Soccer: fantastic or boring beyond belief?

[rainmaker]

Actually new rules say no more sack dancing or pretty much any celebration whatsoever. NFL is getting ridiculous but whatever. It's a fun sport to watch on Sundays. And it is perfect for quick time shifting. you can get a little behind and just skip to the next play without missing a beat.

My interest in the NFL has dropped considerably. Used to be far and away my second favorite sport. But this stupid blackout rule where I can't even watch all the Raiders home games and the ridiculous amounts of stops in play and 3 min commercial breaks has turned me off. I'm not wasting half a day on a freaking NFL game. It's more about the money for the NFL than the actual game. Add to that players are constantly moving from team to team and it's just frustrating.

For me now it's basketball followed by soccer, and there isn't a close third. And if you like soccer there's so much more of it than any other sport there's no reason to waste time on something else. Whether it's the EPL, Bund, Serie A, La Liga, MLS, Eredevise, Ligue 1, RPL, UEFA CL, there's always opportunities to get to know leagues and clubs a bit better.

One cool aspect is soccer is the fastest growing sport popularity wise in the 18-34 age bracket in this country and MLS average attendance has surpassed the NBA. Hell, Dempsey's home debut already has 66K tickets sold and will break Century Links all time attendance record, including the Seahawks. Times are changing. We'll see more of that with the WC only about 10 months away.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

You think? I'm not sure I know anybody who does this.

I mean, sure, I compare and contrast the styles of the different sports while engaged in a message board discussion of the subject, but I don't see a soccer game on the TV and decide to flip the channel because it doesn't follow the same flow as american football. Each sport (or competition) has its own flow with its own pros and cons.

Most people I know who follow sports (in the U.S.) have unique viewing styles and preferences. None of them seem to follow a certain "American" way. Maybe the general population has certain tendencies, and that could certainly explain american football's popularity and soccer's lack thereof, but I don't really buy that this happens because people want all sports to be the same as their favorite sport.

Okay, I'll bite: what is your theory?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

... One cool aspect is soccer is the fastest growing sport popularity wise in the 18-34 age bracket in this country and MLS average attendance has surpassed the NBA...

This is a bit disingenuous without acknowledging that they don't play those sports in the same venues. Basketball is the only professional sport that can't really be played outdoors, outside of the odd exhibition game, so it's not as if the possibility for basketball to match other sports in raw attendance exists.

 

[rainmaker]

This is a bit disingenuous without acknowledging that they don't play those sports in the same venues. Basketball is the only professional sport that can't really be played outdoors, outside of the odd exhibition game, so it's not as if the possibility for basketball to match other sports in raw attendance exists.

Yes and no. While Sea and NE play in NFL stadiums, the majority of MLS stadiums have attendance capacities near NBA arenas. SJ actually has a capacity of 10,500. Even teams like SKC and Por where they pack the house and sell out regularly are capped below 20K. So while you're right soccer is an outdoor sport and potentially could be played in huge stadiums, making attendance comparisons to an indoor sport a poor comparison, MLS teams don't really do that and instead the large majority have stadiums in the 18-22K range, right in line with the NBA. But my main point regarding attendance is I've read around here people in this country simply don't like soccer and don't care. Average attendance refutes that point. I'm not factoring friendlies like Chelsea/Real Madrid which just drew about 80K in Miami. I'm only talking MLS. Not meant to imply soccer is catching the NBA in popularity which I don't see it doing in our lifetimes, if ever.

But the attendance and soccer being the fastest growing sport popularity wise among 18-34 yr olds are separate from one another.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Yes and no. While Sea and NE play in NFL stadiums, the majority of MLS stadiums have attendance capacities near NBA arenas. SJ actually has a capacity of 10,500. Even teams like SKC and Por where they pack the house and sell out regularly are capped below 20K. So while you're right soccer is an outdoor sport and potentially could be played in huge stadiums, making attendance comparisons to an indoor sport a poor comparison, MLS teams don't really do that and instead the large majority have stadiums in the 18-22K range, right in line with the NBA. But my main point regarding attendance is I've read around here people in this country simply don't like soccer and don't care. Average attendance refutes that point. I'm not factoring friendlies like Chelsea/Real Madrid which just drew about 80K in Miami. I'm only talking MLS. Not meant to imply soccer is catching the NBA in popularity which I don't see it doing in our lifetimes, if ever.

