far from the action, but
that hasn't prevented sports like hockey from being popular.

PastaLover...

Interesting thoughts...

Which comes first? The TV coverage or the fan interest?

Personally, I think you've got it backward, but that's just me....

Ken from Chicago...

Considering the entire '80s and early '90s were known for politicians
catering to "Soccer Moms" it would seem there is interest in PLAYING soccer,
but less so in watching it (like baseball which only has power of tradition
and megacorps propping it up against the perfection of spectator team
sports: American football).

RichA...

If anyone with a brain can't take one look at the size of a soccer
field and SEE the main
problem with the game, they are sadly in need of enlightenment.
A shorter way of saying this is....BORING!!!!!

Justin Pate...

Any sport with a goalie in it is an utter bore.