Beckham debut gets terrible ratings [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Beckham debut gets terrible ratings

RickDaStick
07-25-2007, 11:41 PM
"about 1 percent of the homes with ESPN were tuned in to Beckham's first game."

Like i said before, No one in the US really gives a shit about Dave

El Legenda
07-26-2007, 12:03 AM
and? how many people watch ESPN for any other event 2 or 3 %, 1 % is still high :lol:

no one gives a shit? Beckham has the highest selling jersey of all sports in USA, 300,000 sold within 48hours :speakles:

RickDaStick
07-26-2007, 12:13 AM
Espn sunday night baseball has an average rating of 3.0 for a rather meaningless game every week and Beckhams hyped debut gets 1.0 so yes thats terrible

El Legenda
07-26-2007, 12:36 AM
Espn sunday night baseball has an average rating of 3.0 for a rather meaningless game every week and Beckhams hyped debut gets 1.0 so yes thats terrible

over 100million homes in US have ESPN, so over a million people watched, thats much higher than a normal game. :wavey:

RickDaStick
07-26-2007, 12:39 AM
over 100million homes in US have ESPN, so over a million people watched, thats much higher than a normal game. :wavey:


Yea its higher than a normal game but still pretty low for the hype it got. Also many people watched because it was the first game. If it was the 4th game i doubt many people would tune in.

Fee
07-26-2007, 12:46 AM
Are you two just repeating an argument you had last night at dinner?

jeahhh!
07-26-2007, 12:54 AM
Espn sunday night baseball has an average rating of 3.0 for a rather meaningless game every week and Beckhams hyped debut gets 1.0 so yes thats terrible

Well to be fair I think baseball is bigger than soccer in the U.S so I don't really think the two's ratings should be compared.:shrug:

Marek.
07-26-2007, 12:57 AM
I wasn't even aware that soccer was on tv this weekend.

tangerine_dream
07-26-2007, 01:48 AM
So after all that megahype and all that money poured into their PR both Skanky Spice and her husband whats-his-name bomb out bad in the USA, eh? :rolls: Don't say I didn't warn you that they'd fail miserably. :haha: :haha: :haha:

Scotso
07-26-2007, 04:02 AM
I really don't see the point in paying millions and millions to get ONE player from Europe. I don't see how that's going to improve US footie.

Fedex
07-26-2007, 04:34 AM
Well to be fair I think baseball is bigger than soccer in the U.S so I don't really think the two's ratings should be compared.:shrug:
Yeah, no shit.

Fedex
07-26-2007, 04:42 AM
Well seeing as he only played about 15 minutes, and this was known before the game, it is hardly surprising that the ratings weren't great.
I've heard that it was the highest rated soccer game ever on ESPN, so that's a start, I guess.

Jlee
07-26-2007, 04:43 AM
http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-beckhamdebutratings,0,1526003.story?coll=zap-news-headlines


David Beckham Makes Americans Watch Soccer
Posh's hubby helps ESPN set records
July 25, 2007


David Beckham's MLS debut may not have been impressive, but it did the job for ESPN.

Nursing an ankle injury, the English superstar and media sensation played only 16 minutes in the LA Galaxy's Saturday (July 21) match against Premiership side Chelsea FC.

Despite widespread reports that Beckham's appearance might be even more limited, the game averaged 1.468 million viewers, according to figures released by ESPN on Tuesday. Thus, in his first appearance on the pitch, Beckham helped deliver the most-watched MLS telecast in the history of ESPN or ESPN2.

A 1996 match between DC United and the San Jose Clash, the soccer league's first game ever, held the previous record with only 1.1 million viewers. Not only did Beckham's debut trump all previous MLS coverage on ESPN, it drew more viewers than any ESPN telecast of a Team USA soccer match outside of FIFA World Cup play.
The game was ad-supported cable's highest rated of the night among men 18-49 and 25-54.

ESPN will continue to bank on Beckham's ball-bending, Spice Girl-marrying star-power in the weeks to come, telecasting at least five upcoming Galaxy games on ESPN2.

1 percent doesn't sound great, but if it was the most watched MLS game in history, it's not all bad. ;)

MarieS
07-26-2007, 05:20 AM
expected result :). The problem w/MLS is that the quality of football sucks, Beckham isn't all of a sudden going to change that...

azza
07-26-2007, 05:56 AM
Cindy will you make me a cuppa?

Burrow
07-26-2007, 02:36 PM
Cindy will you make me a cuppa?

:cuckoo:

adee-gee
07-26-2007, 03:06 PM
Americans wouldn't know a good sport if it smacked them in the face.

Fedex
07-26-2007, 03:22 PM
Americans wouldn't know a good sport if it smacked them in the face.
You're just jealous because we have more sports than you do. :p
I have a sport to keep me occupied for each season of the year. In the summer/fall I have baseball, late fall/winter I have football(you know, the physical contact sport), and from fall to early summer I follow basketball. :)

adee-gee
07-26-2007, 03:59 PM
You're just jealous because we have more sports than you do. :p
I have a sport to keep me occupied for each season of the year. In the summer/fall I have baseball, late fall/winter I have football(you know, the physical contact sport), and from fall to early summer I follow basketball. :)
All 3 suck ;)

"Football" - More commericals than there is play. Absolute snorefest.