But the attendance and soccer being the fastest growing sport popularity wise among 18-34 yr olds are separate from one another.

I"m going to beg to differ with that; MLS may well be a sport, like hockey, which is best viewed in person. NHL arenas, TTBOMK, consistently get good attendance, but the ratings stay consistently low (lower even than women's basketball, in some markets), because the game viewing experience doesn't translate to the small screen.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Dempsey's debut is also against Portland, so it was already at 45k-50k + before the signing (if not more) it was also part of a 4 game super discounted ticket package against 2 rivals and 2 top teams (LA-VAN-POR-RSL). They sure know how to sell the game in Seattle, I will give them that. But the sport sells itself in Portland where our ladies team also does 14k regularly. Kansas City, second highest in the league and in first place with a 12 game win streak draws 1/3rd of that. Seattle's team with US Superstars Megan Rapinoe and Hope Solo draws about 2000.

 

[rainmaker]

I"m going to beg to differ with that; MLS may well be a sport, like hockey, which is best viewed in person. NHL arenas, TTBOMK, consistently get good attendance, but the ratings stay consistently low (lower even than women's basketball, in some markets), because the game viewing experience doesn't translate to the small screen.

The dynamic is different which makes it a little complicated compared to other US sports where they generally represent the far and away top league in the world. You're right on MLS tv ratings, they aren't budging. Attendance is definitely increasing but ratings remain stagnant. However, when I refer to the sport itself increasing in popularity, it goes beyond MLS.

EPL ratings are increasing. US National Team ratings are increasing and setting records for NT viewership. I expect the World Cup next summer to smash previous WC ratings. The new NBC EPL tv contract which kicks in next week when the season kicks off more than tripled in worth, going from 23M per year in 2012 with Fox to an 83M per year contract, 270M over the next three years. That NBC contract is based on EPL viewership and tv ratings increasing. America will now see the EPL on NBC, the main network, almost every weekend starting next week.

In my mind it's a bit of both. Popularity of the sport is increasing, arguably pretty quickly, but it's the demand for elite, high level soccer, our National Team and the top 4 leagues in Europe, especially the EPL. And in person MLS is seeing an increase in attendance but I don't think the tv ratings are moving that much for MLS because everyone who prefers the elite, high level soccer isn't that impressed with MLS when watching on tv and if they're watching on tv they'll just watch Euro soccer instead. But beyond MLS tv ratings for soccer are increasing and in looking at the statistics showing the age group and how much they tune in, NBC invested heavily(compared to before) and plans to catch that wave.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

MLS is still pretty much an afterthought for TV. Sure they will televise Portland vs. Seattle and make it into a spectacle and try to sell the live atmosphere but the quality of play has gone up leaps and bounds since Beckham came into the league and the DP rule was born.

I get why MLS manufactured rules and put Dempsey into Seattle but I really wish they'd bump the salary cap up and ditch the DP, allocation and discovery rules and allow teams to improve players 4-18 instead of just going nuts on 3 guys (if they even do that).

 

[rainmaker]

MLS is still pretty much an afterthought for TV. Sure they will televise Portland vs. Seattle and make it into a spectacle and try to sell the live atmosphere but the quality of play has gone up leaps and bounds since Beckham came into the league and the DP rule was born.

I get why MLS manufactured rules and put Dempsey into Seattle but I really wish they'd bump the salary cap up and ditch the DP, allocation and discovery rules and allow teams to improve players 4-18 instead of just going nuts on 3 guys (if they even do that).

