Women's World Cup: Does anyone care?

[greenaccord02]

It took me a long while to learn to appreciate soccer. I find that in order for me to enjoy a game of soccer, it has to be well played and fast paced. It's not a high scoring game, but that's OK as long as things are moving along. There's a lot of diving for cards, playing hurt and then being miraculously healed when a card gets pulled. While that's irritating as a spectator, I guess it's simply part of the game. Certainly no worse than basketball in that regard.

I notice a lot of you guys are from up north in this thread. Soccer may not have caught on much up there yet, but down here where it's 44% hispanic, soccer is a pretty big deal.

 

[brophog]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
I would rather sit and watch the grass grown than watch soccer! I didn't mind playing it in school gym class but I just can not sit and watch a game on TV. It is just too boring to me.


The irony is, you'll hear Europeans say the same thing about American Football.

 

[brophog]

It's the enormous deviation in the game that slows down a lot of people's appreciation for it. American sports don't really have an equivalent of what I'm talking about.

Little League baseball is essentially the same as MLB baseball. They don't throw as hard, run as fast, or hit as far, but the game is relatively unchanged. It's a timeless game and that's part of its appeal. You'll find basketball and football players take up their respective games as a junior in high school and go on to very successful professional careers.

Soccer is not that way. Not only between 10 year olds and professionals, but between one professional and the next. There's a great, great deal of difference in pure skill between starters for the U.S. National Team and someone on the bench in Spain. It takes so, so long to develop the skills to play this game at the highest level.

That's seen easiest in the women's game. When I say there are teams in this tournament that can't string 3 passes together, I'm not really exaggerating. It's not a gender issue, it's a develop issue, and most of these women haven't had nearly the development time necessary for even rather basic skills for this level.

For that reason, you'll see a great majority of teams, even some high ranking teams, play nothing more than high lines and direct balls. They don't have the skills for a possession game, so they try to out athlete the opposition.

This is all part of the issue of gaining more exposure and development for the sport in the U.S. (aside from cultural issues, as mentioned before). If you've never been exposed to a great deal of high level play, and in particular if the bulk has been watching your 10 year old, then you (understandably) will have a hard time grasping why billions find this sport so interesting.

It's simply a different game as the skill rises.

 

[Spazdog]

The last year I ever played soccer was in the 9th grade. It was also the first time I played on a co-ed team.
I learned a lot about playing with females.

A: A female player will flop worse than Vlade Divac. A 5'11 120lb male midfielder is going to be faster than a 5'3 120lb female fullback. That's a fact. You rocket past a female and she will fall to the ground clutching her knee like she was Nancy Kerrigan and you were one of Tonya Harding's goons. She gets a stoppage of play. You are at least denied a shot on goal if not a given a yellowcard.

B: You could get away with a slide-tackle on a boy as long as you contacted the ball first. It had to be obvious that you contacted the ball first but you could do it. I was fast so I could take an oblique angle on the opposing forward, stop his progress, and get the ball back up to my forwards.
Don't even think of doing this to a female. This is a redcard offense.

C: When a 14-15 year old girl chests the ball, it falls different than when a boy does it...which really doesn't matter because if you are a hormonally challenged 14-15 year old boy, you were mesmerized by what just happened on the girl's chest and weren't paying attention to the ball anyway.

D: For the bickering/giggly lot that they were, they did actually move the ball pretty well. Good cooperation.

So in summary, what did I learn about female soccer players? They are slow, soft, deceptive and can't kick as far or hard. But they cooperate well, again are smartly deceptive and it's fun to watch the effects of running and a soccer ball on a girl's chest when you a hormonally challenged 14-15 year old.

If I'm being honest, there were a few girls in the league that were the equal if not better than the boys. But their numbers were very small

 

[Popinski]

Originally Posted By: brophog
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
I would rather sit and watch the grass grown than watch soccer! I didn't mind playing it in school gym class but I just can not sit and watch a game on TV. It is just too boring to me.


The irony is, you'll hear Europeans say the same thing about American Football.



I'm kinda sad that it is not as popular in the states. Soccer is the world's most popular sport.

 

[Popinski]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
The last year I ever played soccer was in the 9th grade. It was also the first time I played on a co-ed team.
I learned a lot about playing with females.

A: A female player will flop worse than Vlade Divac. A 5'11 120lb male midfielder is going to be faster than a 5'3 120lb female fullback. That's a fact. You rocket past a female and she will fall to the ground clutching her knee like she was Nancy Kerrigan and you were one of Tonya Harding's goons. She gets a stoppage of play. You are at least denied a shot on goal if not a given a yellowcard.

