An American talking about Soccer

[redhorizon2]

Why Americans Don't Love Soccer


Note: This post is written by Andrew, the other Wait But Why co-founder. It’s his first time posting something, be gentle on him.
Soccer is the favorite sport for a measly 2% of Americans – despite the fact that soccer is by far the most popular sport globally. Why?
To start, sports are entertainment, and cultural values drive entertainment preferences. And at the heart of American cultural values is an exceptionally strong sense, and deep love for, the concept of justice.
The “American Dream” is a story about justice. Those who are honest, hard-working, and persevere get what they deserve. They get success. Upward mobility is justice.
In sports, Americans want to optimize for justice. We want the team who won to have earned it – they played harder, they had more talent, they played more as a team, they were more clutch. The best team doesn’t always have to win, but they have to deserve their victory.
Which brings me to soccer…
Soccer is where sports justice goes to die.
Some examples:
1) One goal makes a huge difference in soccer where the average World Cup game has 2.86 total goals, and referees can play an enormous role in the scoring of a goal. A missed offsides call. A bad call in the penalty box resulting in a penalty shot (7.4% of all World Cup goals). A red card given for a minor infraction that tilts the odds. There is a tremendous incentive for players to shamelessly cheat. Goals are sometimes not deserved and feel completely divorced from justice.
2) Regular season and pool-play games can end in a draw. Therefore, one team may not be incentivized to win the game, and thus the terms of the contest are not equal (one team trying to win, another team being happy with a draw). And ultimately when there is a draw, there is no winner. We do not find out which team is better, and there is no justice.
3) Knockout games can end in a shootout. A team can win a game merely by fighting to a draw, and then being better at penalty kicks. The World Cup can be decided, not by soccer played on the field, not determining which team is the fittest and has the strongest will, but by the team who is better at one specific skill. There is no justice.
4) A team can absolutely dominate a game…and still lose. See: USA 2, Ghana 1. It’s fun when your team that pulls off an absurdly lucky, miracle victory, but I cannot imagine how much it must have sucked to be a Ghana fan yesterday.
If soccer is going to ever succeed in mainstream America (or just be a better sport in general), it should adopt the following changes:
Penalty Kicks/Fouls in the Box
A) No penalty kicks, ever, to decide a knockout game. Take players off the field if you have to (e.g. after the first overtime, go down to 10 on 10, after the second go to 9 on 9), but make the fittest and grittiest team win the game on the field. It takes away all incentive for one team to spend the entire game playing for a shootout.
B) Video review all penalties resulting in a penalty kick. Duh.
C) There should also be differing levels of fouls inside the box – a penalty kick should only be given if a goal scoring opportunity was impeded. Otherwise, a direct free kick does the trick.
D) When penalties occur in attacking situations, they should be delayed, hockey style – let the attacking team keep trying to score until there’s a change in possession, as opposed to letting advantage end at some point.
Yellow and Red Cards
A) Video review all penalties resulting in a red card. Taking a player off completely changes the course of the game, and you have to get it right.
B) For a yellow card, do what rugby and hockey do – send the player off the field for 10 minutes. Here’s why that works well:

• A yellow card becomes a legitimate penalty that benefits the current opponent…not something that might hurt you down the road and benefit some random future opponent who has no role in this game.
• Diving is reduced because a yellow card becomes a real negative at the moment it is penalized.
• The game is more exciting and there is more scoring because you will have uneven numbers of players sometimes – “power plays” are awesome.

Injuries
A) Injuries should not stop the game unless there is an injury risk – it is an absurd tradition. They don’t stop the game (or the clock) in rugby, a far more brutal sport, when someone gets hurt, why should they stop it in soccer? All it does is incentivize faking injuries.
B) If you are going to allow an injury to stop the game, you HAVE to make it stop the clock. You can’t allow players to shorten the game by faking injuries – when USA lost to Ghana in the last World Cup, Ghana faked maybe five minutes worth of injuries, which seemed like were matched up with about three minutes of injury time. The game clock on the screen not being “official” kind of upsets Americans.
C) If you have to get taken off the field in a stretcher, you should be out of the game.
Soccer can be amazingly dramatic and entertaining, and I absolutely love the World Cup. I’m also firmly aware that soccer is doing just fine and doesn’t give a crap about what will make Americans love it more…but like any good American, I can’t keep my opinions to myself.
http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/06/americans-dont-love-soccer.html

 

[Markeh]

I never realised top football teams don't earn their success. I'm also very sad to learn that football needs to change so much to be a better sport.