Without a doubt I agree. MLS salary structure is far too top heavy. I thought you made a pretty good argument for exactly what you're saying here over on BS a little while back. I don't like the idea of no DP's and a higher cap as if the cap is say, 6M, then Sea can't pay a Dempsey and have any quality around him. Still need to be able to pay guys like Landon, Keane, Henry, Dempsey, etc and surround them with talent, so unless the cap goes up 4-5 times what it is, that won't be possible. Can't penalize a team for bringing in the stars MLS severely needs.

I'd prefer a tiered system. If a team doesn't want to pay a guy like Dempsey or Keane 4-6M per year, or can't attract players of that caliber, then let them bring in 5+ players between 500K-1M. It's ridiculous a team can offer Drogba 10M per, or Dempsey 6M per, or Keane/Donovan a combined 6-7M, but another team like Portland can't instead bring in 4-5 players at 500K each because of the DP rule. It's an asinine argument MLS can't afford 4-5 players on a team(or that option) at 500K-1M yet they can afford Dempsey's 9M transfer fee and 6M per year contract.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Portland, SLC and KC would be insane with deep rosters full of quality guys.

 

[rainmaker]

Yup. Some markets will get the big stars. Just like the NBA, small markets are at a disadvantage. But allow teams like Por, RSL and SKC as you mentioned to bring in 3-5 Morales, Ferraira, Montero level players and the difference in quality would be apparent.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Small markets may be partially at a disadvantage but there will always be a ton of South American talent looking to play ANYWHERE in the states.

 

[uolj]

Okay, I'll bite: what is your theory?

Sorry... I'm not sure what you mean. What is my theory of what?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Sorry... I'm not sure what you mean. What is my theory of what?

there aren't many sports fans who have the ability to compartmentalize their ability to consume sports. Most people seem to only want to watch all sports through the filter of how their favorite sport is played. At least, in this country, any way.

You think? I'm not sure I know anybody who does this.

I mean, sure, I compare and contrast the styles of the different sports while engaged in a message board discussion of the subject, but I don't see a soccer game on the TV and decide to flip the channel because it doesn't follow the same flow as american football. Each sport (or competition) has its own flow with its own pros and cons.

Most people I know who follow sports (in the U.S.) have unique viewing styles and preferences. None of them seem to follow a certain "American" way. Maybe the general population has certain tendencies, and that could certainly explain american football's popularity and soccer's lack thereof, but I don't really buy that this happens because people want all sports to be the same as their favorite sport.

^^^^ Your theory on that.

To put it bluntly, I don't believe that the "average" American sports fan is, in any kind of way, nearly as heterogeneous as you think it is. If we were, then "American rules" football wouldn't be the most popular sport by as overwhelming a margin as it is.

 

[uolj]

^^^^ Your theory on that.

To put it bluntly, I don't believe that the "average" American sports fan is, in any kind of way, nearly as heterogeneous as you think it is. If we were, then "American rules" football wouldn't be the most popular sport by as overwhelming a margin as it is.

There were a couple thoughts in my last paragraph kinda jumbled together. One is that we should be careful about applying generalizations to individuals. I think this came from your statement about pdx being the exception and that most Americans only watch other sports through the filter of their favorite sport. I don't think that's true of most Americans at all. I think most sports fans do a pretty good job of applying a different approaches to different sports.

You say that american football wouldn't be so overwhelmingly popular if viewers weren't so homogeneous. But how many american football fans are also fans of other sports? Which other sports are they also fans of? Isn't it possible that american football appeals to multiple types of fans, and therefore gets people from different groups who watch sports very differently? To me that's a more logical explanation than the idea that all american football fans like it for the same reasons.

So you've got some american football/nascar fans, some fans of the big 3 or big 4 american sports leagues, some people who like the higher stakes of fewer games, some people who like action, etc. Lots of different preferences that all happen to be fulfilled more by american football than other sports. Maybe they like them for different reasons?

Now, are some preferences more common in the U.S. than other areas of the world, which help explain why american football is so much more popular here? Sure. But that's just a part of the entire equation.