Basketball - Impossible to get excited until the last 2 minutes of a game.

Baseball - Terrible sport, cricket and rounders are more entertaining.

MarieS
07-26-2007, 04:05 PM
All 3 suck ;)

"Football" - More commericals than there is play. Absolute snorefest.

Basketball - Impossible to get excited until the last 2 minutes of a game.

Baseball - Terrible sport, cricket and rounders are more entertaining.

dodo :armed:
agreed on basketball, but you didn't just say that about football and baseball :armed:

adee-gee
07-26-2007, 04:07 PM
dodo :armed:
agreed on basketball, but you didn't just say that about football and baseball :armed:

Baseball would probably be the best of a bad bunch. I can almost see the appeal in it but it's just not quite there, and is too dull for my liking. "Football" would be bottom of the pile, if you want a considerably better version of that then watch rugby.

jeahhh!
07-26-2007, 04:08 PM
All 3 suck ;)

"Football" - More commericals than there is play. Absolute snorefest.

Basketball - Impossible to get excited until the last 2 minutes of a game.

Baseball - Terrible sport, cricket and rounders are more entertaining.

I agree with you on baseball and basketball but not football.:p

Johnny Groove
07-26-2007, 04:09 PM
How anyone can conisder either football as a "snorefest" is out of my realm of thought

jeahhh!
07-26-2007, 04:12 PM
:shrug:
But definitely college football> NFL

Johnny Groove
07-26-2007, 04:14 PM
:shrug:
But definitely college football> NFL

i dunno about that. Certainly the fandom is there, and every game counts bcause of the "playoff system" :retard: but the bowls and BCS shit kinda brings it down a bit.

I dont like how a team can go 13-0 and not even get a shot at the national title.

adee-gee
07-26-2007, 04:17 PM
How anyone can conisder either football as a "snorefest" is out of my realm of thought
Can you explain the attraction of American football then? :scratch:

jeahhh!
07-26-2007, 04:18 PM
i dunno about that. Certainly the fandom is there, and every game counts bcause of the "playoff system" :retard: but the bowls and BCS shit kinda brings it down a bit.

I dont like how a team can go 13-0 and not even get a shot at the national title.
This is true but there is just something that irks me about pro and I'm not really sure what.Blah I'm just odd.:o

Johnny Groove
07-26-2007, 04:20 PM
Can you explain the attraction of American football then? :scratch:

I dont know how to explain it to foreigners. Like, im sure you grew up kicking soccer balls around and playing it growing up, no?

The same here with our football, its like a culture here. I dunno why, it just is. :shrug:

How would you explain the allure of "soccer" to a typical American, one without an international flair, in my case Caribbean?

MarieS
07-26-2007, 04:23 PM
Baseball would probably be the best of a bad bunch. I can almost see the appeal in it but it's just not quite there, and is too dull for my liking. "Football" would be bottom of the pile, if you want a considerably better version of that then watch rugby.

:armed::lol:
It's a preference thing :shrug:. You have to grow up with it...
Again, football would be more popular here if the quality of MLS didn't suck so much...It would at the very least have a niche audience with say Italian Americans for example :shrug:. World Cup generates a lot of interest believe it or not...It's just that MLS is really really really bad...It's like with american football; I like it, but it doesn't mean I'm going to watch (the now defunct) NFL Europe games :shrug:.

jeahhh!
07-26-2007, 04:24 PM
Can you explain the attraction of American football then? :scratch:

:awww: I don't think you'll ever understand.:hug:

Fedex
07-26-2007, 04:27 PM
All 3 suck ;)
hahaha

"Football" - More commericals than there is play. Absolute snorefest. That's true about the commercials, but the actual play itself is nothing but exciting. There is so much that goes on during one play. If one player screws up, (misses a blocking assignment, runs the wrong route, whatever) the whole play is fucked usually.


Basketball - Impossible to get excited until the last 2 minutes of a game.
I could see how one could think this way. The athleticism in the NBA is unparralled. Plus you'll occasionally see a cool brawl like this one. :yeah: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBylZNK-7G0&mode=related&search=


Baseball - Terrible sport, cricket and rounders are more entertaining.

Baseball is a sport that you really have to appreciate; all of the little things that go into a game. Pitch selection, baserunning, good defense, clutch hitting all come into effect, especially in a close game. I mean what's more exciting than having the bases loaded, 2 down in the 9th, you're down a run, and David Ortiz(the man in my avatar) is at the plate. It all comes down to execution, and just the smallest mistake by the pitcher in that situation can be the difference between a win and a gut wrenching loss.
See, I grew up in Boston, so baseball is like a religion to me being a Red Sox fan. My team and its fan endured 86 years of losing, so you wont find a more loyal fan in sports than a Sox fan. The thing about baseball, is while it is too slow for some people, you'll see more things in a baseball game than any other sport.

adee-gee
07-26-2007, 04:28 PM
I dont know how to explain it to foreigners. Like, im sure you grew up kicking soccer balls around and playing it growing up, no?