B: You could get away with a slide-tackle on a boy as long as you contacted the ball first. It had to be obvious that you contacted the ball first but you could do it. I was fast so I could take an oblique angle on the opposing forward, stop his progress, and get the ball back up to my forwards.
Don't even think of doing this to a female. This is a redcard offense.

C: When a 14-15 year old girl chests the ball, it falls different than when a boy does it...which really doesn't matter because if you are a hormonally challenged 14-15 year old boy, you were mesmerized by what just happened on the girl's chest and weren't paying attention to the ball anyway.

D: For the bickering/giggly lot that they were, they did actually move the ball pretty well. Good cooperation.

So in summary, what did I learn about female soccer players? They are slow, soft, deceptive and can't kick as far or hard. But they cooperate well, again are smartly deceptive and it's fun to watch the effects of running and a soccer ball on a girl's chest when you a hormonally challenged 14-15 year old.

If I'm being honest, there were a few girls in the league that were the equal if not better than the boys. But their numbers were very small

 

[brophog]

Originally Posted By: Popinski




I'm kinda sad that it is not as popular in the states. Soccer is the world's most popular sport. [/quote]

It's not part of our culture, though. Culture plays a huge part in all of this.

It's why we play baseball and not cricket. It's why American football, an obscenely popular sport here, isn't more popular elsewhere. By the same token, while young children may kick the ball around a soccer pitch, they don't play it in the streets. Instead, we have basketball hoops in our driveways, and we throw the football around in the front yard.

Europeans that don't watch much American football will state that it is boring, and they have a bit of an argument. In a 3 hour broadcast of an NFL game, about 11 minutes of actual action goes on. That number will surprise many football fans, but those fans have grown up around the game and don't consciously realize how much of the game is just standing around.

Someone that isn't around the game, however, almost immediately notices it, though they may not be able to quantify it. In the same fashion, to someone new to soccer, the intricacies of the sport aren't realized. Everything looks like simple passing to them. The sheer skill involved in receiving a pass, the accuracy, the movement of the players.....all of that goes unnoticed in a way that its counterpart in sports of our culture don't.

It all works both ways. One of the great things about modern society, though, is the sharing of culture. While the United States has deals in place to get the English Premier League, England has deals in place to receive NFL games.

 

[kemo]

In response to the OP, I could care less about soccer, even less that women are playing it.

I was watching some of it at work (ESPN is on at all times) and simply couldn't get over how much drama is thrown in the game... faking you are hurt after contact in hope that the other player gets carded.

Boring!

 

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: brophog
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Soccer will not take off here because it doesn't translate well to our media which run on commercial breaks.


You may have had an argument 20 years ago.

But now, we have FOX and ESPN fighting over international rights. We have not only dedicated channels to the sport, but a sizable amount of the English Premier League, Italian Serie A, MLS, and some La Liga.

Not to mention all major events, including events like the Women's World Cup.

There are cultural issues still at play, but the commercial viability of the sport has been solved.


Yeah, those who want to watch soccer pay for the extra channels to watch it.

I've yet to see Monday Night Soccer run on TV, or a Saturday afternoon of college soccer followed by a Sunday of pro soccer.

It may be getting there, but it's not there yet.

 

[brophog]

Originally Posted By: javacontour


Yeah, those who want to watch soccer pay for the extra channels to watch it.



You've heard of a little channel called ESPN? I hear it's gaining in popularity.

 

[kemo]

Originally Posted By: brophog
Originally Posted By: javacontour


Yeah, those who want to watch soccer pay for the extra channels to watch it.



You've heard of a little channel called ESPN? I hear it's gaining in popularity.



that's because there is nothing else happening...

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: javacontour

I've yet to see Monday Night Soccer run on TV, or a Saturday afternoon of college soccer followed by a Sunday of pro soccer.

That's what I'm saying.

 

[brophog]

To keep some of these arguments straight, let's clarify:

1) Soccer hasn't made any headway in the United States in the last 30 years, because it isn't as popular as American Football.

2) Soccer cannot be a viable commercial sport in the United States due to the structure inherent to the sport. This is despite the fact the nation's two largest sports media providers, ESPN (100 million domestic subscribers) and FOX (FSC - 40 million domestic subscribers) have invested large amounts of money in broadcasting the sport, both in the United States and abroad.