 

[localny]

Oh you Europeans and your American stereotyping ways...

 

[Dirty Sanchez]

There are some legitimate issues in there that could be adopted to make football a better game.

 

[Mystic]

Why Americans Don't Love Soccer


Note: This post is written by Andrew, the other Wait But Why co-founder. It’s his first time posting something, be gentle on him.
Soccer is the favorite sport for a measly 2% of Americans – despite the fact that soccer is by far the most popular sport globally. Why?
To start, sports are entertainment, and cultural values drive entertainment preferences. And at the heart of American cultural values is an exceptionally strong sense, and deep love for, the concept of justice.
The “American Dream” is a story about justice.

I got this far.

 

[hmmmmm1]

Do all of the other "major" sports like american football, baseball etc not have promotion/relegation?

 

[Karl Hungus]

Do all of the other "major" sports like american football, baseball etc not have promotion/relegation?

Nope not at all, the teams that are at the highest level never change. They may create new teams, or teams move cities, but that is rare.

When I first started following football, the hardest thing to get used to for me were all the different competitions that go on simultaneously. League, League Cup, Europa League, Champions League etc, the idea of multiple competitions taking place at once was completely foreign to me and seemed like a lot to keep track of.

Also as an American, let me ask what sports are there that could not be changed to make them better, football is not the only one. The refs in basketball can completely change the game, a regular season baseball game takes like 5 fucking hours, somebody needs to write an article on how to make that pile of shit smell better.

 

[Holle]

Yeah, America just cares too much about justice.

That's their biggest problem, like.

 

[Dirkus_Circus]

Nope not at all, the teams that are at the highest level never change. They may create new teams, or teams move cities, but that is rare.



When I first started following football, the hardest thing to get used to for me were all the different competitions that go on simultaneously. League, League Cup, Europa League, Champions League etc, the idea of multiple competitions taking place at once was completely foreign to me and seemed like a lot to keep track of.



Also as an American, let me ask what sports are there that could not be changed to make them better, football is not the only one. The refs in basketball can completely change the game, a regular season baseball game takes like 5 fucking hours, somebody needs to write an article on how to make that pile of shit smell better.

That part of the article was funny to me too.

Baseball has an umpire making a judgement call on literally every single pitch as to whether or not it is a ball or strike. Basketball referees can and will completely influence and often times ruin most games. American football referees have become a much bigger part of the game in recent years with the way the passing game is now officiated.

 

[localny]

There's no generational dominance in Basketball, NFL, or NHL of a team. Draft picks and player caps stop that. So your team does well for a few years and then does not so good. Kind of like Liverpool. Baseball is an exception I think. They can buy, buy, buy.

 

[Mystic]

Nope not at all, the teams that are at the highest level never change. They may create new teams, or teams move cities, but that is rare.

The franchise model of American sports is my biggest bugbear with it, it's a ridiculous model which fixes in the status quo, never allowing smaller clubs to work there way up. Ironically is completely contradicts the justice that bullshit article was spouting.

"Those who are honest, hard-working, and persevere get what they deserve. They get success. Upward mobility is justice."

 

[Markeh]

There are some legitimate issues in there that could be adopted to make football a better game.

Yea there's a few bits that are fair enough but they're nothing new, imo:

Yellow and Red Cards

A) Video review all penalties resulting in a red card. Taking a player off completely changes the course of the game, and you have to get it right.
B) For a yellow card, do what rugby and hockey do – send the player off the field for 10 minutes. Here’s why that works well:

• A yellow card becomes a legitimate penalty that benefits the current opponent…not something that might hurt you down the road and benefit some random future opponent who has no role in this game.
• Diving is reduced because a yellow card becomes a real negative at the moment it is penalized.
• The game is more exciting and there is more scoring because you will have uneven numbers of players sometimes – “power plays” are awesome.

Injuries

B) If you are going to allow an injury to stop the game, you HAVE to make it stop the clock. You can’t allow players to shorten the game by faking injuries – when USA lost to Ghana in the last World Cup, Ghana faked maybe five minutes worth of injuries, which seemed like were matched up with about three minutes of injury time. The game clock on the screen not being “official” kind of upsets Americans.