And back to your earlier point, that americans watch other sports through the filter of their favorite. I don't see how that follows. Again, how does that explain so many fans of both basketball and football, which are very different in terms of styles? Same with football and baseball? To me, these are three of the most different sports in terms of game style, flow and scoring. And yet, they're the big 3 here because a ton of people like two or three of the three.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

There were a couple thoughts in my last paragraph kinda jumbled together. One is that we should be careful about applying generalizations to individuals. I think this came from your statement about pdx being the exception and that most Americans only watch other sports through the filter of their favorite sport. I don't think that's true of most Americans at all. I think most sports fans do a pretty good job of applying a different approaches to different sports.

I actually don't feel like I have to be careful about making generalizations. Stereotypes exist for a reason. The term "Ugly Americans" didn't manifest from whole cloth, or just because of one or two guys. Neither did the term "Soccer Hooligans." And it works in reverse: stereotypes aren't necessarily invalid just because they don't apply to anyone you know personally. It may be a ****ty way of addressing individuals but, 1) I wasn't addressing individuals, and 2) sometimes, the shoe fits.

You say that american football wouldn't be so overwhelmingly popular if viewers weren't so homogeneous. But how many american football fans are also fans of other sports? Which other sports are they also fans of? Isn't it possible that american football appeals to multiple types of fans, and therefore gets people from different groups who watch sports very differently? To me that's a more logical explanation than the idea that all american football fans like it for the same reasons.

The question wasn't whether fans of American football are fans of other sports, just like the question wasn't whether fans of footy are fans of other sports. The question was how much more popular American football is in the US, relative to other sports in the US. The average sports fan in the US would describe his favorite sport as "pro football," and his second-favorite sport as "college football," although that's probably reversed in places like the Panhandle and the Deep South. Basketball/baseball/NASCAR/whatever might be a distant third.

The proof is in the coverage: there's no other sport that has hours of daily coverage devoted to it, even during the sport's off-season, on non-niche channels. No other sport has hours of daily time devoted to its coverage on nationally-syndicated radio programs. The Commissioner of the NFL announced that he was going to move the NFL Draft to go head-to-head with the middle of the NBA Playoffs, and no one said it was a bad idea, or even a, "Hey Rog, that's not cool, man." That's not the hallmark of a heterogeneous fanbase; that's the hallmark of a fanbase which, en masse, wants American football first, second and third, and everything else can get in where it fits in.

And back to your earlier point, that americans watch other sports through the filter of their favorite. I don't see how that follows. Again, how does that explain so many fans of both basketball and football, which are very different in terms of styles? Same with football and baseball? To me, these are three of the most different sports in terms of game style, flow and scoring. And yet, they're the big 3 here because a ton of people like two or three of the three.

I stand by it. And, in fact, you as much as made my point for me, back in post #21:

American football is perfectly geared towards the way I like to consume competition, so it's no surprise that it's easily my favorite sport to watch. Basketball and baseball also are a lot better at that than soccer and hockey.

Now, it may seem overly simplistic, based on that, to conclude that people in the US judge entertainment through the filter of their favorite form of entertainment, but that doesn't necessarily make it untrue. A lot of it has to do with confirmation bias. Why do so many Americans like NFL/NCAA football? They may, indeed, be not all watching for the exact same reasons (some may like the hitting, some may like the scoring, some just like that it's "dumbed down," to where they don't have to understand the "subtle complexities of the beautiful art" in order to appreciate it) but, ultimately, whatever it is they get out of American football, they're not getting that same thing out of footy, which is where the "filter" comes in. They know, be it in general or individually, what they like out of American football, and soccer doesn't provide that, therefore soccer = boring.

 

[uolj]

I actually don't feel like I have to be careful about making generalizations.

I didn't say be careful about making generalizations. I said be careful about applying generalizations to individuals. I'm fine with making the generalization, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.