The same here with our football, its like a culture here. I dunno why, it just is. :shrug:

How would you explain the allure of "soccer" to a typical American, one without an international flair, in my case Caribbean?
Well as far as I can see, a "football" match lasts around 3 hours and 2 hours of it is commercials. It is the most stop-start thing I've ever seen in my life. "Soccer" on the other hand is constant for 90 mins and is 100 times more action packed. It only takes a second for something to happen. I just find it considerably more exciting :shrug:
:armed::lol:
It's a preference thing :shrug:. You have to grow up with it...
Again, football would be more popular here if the quality of MLS didn't suck so much...It would at the very least have a niche audience with say Italian Americans for example :shrug:. World Cup generates a lot of interest believe it or not...It's just that MLS is really really really bad...It's like with american football; I like it, but it doesn't mean I'm going to watch (the now defunct) NFL Europe games :shrug:.
I think it's the culture more than the quality. There are many leagues in Europe that are terrible quality yet it's still the most popular sport in the country by a distance. The Scottish team I support are worse than any team in the MLS, it's not the quality I care so much about it's the game :worship:

Fedex
07-26-2007, 04:36 PM
Can you explain the attraction of American football then? :scratch:

The hardcore violence, bitch! :D :mad: :armed: ;)

MarieS
07-26-2007, 04:45 PM
Well as far as I can see, a "football" match lasts around 3 hours and 2 hours of it is commercials. It is the most stop-start thing I've ever seen in my life. "Soccer" on the other hand is constant for 90 mins and is 100 times more action packed. It only takes a second for something to happen. I just find it considerably more exciting :shrug:

I think it's the culture more than the quality. There are many leagues in Europe that are terrible quality yet it's still the most popular sport in the country by a distance. The Scottish team I support are worse than any team in the MLS, it's not the quality I care so much about it's the game :worship:

We're fast approaching feisty, Mister :armed: ;)

Tennis is stop and go :shrug:, doesn't stop you from watching. Your argument is the same as one who's not familiar with "soccer" saying they don't like it because there is only 1 or 2 goals MAX the whole game :shrug:. There are so many exciting things that happen within a football or a baseball game that an "untrained" eye doesn't catch or recognize.
No you haven't watched MLS...:help: there's absolutely no skill :help:.
I'll give you that it's not in the culture to be interested in soccer, but the quality certainly doesn't help in the popularity department. I'm telling you if MLS was anywhere near international level, there would be a ton of interest generated about it.

stealthisnick
07-26-2007, 04:48 PM
You're just jealous because we have more sports than you do. :p
I have a sport to keep me occupied for each season of the year. In the summer/fall I have baseball, late fall/winter I have football(you know, the physical contact sport), and from fall to early summer I follow basketball. :)

:haha:
three, that's all?

and than call them sport is a bit too much, they are just a show

Fedex
07-26-2007, 04:49 PM
I'm telling you if MLS was anywhere near international level, there would be a ton of interest generated about it.
So, in theory, Beckham should dominate in the MLS then? I will be terribly dissapionted if he doesn't average atleast 4 goals per game.

Saumon
07-26-2007, 04:49 PM
We're fast approaching feisty, Mister :armed: ;)

Tennis is stop and go :shrug:, doesn't stop you from watching. Your argument is the same as one who's not familiar with "soccer" saying they don't like it because there is only 1 or 2 goals MAX the whole game :shrug:. There are so many exciting things that happen within a football or a baseball game that an "untrained" eye doesn't catch or recognize.
No you haven't watched MLS...:help: there's absolutely no skill :help:.
I'll give you that it's not in the culture to be interested in soccer, but the quality certainly doesn't help in the popularity department. I'm telling you if MLS was anywhere near international level, there would be a ton of interest generated about it.
Marie, you're like a typical American liking those American sports :hug:










:secret: Adam, take notes! Telling her she's American is a good way to piss her off :aplot: ;)

MarieS
07-26-2007, 04:56 PM
So, in theory, Beckham should dominate in the MLS then? I will be terribly dissapionted if he doesn't average atleast 4 goals per game.
Never said that :shrug:. Besides, Beckham has never been a goal scorer :scratch:.