The point about yellow cards is an alright idea but I don't think it'd ever be feasible in amateur leagues where they struggle to get a ref never mind 2 linesmen, fragmenting the rules would be a bad idea imo.

 

[nealmac]

The "stopping the clock" thing is a good idea to be fair. One big clock. Like In American football, basketball etc...ie the referee doesn't control the time.

 

[bkwitche2]

The "stopping the clock" thing is a good idea to be fair. One big clock. Like In American football, basketball etc...ie the referee doesn't control the time.

In an average game the ball is in play just over 60 of the 90 minutes. Stopping the clock at every stoppage would make games run close to 3 hours instead of 2 and for the players, every game would be equivalent (probably a bit more actually) than play ing out extra time.

I don't think stopping the clock is a bad idea, but I think the halves would need to be shortened. I doubt either of those will ever happen.

 

[nealmac]

In an average game the ball is in play just over 60 of the 90 minutes. Stopping the clock at every stoppage would make games run close to 3 hours instead of 2 and for the players, every game would be equivalent (probably a bit more actually) than play ing out extra time.

I don't think stopping the clock is a bad idea, but I think the halves would need to be shortened. I doubt either of those will ever happen.

No, I don't mean stopping it for every break in play. I mean stopping it for injuries, goal celebrations and substitutions.

 

[bkwitche2]

Well that is entirely reasonable then.

 

[Karl Hungus]

The franchise model of American sports is my biggest bugbear with it, it's a ridiculous model which fixes in the status quo, never allowing smaller clubs to work there way up. Ironically is completely contradicts the justice that bullshit article was spouting.

"Those who are honest, hard-working, and persevere get what they deserve. They get success. Upward mobility is justice."

You'll have to define smaller clubs. Remember in American sports there really are no lower level professional levels. For example there is the NFL which has 32 teams, and that's it, there is no 2nd division with teams from smaller cities. Every team in the NFL has a chance every year, if you have the worst record in the league, you get the first pick of all the players coming out of college, which theoretically should improve the team.

Baseball and Basketball do have lower divisions, but the teams in those division are owned by franchises from the upper divisions. For example in baseball there is the MLB, and then the minor leagues. The Yankees have minor league teams in other cities, and the players playing for those teams are not yet good enough to play at the highest level yet, same with basketball. So these are the equivalent of the youth team/reserves, but they play in completely different cities and what not.

The only sport here that could incorporate promotion is football, there is the MLS and lower leagues, currently the teams in the lower leagues are stuck there. MLS won't do promotion/relegation because of some type of contract with the owners or some such nonsense.

But all the other leagues are built around parity, if you have a team in hat league they have every chance of making it, assuming the owners and management don't fuck it up, which is usually the case.

 

[Whirly]

Yeah, I'd say futbol is the sport in its current incarnation best designed to keep the biggest clubs in power. A smaller club might be able to get promoted, but that's the extent of it. The biggest spending power is still far and away still with the top few clubs in each league.

At least in american sports, drafts and salary caps tend to create more parity. Most of the time, it's an issue with the front office that holds an organization back from being a competitor, not the system.

 

[Mystic]

You'll have to define smaller clubs. Remember in American sports there really are no lower level professional levels. For example there is the NFL which has 32 teams, and that's it, there is no 2nd division with teams from smaller cities. Every team in the NFL has a chance every year, if you have the first record in the league, you get the first pick of all the players coming out of college, which theoretically should improve the team.

Baseball and Basketball do have lower divisions, but the teams in those division are owned by franchises from the upper divisions. For example in baseball there is the MLB, and then the minor leagues. The Yankees have minor league teams in other cities, and the players playing for those teams are not yet good enough to play at the highest level yet, same with basketball. So these are the equivalent of the youth team/reserves, but they play in completely different cities and what not.

The only sport here that could incorporate promotion is football, there is the MLS and lower leagues, currently the teams in the lower leagues are stuck there. MLS won't do promotion/relegation because of some type of contract with the owners or some such nonsense.

But all the other leagues are built around parity, if you have a team in hat league they have every chance of making it, assuming the owners and management don't fuck it up, which is usually the case.

