On the heels of the United States national soccer team's encouraging, frustrating, exhilarating, heartbreaking performance in the FIFA Confederations Cup, I thought we could revisit one of our better debatables from years past. Specifically, here's the question:
Did the national team's performance, or the extensive coverage it received, change your mind about the upper limits of the popularity and respectability that soccer may one day receive in the United States?
Monday, June 29, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
No.
I'm going to go ahead and say no. It got extensive coverage (ESPN is more than hockey gets these days), and it was a thriller (if by thriller you mean that the US had an awesome first half before Brazil remembered that they are Brazil).
If this game happened two weeks ago, then yea, maybe it gets people excited and grabs the mainstream news cycle and otherwise uninterested people a bit more. The problem is that the media is so fixated on all the crazy shit that has been going on (Michael Jackson, Billy Mays, Mark Sanford) that it probably isn't grabbing the attention it should.
That's not to say it didnt get attention--for instance I watched the game, but I all ready have moderate interest in soccer/seeing previews of the world cup. But it probably just didn't grab people that otherwise wouldnt have been interested or paid attention. If the US won it could have been a totally different story.
I'm going to disagree with the premise that it got "extensive coverage." Yes, it was covered in the sports section and on TV, but the coverage was at a low enough level that I was able to completely ignore it and continue not caring a whit about this sport. For this game to increase soccer's visibility in the U.S., the coverage would have to be at a level to break through the general soccer apathy of the average sports fan.
I'll leave it to the soccer mavens to document the multiple "turning points" this sport has experienced in America over that last few decades.
I do think that U.S. World Cup games have already broken through to become minor American sporting events. You know, something along the lines of an NFL Monday Night game involving the Arizona Cardinals or Jacksonville Jaguars, say. That may sound like faint praise, but it raises U.S. World Cup soccer to the level of a sporting event that I would make a concerted effort not to miss. That's saying a lot for someone who practices an aggressive form of "general soccer apathy."
Alexi Lalas was on Colbert tonight. They're certainly seizing on the opportunity.
Colbert:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/232488/june-30-2009/is-it-time-to-care-about-soccer-
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/232489/june-30-2009/is-it-time-to-care-about-soccer----alexi-lalas
First off, I should say that by "extensive coverage," I was mostly referring to what was happening on ESPN. I have no idea how much U.S. Soccer's run was covered by non-sports outlets (and according to Dr. Marls, the answer is "not much"). But the Colbert Report coverage counts as mainstream, I think.
That being said, I was shocked (shocked!) at how much play the Confederations Cup got on SportsCenter, PTI, First Take, and other similar ESPN shows. There is clearly some desire among the American sports fan to have U.S. Soccer succeed against international competition. In fact, a Sports Nation poll on ESPN.com (which is probably pretty representative of the young male sports fan) indicated that about 50% of respondents had a more positive view of the U.S. soccer team following their Confederations Cup performance. It's also nice to see that some of the younger SportsCenter anchors have some knowledge and appreciation of the "beautiful game." Soccer regularly appears on SportsCenter's Top Ten plays of the day, week, and month. Both of these phenomena were nearly nonexistent on ESPN just ten years ago.
I'm not going to argue that the Confederation's Cup performance was another in a long line of ballyhooed "turning points" for soccer in the U.S., but most of the signs are positive. I think the average American sports fan is interested in what all the fuss is about all over the world when it comes to soccer and wants something to draw them in. Coverage of the Euro Cup received excellent ratings on ESPN last summer, prompting them to sign big money deals with La Liga (Spain) and the English Premier League to cover games in the U.S. MLS continues to expand successfully and should continue its strategy of being a developmental home for young American players and a final stop for aging domestic and foreign stars (David Beckham not included). There are kids in high school and even college now who take for granted Major League Soccer being at least a small part of the American sports landscape, which can only be good for the sport.
Dan, I can buy your argument that there is "some desire among the American sports fan to have U.S. Soccer succeed against international competition." However, I don't think this results from any increased love of soccer. Rather, I think it's an atavistic, mouth-breathing "USA! USA! USA!" reaction that is not really related to soccer itself. It's the same way that people who don't care about tennis (which is most people) care at least a little more when Andy Roddick is in contention to beat some Frenchy to win the Australian Open.
I completely agree. Landon Donovan stirred my inner Toby Keith when he recently ripped David Beckham a new asshole. Is there any chance they'll play against each other in the World Cup? Donovan may look like a jerk-off lawyer, but he's our jerk-off lawyer. I'd happily watch him prance around the pitch for nine innings if there was even a slight chance that Beckham got kicked in the head. That precious pip. USA! USA! USA!
Yes, there is some jingoism associated with the reaction to the way U.S. Soccer stacks up against the rest of the world. But the fact that ESPN has in the past and plans in the future to make money off of coverage of international club soccer indicates that this isn't the whole story. Rabid American sports fans are starting to realize that there is an entire undiscovered world of soccer out there that can help satiate their sports thirst when the NFL, NBA, or MLB are on hiatus.
But I agree with Pooch in that they need to WIN. Face it, the U.S. backed into that game against Spain due to an inexplicable tiebreaker system in which goal differential trumps head-to-head. Granted, they played great against Spain and that was huge in terms of national visibility. However, they choked badly in that second half against Brazil. Spin it positively if you want, but a "strong second" is not going inspire American sports fans.
