Soccer's Next Great Arrival is Predicted

Please, fellas, get a clue.

From Richard Sandomir in the New York Times, June 28, 2010

For the ESPN empire and Univision, any questions about the return on their investment in the World Cup are being answered by viewers. On Saturday, the United States’ loss to Ghana was seen by 14.9 million on ABC — an American record for the tournament — and an additional 4.5 million on Univision. That’s 19.4 million viewers for a Round of 16 game on a Saturday afternoon at 2:30 p.m. Eastern — the same number that Fox averaged over six prime-time games for last year’s World Series.

The final between Spain and Netherlands drew 21 million viewers.

This year's World Series? Averaged 14 mil. So your national pasttime is looking UP at soccer's main event.
Nowhere in the Times story that started this thread did anyone say soccer would one day supplant the major team sports here. Just that interest would continue to grow.
You're really threatened by all this, aren't you?
What are you afraid of?

 

I keep waiting for soccer to arrive and am always left at the station.

 

Hear, here.

Absolutely correct, YankeeFan. When MLS began, there were already plenty of smaller stadiums to play in, but they chose not to use them. And the teams that didn't already have a smaller stadium more suited to soccer, certainly had the money to build them. But they thought they could be like the NASL, which had NFL-sized crowds for every single game. Ah, those long-ago halcyon days.

It took those crazy MLS people a few years to realize that they weren't gonna fill NFL stadiums, so they finally, reluctantly, built their own. They could have done that at any time, but they were greedy and actually expected NFL crowds. The NERVE! What fools!

As far as the World Cup: yes, the goal was definitely to fill the stadiums. And they couldn't even achieve that. If it wasn't for soccer-playing children and "immigrants from soccer-mad nations," I'm not sure anyone would have gone to the World Cup in the USA. Some of those crowds would have been akin to those seen at minor-league baseball.

And yet, they foolishly started a so-called professional league here in the wake of that tournament. It's only a matter of time before its honchos realize that no one here cares about soccer, and fold up its tents.

 

When is the MLS final?

 

I think this is what is most often forgotten about during such a discussion. What people seem to forget is that MLS does not equal soccer. MLS is merely a soccer league in the United States. Just because it’s ratings aren’t that of NFL, NBA or MLB doesn’t mean that people aren’t watching soccer; it means people aren’t watching MLS.

At some point people should check the ratings of the MFL on Spanish channels or the ratings of Fox Soccer Channel. The fact that ESPN has continually picked up more and more soccer games to fill time slots over repeats of Cold Pizza should say something.

This conversation is always so full of noise…

 

Olympic figure skating gets higher ratings.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-15/vancouver-olympic-television-ratings-remain-above-turin-games.html

That folks will watch the very best compete for a World Championship every four years is not a real measure of the game's popularity or growth in this country.

 

Piotr, I understand that there were no 20,000 seat venues that would have been appropriate to begin play in.

But, it's revisionist history to say that the goal was not to fill the NFL/College stadiums. That's the point I was making.

If I'm wrong, then I'm sure you can point me to statements that MLS Offials/Owners made about how they were playing in NFL/College Stadiums only until they could build their own, smaller stadiums.

The Columbus Crew Stadium was a revelation. Its success changed the league.

I worked very closely with Jamey Rootes, who is now the President of the Houston Texans. He was previously the President & GM of the Crew when they built their stadium. I know a little bit about this.

But it wouldn't have taken 8 years (four more after the opening of the Crew's stadium) for a 2nd stadium to be built if that was the game plan all along.

 

These threads are always funny. I love baseball, but will criticize it from time to time. When I do, no one accuses me of hating baseball.

But point out some of the obvious facts about soccer -- and its place in the American sports landscape -- and you're deemed a hater.

I'm not sure why this is necessary, but I'll put my soccer bona fides up against anyone here:

-- Played Youth Soccer

-- Played High School Soccer

-- Played Club Soccer

-- Attended NASL Games in the late '70's

-- Owned a Franz Beckenbauer jersey (one of two jerseys I've ever owned)

-- Attended International Games at Giants Stadium in the '80's

-- Attended the '94 World Cup (Norway vs. Ireland) at Giants Stadium

-- Have watched the World Cup since '86 when it was only on Univision (and you had to dial it in on UHF)

Soccer has its place. It's growing.

But, the quadrennial predictions that its going to be the next big thing get old. They were predicting this back in the mid/late '70's when youth soccer exploded and they've been predicting it ever since.

If you're depending on the possible selection of the host of a tournament that's 12 years off to spur growth, you've got problems. It shouldn't be dependent on that.

The '80 Olympics gave a boost to hockey -- another sport I love -- but it didn't launch it into the stratosphere. Getting the '22 World Cup will contribute to Soccer's growth in the States, but the effects will be less than anticipated by the most rabid soccer enthusiasts.

 

This, we can all agree on.

But it's not the "rabid soccer enthusiasts" who are acting like getting 2022 woulds launch soccer into some kind of rarefied air stateside. It's media members who don't know what to write about, and it's U.S. Soccer officials who are answering those questions. Oh, and it's the Johnny-come-lately dunces who jumped on the bandwagon post-2002.

Soccer fans who know what they're talking about understand the game's place.

 

Right. And that's why making fun of another one of these article isn't the same as knocking soccer.

It's knocking the article and the premise of it.

1990 called and it wants its article back.

 

These threads are always the best.

 

I've been a soccer fan for about 15 years (since WC 1994) and have been an MLS season ticket holder for the past decade. I've been to qualifiers, World Cups and European Championships. I watch the USMNT religiously, the EPL fairly regularly and non-RBNY MLS games sporadically. I'd put soccer up there with the NFL (and just above the NBA) as my favorite sports to watch on TV.

I've never met or talked with an American fan who looks down on people who don't like soccer. People who profess a hate for soccer constantly talk about the fact that soccer fans and the media are trying to shove the sport down their throat, but I just don't see it. We're a couple of days away from the biggest sporting event in the world possibly being awarded to the US, and the premise of the NYT's article was that, if we are awarded the tourney, it could help grow the sport. Shocking.

I wish it was more popular, love it when it gets mainstream publicity and hate the Zag-like cliches. It's clear that at this point that MLS is a healthy niche league which doesn't get any TV ratings, that we're doing a better job developing players for Europe and that the WC can attract a very good TV following. The sport has grown incredibly since 1990 and there is no reason to think that that slow steady growth won't continue.

But I'm perfectly content if most people don't care. Just like I could care less about the NHL or NASCAR. I'm happy that I get to watch a ton of great games each week (but would be happier if FIOS got FSC in HD) and to pay $35 a game to sit in the first row of a great stadium like Red Bull Arena.