Marie, you're like a typical American liking those American sports :hug:
:secret: Adam, take notes! Telling her she's American is a good way to piss her off :aplot: ;)

:lol: It's so old Sushi, it doesn't even piss me off anymore. I just laugh. :haha:

Fedex
07-26-2007, 05:07 PM
:haha:
three, that's all?
We have more than 3. There's still the NHL, although sadly no one here follows hockey anymore. That's what happens when you have a shits for brain as your commissioner. There's also college football and basketball, which I forgot to mention. And whether or not you consider poker a sport, we have that too.


and than call them sport is a bit too much, they are just a show

And how the fuck would you know? What are you basing this on? Have you ever been to any games? There's more contact in American football then you'd ever find in soccer, not to mention a lot less flopping. You could take just the average NBA player, and he is a better athlete than 85% of all football/soccer players. And that is not disputable. I'm not saying basketball is the best sport, because its not, but there are more of and better conditioned athletes in the NBA than there is in any other league.

MarieS
07-26-2007, 05:11 PM
And how the fuck would you know? What are you basing this on? Have you ever been to any games? There's more contact in American football then you'd ever find in soccer, not to mention a lot less flopping. You could take just the average NBA player, and he is a better athlete than 85% of all football/soccer players. And that is not disputable. I'm not saying basketball is the best sport, because its not, but there are more of and better conditioned athletes in the NBA than there is in any other league.

you forgot golf :tape::bolt:
but other than that, well put :yeah:. and your av :hearts::inlove:

Fedex
07-26-2007, 05:11 PM
Never said that :shrug:. Besides, Beckham has never been a goal scorer :scratch:.

I wouldn't know. I know as much about Beckham's skills as stealthisnick knows about American sports. And that isn't very much, I'll tell you. But with the way you downgraded the skill level of the MLS, then is it unreasonable to expect Beckham to dominate?

Fedex
07-26-2007, 05:13 PM
you forgot golf :tape::bolt:
but other than that, well put :yeah:. and your av :hearts::inlove:
Yes, but Golf is a worldwide sport, so I decided not to include it.
Basketball is as well, but there is certainly a difference between the NBA and European style basketball.

jayjay
07-26-2007, 05:17 PM
Personally I couldn't give a flying fuck about David Beckham or MLS, but some of you seem to be completely missing the point of why MLS/LA Galaxy made the effort and paid the money (which isn't the reported $250m BTW when you actually look at the detail) to get him there.

He is not there to make MLS a bigger draw in the US as NFL, NBA or MLB because that is never going to happen. He is there because there is a fair chance he can draw even more American youngsters to the game, get them playing it (something which in the US is already quite popular isn't it? At the youth level) and generally gain more exposure for MLS in the US and internationally.

Is anyone willing to argue that since Beckham's arrivial MLS has not had more talk about it in the US on TV/Media than in all the years put together since its re-launch? No.

Beckham serves his purpose as a marketing tool. His contract pays for itself in many respects with accordance to the amount of revenue and exposure he brings with him.

I think Beckham is likely to succeed with regards inspiring more young Americans to take up the sport, but that will only be known 8-10, even 15 years from now. The challenge for MLS is to ride the Beckham wave and improve the quality of the league throughout with other signings of players from Europe who are nearing or are at the end of their careers but can still improve MLS.

I don't know whether they will achieve this, nor do I care if they do, because if you guys in America think you don't care about MLS then you can only imagine how much less those of us in Europe or South America and follow top level football care about MLS.

tangerine_dream
07-26-2007, 05:18 PM
Nothing's funnier than reading articles from the European press desperately trying to figure out why The Evil Empire won't embrace their dumb, boring sport. :lol: Seriously, why do they care so much whether we like their soccer or not? Aren't we supposed to be the most hated country in the world? The one everybody denies knowing or wanting to be like? The superpower that's completely uncool? So if we're so uncool then why are Europeans obssessed with getting Americans to like soccer? :p

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/story/0,,1270849,00.html

Even the US press can't find an explanation why Americans hate soccer. The short answer: "It just sucks." :lol:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/worldcup/2006-07-06-soccer-in-the-us_x.htm

Check out the posts on this soccer board :haha:

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12484

RickDaStick
07-26-2007, 05:20 PM
American kids dont play soccer because it requires a lot of running and most of them are overweight

stealthisnick
07-26-2007, 05:22 PM
We have more than 3. There's still the NHL, although sadly no one here follows hockey anymore. That's what happens when you have a shits for brain as your commissioner. There's also college football and basketball, which I forgot to mention. And whether or not you consider poker a sport, we have that too.

college american football is just american football, it's not another "sport"


And how the fuck would you know?

we got TV here in italy as well


What are you basing this on? Have you ever been to any games? There's more contact in American football then you'd ever find in soccer, not to mention a lot less flopping. You could take just the average NBA player, and he is a better athlete than 85% of all football/soccer players. And that is not disputable. I'm not saying basketball is the best sport, because its not, but there are more of and better conditioned athletes in the NBA than there is in any other league.

a sport is not measured in how much contact there is, or tennis isn't a sport?
and even in ballet they are great athletes but it's not a sport anyway

what i mean is that the show has more importance than the competition

MarieS
07-26-2007, 05:22 PM
I wouldn't know. I know as much about Beckham's skills as stealthisnick knows about American sports. And that isn't very much, I'll tell you. But with the way you downgraded the skill level of the MLS, then is it unreasonable to expect Beckham to dominate?