The question wasn't whether fans of American football are fans of other sports, just like the question wasn't whether fans of footy are fans of other sports. The question was how much more popular American football is in the US, relative to other sports in the US.

Actually, the question was whether american football being so widely popular is evidence that people don't compartmentalize their ability to consume sports. I'm saying not, and using the logic that despite football's significant popularity, other sports are very popular as well, therefore fans of football are able to watch and enjoy other sports that don't have the same style as american football.

I stand by it. And, in fact, you as much as made my point for me, back in post #21:

American football is perfectly geared towards the way I like to consume competition, so it's no surprise that it's easily my favorite sport to watch. Basketball and baseball also are a lot better at that than soccer and hockey.

I believe you have the direction of causality wrong. I don't like basketball and baseball because they are closer to american football than hockey or soccer. It's just that I like basketball and baseball for many reasons and some of the reasons happen to match some of the reasons I like american football.

Ultimately, whatever it is they get out of American football, they're not getting that same thing out of footy, which is where the "filter" comes in. They know, be it in general or individually, what they like out of American football, and soccer doesn't provide that, therefore soccer = boring.

This is really where my original disagreement comes in. I don't disagree with what you say here, except where you take the step of thinking the opinion on the second sport derives from the opinion on the first. How do you know it's not the other way around? That individuals find soccer boring and then gravitate to american football because it provides some of the excitement they find lacking? (I don't think that's likely either, but it's just as likely as the other way around.)

I don't see any good evidence or reasoning that points to your contention, and my hunch is that people form there preferences based on a wide variety of factors. How one sport compares to a sport they already prefer is but one small factor, in my opinion. The preferences of their family members and peers is a little bit larger factor, as is their unfiltered perception of the sport itself (as it would have been if formed in a vacuum). There are other factors, too. I primarily see the "filter" you talk about being applied after the fact, when people use comparisons to explain the preferences they already have.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Actually, the question was whether american football being so widely popular is evidence that people don't compartmentalize their ability to consume sports. I'm saying not, and using the logic that despite football's significant popularity, other sports are very popular as well, therefore fans of football are able to watch and enjoy other sports that don't have the same style as american football.

I object to the use of the word "very." No sport in the United States is "very" popular, relative to American football. Basketball is, generally, considered to be the second-most popular sport in this country, and if CBS (or FOX, or whomever has the rights, I don't pay attention) decided to counter-program against the NBA Finals, and ran a re-run of the Superbowl against Game 7, the Finals would get killed, even if it were Miami versus L.A.

Basketball may not resemble American football, but it clearly contains enough elements that pass through the filter to hold the interests of the average American sports fan, where soccer does not.

This is really where my original disagreement comes in. I don't disagree with what you say here, except where you take the step of thinking the opinion on the second sport derives from the opinion on the first. How do you know it's not the other way around? That individuals find soccer boring and then gravitate to american football because it provides some of the excitement they find lacking? (I don't think that's likely either, but it's just as likely as the other way around.)

I'll consider this as plausible when you can show me more than the occasional anecdote of American kids being exposed to soccer before American football. I'll buy you lunch if you can find me three Texans who think soccer is boring, and didn't come by football first. Hell, I may buy you lunch if you can find me three Texans who came by soccer first.

I don't see any good evidence or reasoning that points to your contention, and my hunch is that people form there preferences based on a wide variety of factors. How one sport compares to a sport they already prefer is but one small factor, in my opinion. The preferences of their family members and peers is a little bit larger factor, as is their unfiltered perception of the sport itself (as it would have been if formed in a vacuum). There are other factors, too. I primarily see the "filter" you talk about being applied after the fact, when people use comparisons to explain the preferences they already have.

Which speaks to the aforementioned confirmation bias. They see what they were looking for. Or, in this case, they don't see what they were expecting to not be there in the first place.