I would just like to clear up one misconception about the tiebreaker that allowed the U.S. to advance to the semifinals. In the round-robin, Italy beat the U.S., Egypt beat Italy, and the U.S. beat Egypt. All three teams finished 1-2, so it was impossible to break the tie using head-to-head results. Goal differential is the logical next tiebreaker. That being said, anytime you start a tournament getting outscored 6-1 on your way to an 0-2 record, you should probably not expect to advance to the next round.
By the way Chad, I've decided that the first tiebreaker for BSFA playoff seeding will be points scored by third wide receivers in Monday night games. How do you like them apples?
Okay, that makes much more sense. Look how quickly I've become comfortable commenting upon a sport about which I know so little. So let me continue. Ranking goal differential above head-to-head as a tiebreaker is still idiotic. I'm persuaded that the system worked correctly in the U.S. case, but as a rule head-to-head should take priority. Aside from the obvious (we have the same record, but we beat you, nyaa, nyaa), such a system gives good teams an incentive to run up the score on poor teams in group play. Wait a second. Can you run up the score in soccer? And, if you did, would anyone be able to tell the difference?
P.S. How in the hell did I have the requisite soccer knowledge to to refer (correctly, I think) to "group play"? Jesus, am I getting brainwashed?
P.P.S. Hawkinstone, if you instate that tiebreaker rule you're going to have to fight me for James Jones in the draft.
1. I agree that head-to-head should be the first tiebreaker when possible. Then maybe goal differential in common games (taking the Brazil games out of the equation in this case)?
2. No, you're not getting brainwashed. Not at all. Don't question it. Stop thinking. Just go with the flow. And welcome to the dark side.
3. James Jones is a nice player, although he should probably be listed as fourth-string right now (behind Jennings, Driver, and Nelson). The smart move is to draft Greg Camarillo of the Dolphins, who has a MNF game in Weeks 2 and 5, then trade him for Devery Henderson, whose Saints have Monday night games in Weeks 8 and 12. I understand if you haven't reached that point in your scouting yet -- it's only early July.
Last night, a US men's soccer b-team (with a few familiar faces), trounced Grenada 4-0, an island nation of 110,000 people, in their first match of GROUP PLAY in the CONCACAF Gold Cup. Now watch the American fans start coming in droves!
Wow, we smacked them down like it was 1983.
Too soon?
Nope. Touche.
The article on Jay DeMerit mentioned earlier:
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090712/GPG0211/907120626/1225/GPG02
Looks like the editors messed with the tense of the first few paragraphs (for whatever reason), but otherwise, it remains mostly as I wrote it.
US victory over Spain won the ESPY for best upset:
http://www.soccerbyives.net/soccer_by_ives/2009/07/usa-victory-vs-spain-wins-espy-for-best-upset.html
Maybe more people are paying attention than we think.
From Bill Simmons's Friday column on ESPN.com:
Q: I am a die-hard soccer fan living abroad and agree with your theory that international soccer could take off in the States. But not everyone listens to your podcasts, so could you please make the same case in one of your columns so everyone can see it? I think it's important. Thanks and cheers from the UK!
-- T.J., Leeds, England
SG: Sure. I'll do it in five short paragraphs and 500 words total. The theory goes like this …
1. Americans enjoy watching the best (fill in any sport). We are elitists. That's why we like the Olympics, that's why we enjoy any finals, that's why we watch Wimbledon and the Masters, that's why we don't care about sports like the WNBA, MLS or arena football as anything other than a niche sport. International soccer plays into this. It's the best of the best. Hell, we even liked "The Best of the Best" even though Eric Roberts was the biggest star in it.
2. The games zoom along: no commercials, no sideline reporters, no corporate tie-ins, no four-hour games like in baseball, no "takes 20 minutes to play the last two" like in the NBA. You can sit down for a soccer game and say, "I'm going to spend the next two hours watching this and then I'm going to do something else." Like watch more TV.
3. Give credit to ESPN for committing air time in non-Cup years to elite international soccer tournaments like the UEFA Cup. I know that's how I started paying more attention. If you like sports, you cannot NOT get caught up in the level of play, the maniacal crowds, the intensity and tension and everything else. It's impossible.
4. Widescreen TVs make it easier to see the field; HD makes it easier to see faces and numbers (and the grass looks green and vibrant); and better camerawork (and also more cameras) make the games more intimate. Now you feel like the players are flopping right onto your living room rug! Just kidding, soccer fans. Seriously, settle down. Jokes.
5. International soccer never took off here for the simple reason that American sports fans had trouble following anything they couldn't attend in person and/or watch on television at their leisure. Now? We're turning into a sofa culture; since it's more expensive to go to games, many of us find it just as rewarding to stay home, save money and watch games on a nice TV. Throw in the Internet, DirecTV, fan blogs and everything else and you really can follow soccer from across the Atlantic.
That's why, over the next decade -- starting with the World Cup in 2010 -- I predict international soccer takes off to a modest degree in America during the '10s. Not to compare everything to "The Godfather," but for America, the NASL was Sonny (exciting, impetuous and ultimately self-destructive), the MLS is Fredo (weak) and international soccer is Michael (the heavy hitter who was lurking all along). That's how this plays out I think.
I feel like Donovan's smackdown of Beckham and the fallout has done more to raise the visibility of US Soccer than the loss to Brazil. I dont remember the last time soccer made such a splash in the headlines.
Everybody likes to see an American smack around an Englishman from time to time. Just think about how cool the scene in Unforgiven is when Little Bill beats down English Bob.
Post a Comment