3) One has to pay for channels to watch soccer. Fact is, you have to pay to watch sports these days. The days of following American sports on broadcast TV are long over. Even long standing staples, such as the NCAA basketball tournament, are now heavily broadcasted on cable. Only a handful of bowl games are on broadcast tv. MLB and the NBA are almost entirely on cable, with regional broadcasting having long since moved from local broadcast rights to cable rights. ESPN alone, a channel that has gotten so expensive for broadcasters that it isn't on some basic tiers, has driven a large amount of former broadcast sports onto cable/satellite. It has been so successful, that we're seeing non-traditional sports networks, such as Turner, becoming serious contenders in the cable sports arena.

4) Soccer cannot survive because they can't bring in the money of Football/Basketball/Baseball/Hockey. In Hockey's case, the MLS has arguably already begun surpassing it in spectator numbers. More people watched the Gold Cup Final than Game 7 of the Stanley Cup. Average attendance for the MLS is barely below the average attendance of the NHL. The important fact is, however, that the MLS isn't trying to directly compete against those other entities. They don't need to, because they don't have nearly the expenses of those other entities. 200 million is a lot of money for a dedicated soccer venue, but it's only a fifth or sixth as much as a new NFL stadium is costing. 3 million dollars is an elite salary in the MLS, but it's not even average in those other leagues. Only 8 players in all of MLS last year made a million or more dollars. The LA Galaxy have 3 of the highest paid players in the league, and you couldn't buy an All-Star QB for what they're making.

No one can suggest soccer is as popular as the traditional American sports in the United States. However, that doesn't mean it hasn't grown considerably, and that it isn't still growing considerably.

 

[Popinski]

Originally Posted By: brophog
To keep some of these arguments straight, let's clarify:

1) Soccer hasn't made any headway in the United States in the last 30 years, because it isn't as popular as American Football.

2) Soccer cannot be a viable commercial sport in the United States due to the structure inherent to the sport. This is despite the fact the nation's two largest sports media providers, ESPN (100 million domestic subscribers) and FOX (FSC - 40 million domestic subscribers) have invested large amounts of money in broadcasting the sport, both in the United States and abroad.

3) One has to pay for channels to watch soccer. Fact is, you have to pay to watch sports these days. The days of following American sports on broadcast TV are long over. Even long standing staples, such as the NCAA basketball tournament, are now heavily broadcasted on cable. Only a handful of bowl games are on broadcast tv. MLB and the NBA are almost entirely on cable, with regional broadcasting having long since moved from local broadcast rights to cable rights. ESPN alone, a channel that has gotten so expensive for broadcasters that it isn't on some basic tiers, has driven a large amount of former broadcast sports onto cable/satellite. It has been so successful, that we're seeing non-traditional sports networks, such as Turner, becoming serious contenders in the cable sports arena.

4) Soccer cannot survive because they can't bring in the money of Football/Basketball/Baseball/Hockey. In Hockey's case, the MLS has arguably already begun surpassing it in spectator numbers. More people watched the Gold Cup Final than Game 7 of the Stanley Cup. Average attendance for the MLS is barely below the average attendance of the NHL. The important fact is, however, that the MLS isn't trying to directly compete against those other entities. They don't need to, because they don't have nearly the expenses of those other entities. 200 million is a lot of money for a dedicated soccer venue, but it's only a fifth or sixth as much as a new NFL stadium is costing. 3 million dollars is an elite salary in the MLS, but it's not even average in those other leagues. Only 8 players in all of MLS last year made a million or more dollars. The LA Galaxy have 3 of the highest paid players in the league, and you couldn't buy an All-Star QB for what they're making.

No one can suggest soccer is as popular as the traditional American sports in the United States. However, that doesn't mean it hasn't grown considerably, and that it isn't still growing considerably.


You're absolutely right. Mexico vs United States Men's was playing last week in California. 80% of the people in the stadium were Mexican.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: Popinski

You're absolutely right. Mexico vs United States Men's was playing last week in California. 80% of the people in the stadium were Mexican.


80% of the people in Califonia itself are Mexican.

 

[rshunter]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: Popinski

You're absolutely right. Mexico vs United States Men's was playing last week in California. 80% of the people in the stadium were Mexican.


80% of the people in Califonia itself are Mexican.


Yeah, literally. As in citizens...

 

[Popinski]

USA vs Brazil. Quarter Finals. July 10. GO USA!!

 

[brophog]

USA better get ready for this!

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: brophog
USA better get ready for this!

You mean when she pulls up her shirt after scoring the goal???

And that considering she didn't have much to show

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: Popinski

You're absolutely right. Mexico vs United States Men's was playing last week in California. 80% of the people in the stadium were Mexican.


80% of the people in Califonia itself are Mexican.


http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

Nope, according to census it is about 37.6%, and white non Hispanic is still 40.1%

So your number is way off unless you add Baja California.