There are, of course, multiple factors, but I never said that the filter was created by a singular factor. Just that it exists. That's why I called it a filter, and not a mirror. I don't know whether there is a generation gap at play between us, uolj, but no one in my age group grew up playing/watching soccer before American football; by the time they came by soccer, their minds about football were already made up. I've always preferred footy to American rules but, in my case, that's a little like saying that I prefer the Knicks to the lakers; it's the lesser of two evils. Boring/not boring doesn't even factor into it. I will say this, though: I've always found soccer to be fun to play, but insufferable to watch, whereas I find American football to be insufferable to play and watch.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Interesting read on lack of scoring in soccer. Probably applies to hockey as well though the hockey rule makers are much quicker to implement rule changes to increase scoring.
http://www.slate.com/articles/sport...core_fewer_goals_than_they_did_100_years.html

 

[uolj]

There are, of course, multiple factors, but I never said that the filter was created by a singular factor. Just that it exists. That's why I called it a filter, and not a mirror. I don't know whether there is a generation gap at play between us, uolj, but no one in my age group grew up playing/watching soccer before American football; by the time they came by soccer, their minds about football were already made up. I've always preferred footy to American rules but, in my case, that's a little like saying that I prefer the Knicks to the lakers; it's the lesser of two evils. Boring/not boring doesn't even factor into it. I will say this, though: I've always found soccer to be fun to play, but insufferable to watch, whereas I find American football to be insufferable to play and watch.

Got busy and haven't logged on in awhile. Don't want to drag this out too much, but I keep going back and forth on whether we are largely in agreement or largely not. Today I'm leaning towards being mostly in agreement and I'll avoid re-reading the conversation so I don't change my mind again. The culture where you grow up and what you're exposed to as a child absolutely have large effects on what you prefer. Not sure people actively judge new sports from the filter of the ones they know, but that's really a minor part of the overall path to how we form our preferences.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

... Not sure people actively judge new sports from the filter of the ones they know, but that's really a minor part of the overall path to how we form our preferences.

My own, admittedly anecdotal, experience says that it does, and I cite as examples my nephews and younger cousins, whom were exposed to the WNBA (via my dad) before the NBA, versus my older cousins and my step-nephew. The older ones consider the WNBA to be boring, and specifically make negative comparisons to the NBA, whereas the younger ones consider the WNBA to be entertaining on its own merits, and don't make any comparisons between it and anything else, even after later becoming NBA fans.

 

[uolj]

My own, admittedly anecdotal, experience says that it does, and I cite as examples my nephews and younger cousins, whom were exposed to the WNBA (via my dad) before the NBA, versus my older cousins and my step-nephew. The older ones consider the WNBA to be boring, and specifically make negative comparisons to the NBA, whereas the younger ones consider the WNBA to be entertaining on its own merits, and don't make any comparisons between it and anything else, even after later becoming NBA fans.

If your theory were true, then you'd expect the younger nephews and cousins to apply the filter of the WNBA to their watching of the NBA just as you claim the older ones do the opposite. Wouldn't you?

Regardless, remember that my disagreement isn't with the idea that what you're exposed to first affects what you prefer in the end. Just that a conscious decision not to like different sports because they differ significantly from one's favorite/first sport is at all common.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

If your theory were true, then you'd expect the younger nephews and cousins to apply the filter of the WNBA to their watching of the NBA just as you claim the older ones do the opposite. Wouldn't you?

I would, and it also doesn't disprove the theory on any level. My claim is that discovering the WNBA before the NBA influences whether or not you would consider the WNBA to be boring. I don't think that even the most biased WNBA fan could claim that the NBA is "boring" in comparison to the W, by any objective criteria, so someone who discovers the W first being entertained by both has no impact on the theory.

Regardless, remember that my disagreement isn't with the idea that what you're exposed to first affects what you prefer in the end. Just that a conscious decision not to like different sports because they differ significantly from one's favorite/first sport is at all common.

I don't know of anyone who's conducted an objective survey, so we're pretty much down to your anecdotes versus my anecdotes, as far as that goes. My experience says it is common.