Yes, but a story like AFC Wimbledon could never happen in America, I hate the fact that you have to "buy in" to a franchise to get to the top, I like the fact that in football leagues you could set up a local team, and if you played good enough for long enough, you reach the top.

 

[Mystic]

Yeah, I'd say futbol is the sport in its current incarnation best designed to keep the biggest clubs in power. A smaller club might be able to get promoted, but that's the extent of it. The biggest spending power is still far and away still with the top few clubs in each league.

In American sports its always the same top 20 odd teams by contract. The football system is much much better.

 

[Karl Hungus]

Yes, but a story like AFC Wimbledon could never happen in America, I hate the fact that you have to "buy in" to a franchise to get to the top, I like the fact that in football leagues you could set up a local team, and if you played good enough for long enough, you reach the top.

There is a romantic quality about the whole thing and I see your point. But its 6 of one and a half dozen of the other isn't it? I mean in America you have to buy in, leaving out the little guy, in England the little guy can set up shop and try and do things the right way, but the system is set up against him already, so in essence same thing.

I understand everybody has a chance, but how often does that happen, especially in this money driven day and age.

 

[MaBigTip]

I disagree with a lot of what he has to say. However, I'm surprised by the derision it got. As a lot of people are on here can be found suggesting new rule changes and claiming how much they have fell out of love with football.

peterhague has championed the take one player off each OT until the game is decided.
Many were clamoring about the time wasting of Chelsea in our season decider this year.
And every sport needs to fix some of its rules. Its just hard to get traction.
I like the play through injury, advantage until loss of possession and the if you are stretchered off you are done rule suggestions.

 

[Dirty Sanchez]

I think that the whole thing about Americans not loving soccer because of the "injustice" of it is complete baloney for all the reasons cited above.
But the ability to have limited challenges of the adjudication of fouls committed in the penalty box - by video review would be huge. There is so much at stake, and games are decided by the finest of margins that mistakes made one way or the other can define seasons for teams. That's just not a good status quo for a game where a large amount of money hangs in the balance for each of the teams. It would also make corrupting the match officials much more difficult.
The stopping of the clock for injuries and substitutions would also make sense to me rather than an arbitrary time allowance. Because it would eradicate time-wasting activities. (Taking time with throw-ins or goal kicks generally doesn't cause too much disruption for it to be relevant.)

We could go on about how boring baseball is, or how American football has too little real action, too many stoppages and too many commericals - but that's a defensive reaction to the issue at hand. Those are separate discussions. Football can and should benefit from changes that seem "justified" to most rational people.

 

[ctlovesred]

A co worker suggested that he would start watching soccer when it instituted a shot clock like basketball. Like having to advance the ball over midfield in so many seconds after gaining possession, then the ball must enter the 18 yard box within so many seconds, etc.

Can't say it wouldn't make things more interesting, more mistakes more attacking more goals. Probably need to allow more subs too.

 

[Mystic]

There is a romantic quality about the whole thing and I see your point. But its 6 of one and a half dozen of the other isn't it? I mean in America you have to buy in, leaving out the little guy, in England the little guy can set up shop and try and do things the right way, but the system is set up against him already, so in essence same thing.

I understand everybody has a chance, but how often does that happen, especially in this money driven day and age.

It's a struggle sure, but it does happen, and it's much better than the franchise system where the owners have complete control over everything. If there is something they don't like, like a "franchise" trying to join the league, they can deny it purely for business reasons, on the flip side, the teams in the league never have to worry about losing out, as they have each other arses covered, which detracts from the competitive nature of the sport. In football if a team works hard enough and is good enough, they'll get to the top, if they aren't they'll go down, the league can't stop that. Sure the big teams have a lot of power, a huge amount of power, but they aren't in complete control, and they can't afford not to be competitive for a season, just look at Leeds, Newcastle, Nottingham Forest, Wigan, Southampton, Wimbledon/MK Dons, AFC Wimbledon, Manchester City, for examples each way. This kind of movement can never happen in the franchise model, and in my opinion this creates a closer bond to the lower league teams, because you know you can get somewhere, you aren't just puppets to the elites. The American system always seems like a super exclusive party that you're only allowed to watch and which everything is built around, and for me, that alienates me a lot more than Sheikh Mansour ever has.