Soccer?

Now i realise the USA isn't an anglo country in it's demographic makeup, but you know what i mean:p

If Fifa intends to ever compete at a top level in the US/Australia against Rugby/AFL and NFL, they will need to cut the 3rd world style money wins method of choosing World Cup hosts...

That the USA didn't win hosting for 2022 baffles me. Whilst i appreciate the reason we (australia) didn't win. I cannot fathom how the US did not win. What worries me even more is it looks like England was punished for having a free press that takes actions to embaress corrupt officials, not lauded for it! Though i believe Russie was the best choice for 2018 personally.

yeah, the WHO stated that it's bad for people in developed countries to bang their heads up against soccer balls.

total bummer eh?

let's ram ourselves full blooded into each other repeatedly for 60-80 mins instead eh.

i'd rather just shoot you for sport.

I'm not hating on soccer, I played it up untill my sports ending injury at 17, even had a scolarship to play at the collegic level

but as a spectator sport, it's not all that entertaining. I recently went to a exposition game a few months back, before the world cup, ans watched 90 min of soccer only to see it end in a 0-0 tie (apparently no extra time or shootouts in exposition)

paid good money to see fluff.

what do you mean by anglo countries?
racist.

but not only that, ford, it was previously tied 1-1 through aggregate, so you watched even *more* of a tie.
fun!
(and not racist)

culture you n00b:p

what is an exposition game?

like an exhibition game?

fluff you and your word voodoo

ford is also a racist, most voodoo i know of is black creole. quit hating on the non whites you guys.

is all creole black? :P

Mentioning races doesn't make you racist... and mentioning cultures certainly doesn't.

As for soccer... I don't think corruption has much to do with the lack of popularity in the US. Boxing is the poster-boy for corrupt sports... but its popularity in the US seems unrelated to that, and it's not as if other sports have completely avoided corruption either.

Soccer isn't popular because it's difficult for television networks to make money off of. Professional football became as popular as it is because ABC took a chance and put a lot of resources into marketing "Monday Night Football". Its emergence as the pre-dominant sport in the US can be traced to the beginning of that program.

That kind of support can't happen in Soccer though. Football is a very "start-and-stop" kind of game, making it easy to put ads into it. The same cannot be said for soccer. There's rarely pauses for commercials in Soccer. Of course, you can still figure out ways to get ads in there and make money (they certainly do during the world cup) -- but no one is inclined to do the work of building the audience for a sport that doesn't already have a substantial following.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

We'll see what happens in the next decade or so. Football (the American kind) is the most popular fall youth sport in the US, but as more an more info piles on about the tramatic brain injuries that are effecting even youth players, unless the nature of the game is able undergo a radical change, it will go extinct. Soccer is the #2 youth fall sport, and would gain greatly. Add to that a massive influx of immigrants from countries where soccer is the primary sport, and I can see Soccer rising in the US.

really, i thought it glaringly obvious i was joking :(

To simplify what foog said - Soccer is just too slow for American tastes. Nobody wants to watch a 90 minute game end in a nil:nil tie, and not even get the joy of seeing someone carried off the field on a stretcher.

apparently those tastes will have less salt nowadays :(

Fooglmog is missing all the money that is made with real football in Europe.

Also, why would anyone care about Australia`s market, Dragonlance? :D

anyway, sure, any type of corruption should go down. Even more if it ends up with a new person managing the brazilian football association...

PS: the USA didn`t win because it is not the time for the world cup to rotate back to the America`s continent, you fluffheads. It will be interesting to see how the rotation politics plays now with World Cups in Asia and Africa, though.

I don't think the money made in Europe on football is of much consequence....given that the US has already proven the same market doesn't really exist here, and likely never will.

Same reason the NFL is only trying in vain to get a foothold in Europe with the UK games - wrong market.

I don`t disagree there. But the problem is with the specific market, not the sport itself.

It is amazing how some people still argue that the most successful and popular sport in the World is not good business.

It's good business...in the right places. Kinda like NASCAR trying to gain a foothold in Europe - they'd just get laughed off the track.

Personally, I love watching (for lack of confusion in terms) soccer. But that's probably only as a result of the 6 yrs I spent living in a soccer crazed nation that got me addicted to it.

ALL SUBMIT TO HOCKEY LAR!

Worst. Sport. Ever.

Shoulda just named it Soccer with Sticks or Boxing on Ice - at least then maybe they coulda gotten some converts from the aging Mickey Mouse Club crowd or the Euro trash wannabes. :-P

go borrow more money from china you broke ass, culturally lost.. i love america

(nascar is great)

I prefer to think of the US as culturally retarded, not culturally lost.

If we were lost, we'd be leading a fluff ton of others down the same path...if we're retarded, the rest of the world is just the nice popular kids that like to hang out with the retarded kid and play his games to make him feel better about being retarded. ;-)

i was starting with culturally impotent, decided that had poor imagery, started with defunct, and settled on lost.

as for the retarded.. is it i, or is it everybody else, that has lost their mind?

(i like to paraphrase)

no-one does eric.

But we are a good timezone to stream live into China/Asia!!:p

true enough :D

emopod sighting!

*fluffes martian*

I didn't miss it at all, it's simply unimportant. If you read what I wrote carefully, you'll realize that I already alluded to the reasons why.

Football's popularity in Europe pre-dates television. It was part of the cultural identity of many nations long before the difficulties in making money from broadcasting it mattered.

As a result, the large public broadcasting networks in Europe (something the US doesn't have) were willing to pick it up for cultural reasons, regardless of the difficulties in sustaining revenue streams.

Because it was being broadcast, its popularity passed a threshold where it was possible to make money despite the inherent format problems. Thus, private networks picked it up as well.

In the US, this popularity does not exist. In the US, you do not have public networks willing to lose money to make it more popular. In the US, the only time it's popular enough to pass the threshold into real profitability is during the World Cup.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Europe isn`t a country and there isn`t an European public broadcast channel. Some countries have them, others don`t, and only God knows if they actually show/showed the respective premiere league of each country, nevermind the exceptional claim that they actually lose/lost money doing it.

If you want to go that way, you should at least put out the evidence for that.

Football as an organized big sport isn`t that old either. First World Cup was in the 1930s, then we had an interval due to WW II and after that it started to really matter. Few big clubs are older than 100 years.

Why do you make up fluff I never said, then correct it as if your assumptions some how create ignorance in me?

I never said (or implied) that Europe was a country. I'm certainly aware that there isn't an overarching public broadcast channel (that's why I used the plural form in referring to "networks").

It's not like it takes a lot of research to demonstrate my point though, just read the fluffing wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/...sh_football_on_television

BBC (a public network) started broadcasting matches in 1937. As the popularity of television increased, and the technology to do it became more feasible -- they started broadcasting more matches. Everything there fits into my narrative pretty well.

I'm not going to go through every country in Europe for you, but the situation is even more pronounced in Italy. RAI has been the largest broadcaster there since the 1920s. It became an entirely public network in 1954. The same day that this happened, they also launched La Domenica Sportiva -- a football show.


Again, complete bullfluff.

My claim was that traditional money streams are problematic with football, but that such issues would be less important to a public broadcaster.

I never made any statements as to whether or not specific networks (or all networks at a specific time) lost money by broadcasting football.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

test

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiYeGTji1JU

dang, might be true that the Illuminati is out to get US.

vuvuzelas.