 

[uolj]

I would, and it also doesn't disprove the theory on any level. My claim is that discovering the WNBA before the NBA influences whether or not you would consider the WNBA to be boring. I don't think that even the most biased WNBA fan could claim that the NBA is "boring" in comparison to the W, by any objective criteria, so someone who discovers the W first being entertained by both has no impact on the theory.

But then lets switch that statement back to american football and soccer:

My claim is that discovering soccer before american football influences whether or not you would consider soccer to be boring. I don't think that even the most biased soccer fan could claim that american football is "boring" in comparison to soccer, by any objective criteria, so someone who discovers soccer first being entertained by both has no impact on the theory.

Would you really say that nobody could claim that American Football is "boring" compared to soccer by any objective criteria?

It seems your thinking is based on a more popular sport (or league) that dominates a less popular one, rather than the generic idea that Americans filter their opinion of new sports through how they consume their first/favorite.

To me, it's not a filter thing, it's an attachment thing. People are more attached to the first sport they get into or the one that is most dominant in their lives at the time that they start being sports fans. People attached to less popular sports tend to remain fans even as they also become fans of more popular sports. It doesn't happen the other way as often because the less popular sports are just less popular and less likely to gain converts.

If you find people/Americans who liked American football first and later also liked soccer, that's not because they didn't view soccer through the filter of American football, it's because they happened to be one of the smaller population of people who would like soccer on its own merits and were exposed enough to it to have a chance at liking it.

 

[rainmaker]

Would you really say that nobody could claim that American Football is "boring" compared to soccer by any objective criteria?

I personally know a number of footy fans who consider American football to be boring due to the constant stoppage in plays and commercial breaks. 35 sec break between every play. As soon as 4 plays later another commercial break.

And most of these footy fans were raised on American football and enjoyed it very much at one time. I do think more Americans enjoy American football because of the hard hitting, violent aspect. They like seeing guys get the crap knocked out of them. I do as well at times. And as a country American football is in your face from the time you're a toddler, we have violent shows/movies all over tv and in general are a culture more accepting of violence on tv than many other countries. Sex on tv is bad, violence is fine. It's many times the other way around other parts of the world. How much does that influence the average American sports fan? Don't know, but it's a factor.

Soccer probably comes across as boring because there's not enough "action" compared to football. Yet that "action" clearly has the physical, hard hitting element Americans enjoy. Euro's and South American's in my experience enjoy more the skill and tactics on display in footy. A fluid, high tempo counter attack in footy is just as much action as American football, just a different type of action. The skill/technique is more subtle than the more in your face aspect of the NFL/NCAA football.

 

[KingsFanGER]

Not enough action in football (i refuse to call it scoccer sorry )? Football is a sport for TV? Sometimes you americans are a bit strange.
To me football is the most action-packed sports besides basketball. And i prefer basketball only because i played and coached it myself for a long time.
But there is no experience like watching a thrilling football match from the "Nordkurve" (northern terrace) in the arena of the HSV (Hamburger Sport Verein, one of the professional football club in Hamburg), while 25 000 people around you are singing, roaring and screaming the whole 90 minutes of the match.
I watched the game of the HSV versus Juventus Turin (italian football club) in the year 2000 live in our arena. The game ended 4:4 and i will never forget the atmossphere and the intensity.

For those, who are interested:
a brief summary of the legendary game on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyDWlNuPsDw
an example of the beautiful fan-choreos in Hamburg (organized by the fans not the club): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c19H7qlPIQ0
a few impressions of the atmospshere in the arena of my football-club: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAILXdvzYB4 , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxskEoU7iqs
the ritual before the kick-off: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX0gvbrnlpg

and those are only a few examples of the atmosphere during a football-match.
Besides the atmosphere football is a very tactical game and is slow paced compared to basketball, but the tension makes up for that.