I don't know if you are interested :lol:, but Beckham is known for his free kicks and setting up his teammates (assists), and not so much for his goals. Sort of like a point guard who doesn't score as much :shrug:.
Maybe if he was younger and didn't have his ankle problems he could dominate, I don't know :shrug:...But that's a big maybe; he's always been overrated anyway :angel:. And I don't think that's his intention anyway, I think he's here to spread the greatness of futbol to Amerika :worship:. So far, it's not working :shrug:.

Action Jackson
07-26-2007, 05:24 PM
Well the US had the biggest sporting event in the world in 94 and it didn't grab the loins of the sporting public, it's no great loss to the rest of the world and no great loss to the Americans.

Beckham will serve his purpose.

jayjay
07-26-2007, 05:24 PM
So if we're so uncool then why are Europeans obssessed with getting Americans to like soccer so badly? :p


Be assured that there are far more fans in South America and Europe who have no interest in the game becoming more popular or liked in the US. In my view it was a disgrace that the World Cup was held in the US (it was about money, as nearly everything is) and I very much hope it never happens again.

With the way the Canadian fans embraced the U20 WC, I'd be happy to see the WC played there one day, but never again in America. :hatoff:

stealthisnick
07-26-2007, 05:24 PM
I wouldn't know. I know as much about Beckham's skills as stealthisnick knows about American sports. And that isn't very much, I'll tell you.

you are just so fun :haha:
so you do know me since you can tell how muck i know about american sports

MarieS
07-26-2007, 05:29 PM
He is not there to make MLS a bigger draw in the US as NFL, NBA or MLB because that is never going to happen. He is there because there is a fair chance he can draw even more American youngsters to the game, get them playing it (something which in the US is already quite popular isn't it? At the youth level) and generally gain more exposure for MLS in the US and internationally.

Well, the problem isn't with participation. The problem is when the kid turns 14-15 and realizes that there's no future playing soccer. Other sports give more lucrative scholarships and the prospect of playing in the NBA or NFL is far more exciting than the MLS because there's absolutely no glory/fame/money associated with it, and let's face it, unfortunately that's what drives a lot of these kids/parents :shrug:.

So if we're so uncool then why are Europeans obssessed with getting Americans to like soccer? :p

By the same token, why do NFL, NBA and MLB try to expand to Europe and Asia? :)

American kids dont play soccer because it requires a lot of running and most of them are overweight
that's completely untrue, like I said, youth soccer is one of the most popular choices out there :shrug:.

Fedex
07-26-2007, 05:30 PM
college american football is just american football, it's not another "sport"

No its not, moron. There are different rules for the college and the NFL level. Next you are going to try and tell me that the Arena football league and the NFL are the same sport.

jayjay
07-26-2007, 05:32 PM
You and me both. :cool:

Let's start a petition and make sure it never happens again. :)

While we are at it, let's also start one to have Eric Wynalda gagged. :D

RickDaStick
07-26-2007, 05:35 PM
Let's start a petition and make sure it never happens again. :)

While we are at it, let's also start one to have Eric Wynalda gagged. :D

Eric Wynalda is awesome. Love the way he bashes the American players.

tangerine_dream
07-26-2007, 05:37 PM
By the same token, why do NFL, NBA and MLB try to expand to Europe and Asia? :)

NFL Europa recently shut down after losing money for years. :lol: Sounds good to me. :cool:

Baseball appears to be successfully expanding through Asia. I don't know if it'll catch on with Europeans though. Wouldn't matter much if it didn't.

Basketball is probably the one sport that could become as internationally popular as soccer.

As for the notion that Beckham could get more kids playing soccer, soccer is already the top sport here for little kids. When they reach the age of ten they discover real sports like baseball and American football and then that's the end of soccer in the US. :)

Let's start a petition and make sure it never happens again. :)
While we are at it, let's also start one to have Eric Wynalda gagged. :D
:haha: Good idea.

stealthisnick
07-26-2007, 05:39 PM
No its not, moron. There are different rules for the college and the NFL level.

:haha:

so giant slalom and downhill are two different sports, nice to know

since some football (the one you call soccer) rules has changed in the last decades now it's a different sport from the one played before? :eek:

RickDaStick
07-26-2007, 05:41 PM
No its not, moron. There are different rules for the college and the NFL level. Next you are going to try and tell me that the Arena football league and the NFL are the same sport.

I dont know man but to me college football and nfl is basically the same thing. There are little differences here and there but nothing comparable to Arena football and NFL

Fedex
07-26-2007, 05:52 PM
:haha:

so giant slalom and downhill are two different sports, nice to know

since some football (the one you call soccer) rules has changed in the last decades now it's a different sport from the one played before? :eek:
Yes, I consider them to be different. There are enough differences between the two that I could easily distinguish the two. I would know if I was watching college teams or NFL teams. Maybe a casual viewer like yourself could not, but to me they are different games. Its a matter of opinion, I guess.

