Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Hannibal]

So, that's my own perspective. But like I said, by at least one objective measure, soccer is a superior product.

By that same objective measure, the Transformers movies are better than No Country for Old Men, Ke$ha is better than the Dave Brubeck Quartet, Farmville is a better video game than Half-Life, and there are a hundred reality TV shows that are better than Arrested Development. Yes, it is accessible. Big deal.

Only with soccer, there is an especially annoying dynamic at work. There is the lobby of pretentious douchebags who like to sniff their own farts and insist that they are somehow more intelligent or more sophisticated than the rest of us American bumpkins because they "understand" soccer and we don't. Apparently dumbass Americans like me have to stick with simple sports like football instead of intellectually challenging ourselves with the complex game of soccer (the sport of choice for countries where running water and literacy are luxuries).

When it comes to "understanding" the sports, I would argue that the opposite is true. Other countries haven't embraced American football because they don't understand that sport. It is incredibly complicated compared to other sports, if you stop and think about it. That means that there are large barriers to entry for somebody watching it for the first time. Without the huge cultural backing like what we have in America, it's virtually impossible for it to catch on. And, of course, there are economic barriers (but I would point out that those barriers haven't kept hockey from becoming popular in Eastern Europe). But the complexity is what keeps people addicted to it once it catches on. The constantly evolving nuances of the game keep it fresh and provide for hours of analysis and discussion.

Well, again, I don't think "soccer" -- as if it's an actual entity -- should bend to US whims.

Now this, I agree with. Don't pull a Dave Brandon and fuck something up that people love.

[hack]

Well hockey is popular there like soccer is here -- by that I mean people play it and are good at it, but really very few actually care.

[Hannibal]

Qatar might not be such a bad host for a huge event. Money is the key and they have shitloads of it.

[hack]

However, in the objective "marketplace of ideas" sense, soccer is superior. It has an appeal that people are drawn to in huge numbers.

Correlated to colonial legacies. It's not as if all those places independently evaluated the range of options and en masse decided they each as populations liked the sport that just happened to be popular in the country that colonized theirs. Note where cricket and rugby have significant popularity. Even in the U.S.'s one colony, the Philippines, where colonization was for a short time, basketball is pretty damn popular. I have the team shorts of the Ginebra Kings.

[hack]

Qatar might not be such a bad host for a huge event. Money is the key and they have shitloads of it.

Alcohol is key. They have none.

[Hannibal]

My guess is that somebody will find a way around that problem.

[Ghengis Jon]

Soccer must be an acquired taste. To me, it's sub-standard field hockey without sticks and has too many players. The incessant diving in an attempt to get a yellow/red card demonstrates this is a game for melodramatic pansies not athletes. Its a sad indictment that the women's teams show more grit and guts than the men's leagues.

[iam416]

Pretentious soccer fans are every bit as annoying as American (or any other nationality!) fans that seem to be personally aggrieved by the sport's very existence -- as if soccer killed their parents or something.

The colonial argument is silly. Most South American countries ceased being colonies long before, say, the Philippines or when soccer was even created. Further, the cricket and rugby examples are both from a colonial power that created soccer and in which soccer is the overwhelming choice of sports. That suggest that what's sauce for the motherland isn't necessarily sauce for the colonies. As would Canada.

In any event it certainly doesn't change the absolute fact that soccer dominates the world of sports in terms of popularity and that popularity continues to increase.

Now, contrary to the soccer snobs that so irk Hannibal, I'd argue that soccer's allure is actually it's simplicity (in addition to minimal costs). It's a remarkably easy game to understand (relatively speaking). There are moments that are spectacular, but they're easy to comprehend -- Cahill's goal for Australia against the Dutch was awesome. I thought Ghana's goal against the US was superb.

The closest thing the US has is basketball. Minimal costs to play. The rules are relatively straight-forward -- not as simple a soccer, but far easier to understand than a number of other sports. And it's easy to appreciate a slam dunk or a 25 footer. And basketball is the American sport with the most global appeal.

[hodgkal]

To me soccer is B O R I N G!

[hack]

The colonial argument is silly. Most South American countries ceased being colonies long before, say, the Philippines or when soccer was even created. Further, the cricket and rugby examples are both from a colonial power that created soccer and in which soccer is the overwhelming choice of sports. That suggest that what's sauce for the motherland isn't necessarily sauce for the colonies. As would Canada.

The colony may no longer be a formal entity but emulation of the colonizer remains a signifier of sophistication for many in those countries. But look at the correlation here, which is pretty damn tight:s Show me a country that wasn't part of the British empire on this table of cricket rankings: http://www.espncricinfo.com/rankings...ge/211271.html. 7 out of the top 10 for rugby: http://www.irb.com/rankings/sportid=1/index.html. So, former English colonies had a choice. That's all that tells you. Those colonized by France or Spain weren't so lucky as to have a choice.

At this point in comes Hannibal's point about income, intentionally or otherwise. The English colonies that came up with their own sports (US, Canada, Australia) are also the ones that became wealthy and industrialized.

[iam416]

Most cricket-playing countries were still colonies into the 20th-C such that the Brits could actually introduce the sport to the folks. That's certainly not the case with countries like Argentina and Brazil (interestingly enough, the Brits introduced soccer to Argentina, not the Spanish). Nor is it the case for the whole of Europe -- all 500M of them. Nor is it the case for China where soccer is the most popular spectator sport.

There are plenty of reasons that explain soccer's dominance (a few I outlined), but sharing a language/colonial history doesn't strike me as one of them.

Regardless, people can try to explain away soccer's popularity anyway they want. That doesn't much change that fact. Based on at least one objective measure, soccer is, in fact, superior. And it is certainly the most successful sport.

[iam416]

Hey, wikipedia tells me that Brits/Scots introduced soccer in Brazil, too. And it spread like wildfire. Obviously emulating their former Portuguese masters.

[hack]

I don't think any of them have an exclusive claim to being the catalyst, and, yes, it's a good sport and it's cheap to play, and the strategies and tactics are simple. That said, the ties are there and clear. Played a role.

[hack]

So you're saying that Latin Americans, en masse, considered the options including cricket and others, and collectively decided football was gonna be its game?

[iam416]

The colony may no longer be a formal entity but emulation of the colonizer remains a signifier of sophistication for many in those countries.

Well, since the Brits introduced soccer in, inter alia, Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay long after each declared its independence, I think we officially declare the above statement as hokum vis-a-vis soccer.

So you're saying that Latin Americans, en masse, considered the options including cricket and others, and collectively decided football was gonna be its game?

I don't know what options and choices they were presented with. What seems relatively clear is that (a) the Spanish/Portuguese had nothing to do with presenting soccer as a choice; (b) each respective country certainly had the option of liking or disliking the crazy British game; and (c) in some South American countries soccer has been a smash success.

The conclusion, (c), ought to be of little surprise since it's true in a host of other different countries around the world suggesting an occam's razor conclusion that soccer has a global appeal unlike any other sport.

I'll let you and others come up with the less obvious conclusions that diminish soccer's popularity. But given the massive demographic soccer appeals to, it seems unlikely that you can marshall a theory that explains away even a significant plurality of soccer's support.