 

[Warhawk]

Not enough action in football (i refuse to call it scoccer sorry )? Football is a sport for TV? Sometimes you americans are a bit strange.
To me football is the most action-packed sports besides basketball. And i prefer basketball only because i played and coached it myself for a long time.
But there is no experience like watching a thrilling football match from the "Nordkurve" (northern terrace) in the arena of the HSV (Hamburger Sport Verein, one of the professional football club in Hamburg), while 25 000 people around you are singing, roaring and screaming the whole 90 minutes of the match.
I watched the game of the HSV versus Juventus Turin (italian football club) in the year 2000 live in our arena. The game ended 4:4 and i will never forget the atmossphere and the intensity.

For those, who are interested:
a brief summary of the legendary game on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyDWlNuPsDw
an example of the beautiful fan-choreos in Hamburg (organized by the fans not the club): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c19H7qlPIQ0
a few impressions of the atmospshere in the arena of my football-club: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAILXdvzYB4 , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxskEoU7iqs
the ritual before the kick-off: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX0gvbrnlpg

and those are only a few examples of the atmosphere during a football-match.
Besides the atmosphere football is a very tactical game and is slow paced compared to basketball, but the tension makes up for that.

Well, which is it?

 

[rainmaker]

steve lepore:
Soccer is boring and Americans will never catch on, but a nil-nil Man U-Chelsea match outdrew a good chunk of NBCSN's regular season NHL.

Man U-Chelsea was the most-watched sporting event among Men 18-34. No. 2 was Reds-Cardinals on ESPN.

Manchester United-Chelsea was the second-most streamed event ever on NBC Sports Live Extra, behind Game 2 of the 2013 Stanley Cup Final.

NBCSN drew 536,000 viewers for Man U-Chelsea, the second-most watched midweek match ever in America. (540K for Man U-Spurs, 8/22/11, ESPN2)

That's just last week. A number of records were broken the week before. Popularity is definitely growing. And Seattle had 67K+ last weekend, breaking the Seahawks attendance record for Century Link. Just a matter of time until soccer catches baseball. Baseball viewership is plummeting while soccer is increasing(EPL) among the most sought after demographic for sports fans, the 18-34 age group due to the implied and sustained growth going forward. The World Cup next year will only help.

 

[Bricklayer]

To me football is the most action-packed sports besides basketball.

Besides the atmosphere football is a very tactical game and is slow paced compared to basketball, but the tension makes up for that.

Methinks your quote #1 and quote #2 do not quite mesh.

I know its hard in Europe, where you've only had the one major sport and so have had to try to see it in every possible light...but action packed = no.

I do agree about the atmosphere however. In fact I think that's half the mystique of the sport. Soccer crowds aren't being entertained by the game so much as they are the entertainment and keep themselves thoroughly entertained even during a half where the ball rarely moves much past the midfield line. In some ways I think that would actually be hard to duplicate in a faster paced sport. LOTS of time to spend singing and chanting between moments when you might get startled into a cheer in soccer.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Both quotes 1 and 2 mesh, and I'm surprised two of the more respected posters here don't get that. He clearly states that it is only slow in comparison to basketball but is faster than all the other major sports. Unfortunately I can't agree because I think hockey is arguably faster paced than both (yet the scoring is more on football/soccer level).

There was a study that showed American style football has exactly 11 minutes of action (actual play time) the entire match. A game that lasts 3+ hours - yesterday's seemed to go on forever as I went to a party in the 2nd quarter and came back and the 4th just started (I love American football, don't get me wrong). Few American sports fans complain the NFL is boring. Yet even if the game was run real time for 60 minutes, less than 1/4 of the game time would have the ball in play. One of the great things about soccer is that the ball is almost always in play which means you can be mere seconds from the play that changes the game forever.

I also think many people that complain about the pace of soccer are limited to watching international games such as the World Cup once every four years when the sport becomes unavoidable. The club level typically offers a bit more scoring and more attack oriented teams vs. teams that "park the bus" which is what happens anytime a minnow takes on a giant. And different leagues have styles that may appeal to people looking for a different balance of skill vs. power and parity between teams vs. super clubs.