Fedex
07-26-2007, 05:54 PM
you are just so fun :haha:
so you do know me since you can tell how muck i know about american sports
Nice choice of words. :)

adee-gee
07-26-2007, 06:03 PM
I could see how one could think this way. The athleticism in the NBA is unparralled. Plus you'll occasionally see a cool brawl like this one. :yeah: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBylZNK-7G0&mode=related&search=
:lol:

I don't doubt you have to be very skilled and talented to be good at basketball, it just doesn't appeal to me as a sport. 50 odd times per team throwing the ball into a net just doesn't do it for me. Yes you could argue soccer is similar with teams just trying to kick the ball into the net, but in my opinion there is a lot more variation to scoring goals than there is scoring baskets.

Tennis is stop and go :shrug:, doesn't stop you from watching. Your argument is the same as one who's not familiar with "soccer" saying they don't like it because there is only 1 or 2 goals MAX the whole game :shrug:. There are so many exciting things that happen within a football or a baseball game that an "untrained" eye doesn't catch or recognize.
Americans complain about the lack of goals in soccer but to me that's what makes it so appealing. I love the fact that 1 goal can be so crucial, so when my team scores it's a huge buzz. The only time you can get that in basketball, baseball and american football is if your team scores a last minute winner, because each individual point/run isn't worth so much :shrug:

We have more than 3. There's still the NHL, although sadly no one here follows hockey anymore. That's what happens when you have a shits for brain as your commissioner. There's also college football and basketball, which I forgot to mention. And whether or not you consider poker a sport, we have that too.
I actually found NHL the best American sport, I thought it was great. High paced and full of action.
American kids dont play soccer because it requires a lot of running and most of them are overweight
:haha: :haha: :haha:

Sorry, but that was pretty funny :hatoff:

stealthisnick
07-26-2007, 06:07 PM
Yes, I consider them to be different. There are enough differences between the two that I could easily distinguish the two. I would know if I was watching college teams or NFL teams. Maybe a casual viewer like yourself could not, but to me they are different games. Its a matter of opinion, I guess.

i understand that you consider them different and they are probably, but that's not enough to make them two sports
just like football today in not another sport from football in the 60s

Mistaflava
07-26-2007, 06:11 PM
:lol:

I don't doubt you have to be very skilled and talented to be good at basketball, it just doesn't appeal to me as a sport. 50 odd times per team throwing the ball into a net just doesn't do it for me. Yes you could argue soccer is similar with teams just trying to kick the ball into the net, but in my opinion there is a lot more variation to scoring goals than there is scoring baskets.


Americans complain about the lack of goals in soccer but to me that's what makes it so appealing. I love the fact that 1 goal can be so crucial, so when my team scores it's a huge buzz. The only time you can get that in basketball, baseball and american football is if your team scores a last minute winner, because each individual point/run isn't worth so much :shrug:


I actually found NHL the best American sport, I thought it was great. High paced and full of action.

:haha: :haha: :haha:

Sorry, but that was pretty funny :hatoff:


The NHL is Canadian and Football is the by far the best American sport...the season is one month away!!!

jayjay
07-26-2007, 06:49 PM
Eric Wynalda is awesome. Love the way he bashes the American players.

He could have fooled me. The few times I have had the misfortune to hear his "analysis", you would have thought Landon Donovan was slightly better than a combined Pele/Diego. When the reality is he is a poor man's Cobi Jones.

jayjay
07-26-2007, 06:53 PM
When they reach the age of ten they discover real sports like baseball and American football and then that's the end of soccer in the US. :)

'Real' sports?

What does that mean? Whether you like football or not is up to you, but believe me it's real. :)

LeChuck
07-26-2007, 07:09 PM
Regarding the North American sports, the NHL is awesome and I follow Ice Hockey avidly. I can't stand American football (Aussie rules is far more interesting from what I've seen). I don't know why the fuck it's called football considering the foot hardly ever touches the ball but never mind. I also find baseball to be the epitomy of tediousness. Basketball and the NBA is pretty good though.

LoveFifteen
07-26-2007, 07:25 PM
Well as far as I can see, a "football" match lasts around 3 hours and 2 hours of it is commercials. It is the most stop-start thing I've ever seen in my life. "Soccer" on the other hand is constant for 90 mins and is 100 times more action packed. It only takes a second for something to happen. I just find it considerably more exciting :shrug:

Your love of football/rugby/cricket is as culturally conditioned as an American's culturally-conditioned love of baseball/basketball/football, a Canadian's culturally-conditioned love of ice hockey, or a Japanese guy's culturally-conditioned love of sumo wrestling. :shrug:

LoveFifteen
07-26-2007, 07:35 PM
Be assured that there are far more fans in South America and Europe who have no interest in the game becoming more popular or liked in the US. In my view it was a disgrace that the World Cup was held in the US (it was about money, as nearly everything is) and I very much hope it never happens again.

With the way the Canadian fans embraced the U20 WC, I'd be happy to see the WC played there one day, but never again in America. :hatoff:

Why is it a disgrace that the USA hosted the World Cup? :rolleyes:

I love how every time I have discussed soccer with Europeans and South Americans, they ridicule Americans for not loving soccer, and yet, you're also saying that they'd love for it to continue to remain unpopular in the USA. A really pathetic, petty attitude.

Chloe le Bopper
07-26-2007, 07:37 PM
It is beyond foolish to compare the soccer ratings to the ratings of other sports at this point. In order to understand the impact that Beckam is (or isn't) having, you need to compare the ratings before Beckam to the ratings with Beckam. And you need a much larger sample than one game for any comparison to be meaningful.

Honestly, I'm convinced that the majority of people here have not taken basic highschool math. Anybody who has should be able to reason well enough as to come up with the above, and save us 95% of the stupid arguments that are made in this forum.

fenomeno2111
07-26-2007, 07:50 PM
We're fast approaching feisty, Mister :armed: ;)

Tennis is stop and go :shrug:, doesn't stop you from watching. Your argument is the same as one who's not familiar with "soccer" saying they don't like it because there is only 1 or 2 goals MAX the whole game :shrug:. There are so many exciting things that happen within a football or a baseball game that an "untrained" eye doesn't catch or recognize.
No you haven't watched MLS...:help: there's absolutely no skill :help:.
I'll give you that it's not in the culture to be interested in soccer, but the quality certainly doesn't help in the popularity department. I'm telling you if MLS was anywhere near international level, there would be a ton of interest generated about it.

You certainly don't watch MLS soccer, I know it's not the best league in the world but saying the quality is horrible is absolutely out of place...Make sure you have a base to back up those statements. The problem with the MLS is that is run like all sports here in the US and not like real football clubs.

jayjay
07-26-2007, 07:50 PM
[QUOTE=LoveFifteen;5743622]Why is it a disgrace that the USA hosted the World Cup? :rolleyes:

I prefer the World Cup to be played in countries that consider football a passion (and there are many that do) and that embrace the tournament. That was never going to be the case with America and FIFA took the WC there to try and break in the sport in what would be a very lucrative part of the world. I guess they cannot be blamed for trying but I would rather they had not done so.

I love how every time I have discussed soccer with Europeans and South Americans, they ridicule Americans for not loving soccer, and yet, you're also saying that they'd love for it to continue to remain unpopular in the USA. A really pathetic, petty attitude.

Maybe you can apply that to others you have come across but not with me. I love football and have no desire to see it succeed or become populist in the USA. I have no problem with Americans who don't like football.

Personally, I like many sports, football being my first passion. I also like the NFL very much and have done so for much of my life as well as the NBA and MLB.

I hate it when fans of either sport try to denegrate the other while largely not having a fucking clue either way about the merits, nuances and history of each sport.

Some people like alot of sports, some people like a few and some don't like any. I have no interest in persuading anyone who hates football to like it, no more or less than I want someone to try and persuade me that Bowls is where it's at.

Arguments between people about which sport is "better" are completely pointless and irrelevant. What is "better" is what matters to the individual.

LoveFifteen
07-26-2007, 08:08 PM
I prefer the World Cup to be played in countries that consider football a passion

And yet you'd be happy to see the World Cup go to Canada? :unsure:

Was the World Cup a disgrace in Japan/Korea, too? Those countries do not consider soccer a national passion either.

Would the World Cup be a disgrace in Australia?

jayjay
07-26-2007, 08:32 PM
[QUOTE=LoveFifteen;5743879]And yet you'd be happy to see the World Cup go to Canada? :unsure:

I said consider a passion or embrace. It is fair to say the Canadian public more than embraced the U20 WC, so much so that attendance records were broken all over the shop. I imagine on that basis that Canada would be equally enthusiastic to taste the real thing.

The best thing for FIFA to do would have been to use the U20s as a testing ground for the USA. Instead they went all in and came up empty.

Was the World Cup a disgrace in Japan/Korea, too? Those countries do not consider soccer a national passion either.

Like with the USA experiment, FIFA took the WC to Asia to try and break that market. Ground work was already in place and Japan/Korea were developing football on and off the pitch. The WC gave it a further chance to add more momentum and that momentum has safely been carried through.

As I said, I understand why FIFA went to the US, but it proved ultimately to be a failed attempt. I don't particularly like it when the WC is a minor story in the country that hosts it, that was largely the case in the USA, it certainly wasn't in Japan/Korea.

Would the World Cup be a disgrace in Australia?

No, of course not. Australia wants a WC and if they held one I'm sure it would be fantastically supported by the fans and media alike.

The US is a country where this did not happen and was not liable to given the inherent dislike of football to begin with (for the large part). Surely you won't disagree with that?

There are of course many fans in the US who love football (maybe you are one of them? :) ) and would like more exposure there and no doubt loved the WC. Unfortunately for them, they were defeated by those who didn't want football to grow in the USA. Fortunately for those of us who don't care, the experiment with the US was ended there and football moved on to parts of the world that will treat the WC as the festival of football that it is. :)

LoveFifteen
07-26-2007, 08:50 PM
You are really just talking out of your ass, jayjay, when you say that FIFA "came up empty" by staging the 1994 World Cup in the USA.

The 1994 World Cup in the USA was a big success. "The average attendance of nearly 69,000 shattered a record that had stood since 1950 ... the total attendance for the final tournament of nearly 3.6 million remains the greatest in World Cup history, despite the expansion of the competition to 32 teams in 1998." Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_World_Cup)

Yeah, sounds like the 1994 World Cup was definitely "defeated by those who didn't want football to grow in the USA". :rolleyes:

The 1994 World Cup was not a "minor story" here in the USA. What are you even talking about? Were you here in the USA during the World Cup? Were you watching American newscasts and reading American newspapers? Almost everyone was talking about the World Cup.

jayjay
07-26-2007, 08:57 PM
[QUOTE=LoveFifteen;5744125]You are really just talking out of your ass, jayjay, when you say that FIFA "came up empty" by staging the 1994 World Cup in the USA.

How successful has football become in the US on the highest stage since then? It hasn't. FIFA wanted to break football in as a major sport alongside NFL, NBA and MLB. They failed.

The 1994 World Cup in the USA was a big success. "The average attendance of nearly 69,000 shattered a record that had stood since 1950 ... the total attendance for the final tournament of nearly 3.6 million remains the greatest in World Cup history, despite the expansion of the competition to 32 teams in 1998." Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_World_Cup)

The WC will sell out anywhere. That is not the sole judge of a successful tournament. The US has a greater number of stadiums with a greater capacity than most, if not any other country. The attendance numbers are to be expected.

Yeah, sounds like the 1994 World Cup was definitely "defeated by those who didn't want football to grow in the USA". :rolleyes:

Where is US football now in comparison to the objective of the WC?

Were you here in the USA during the World Cup?

Yes, I was. During the first 10 days of the tournament.

Were you watching American newscasts and reading American newspapers?

Yes, I was.

Almost everyone was talking about the World Cup.

Very few in a good light.

I rest my case. :hatoff:

Why are you trying to make out that the US is some football loving country that has grown leaps and bounds since the WC went there with that very intention and objective?

:confused:

LoveFifteen
07-26-2007, 09:06 PM
I'm not trying to make out that the US is some football-loving country that has grown leaps and bounds since the WC went there. I'm merely trying to state that it was not a disgrace that the USA hosted the World Cup as you said.

The World Cup was not a minor story here in the US. That's nonsense.

The reality is that you're simply anti-American and enjoy hating on the USA. You'd be fine with the World Cup going to Canada, and soccer would certainly never become a mega-sport there either. :shrug:

Soccer isn't a mega-sport in Australia either, and it wouldn't be afterwards even if they hosted a World Cup.

jayjay
07-26-2007, 09:09 PM
I'm merely trying to state that it was not a disgrace that the USA hosted the World Cup as you said.

Yes, in your opinion it was not. And you're entitled to think that. As I am to believe that it was for the reasons I gave. I'm not trying to convince you to feel the same as I do. As I would hope you are not trying to convince me also, because I didn't make my mind up on this yesterday. :lol:

Check your PMs. :)

jayjay
07-26-2007, 09:19 PM
The reality is that you're simply anti-American and enjoy hating on the USA.

:rolleyes: Pathetic, sorry I bothered having a dialogue with you in that case. :wavey:

[QUOTE=LoveFifteen;5744194]You'd be fine with the World Cup going to Canada, and soccer would certainly never become a mega-sport there either. :shrug:

Did you actually read what I wrote or are you just so fixated on any remote criticism of a WC in the US that you won't let go of it? Tangy doesn't want a WC in the US, I guess she is Anti-American too, no? :lol:

Soccer isn't a mega-sport in Australia either, and it wouldn't be afterwards even if they hosted a World Cup.

Again, you didn't read what I wrote only what you have already chosen to believe.

I like the NFL and McDonalds. Can I stop being Anti-American now? :rolleyes:

Completely useless conversation. Stop being so sensitive about any criticism.

LoveFifteen
07-26-2007, 09:23 PM
I don't know how I didn't read what you wrote. You said you'd be fine with the WC in Canada because the matches at U20 were sold out. The matches at the 1994 WC were sold out and yet it was a "disgrace".

As if soccer would become a big sport in Canada after a WC?

Anyway, whatever ... you are totally right. The 1994 WC was a fucking abomination and disgrace, and I'm sure your sour attitude had nothing to do with Maradona's ass getting booted out of the tournament for doping! :angel:

jayjay
07-26-2007, 09:30 PM
[QUOTE=LoveFifteen;5744291]You said you'd be fine with the WC in Canada because the matches at U20 were sold out. The matches at the 1994 WC were sold out and yet it was a "disgrace".

LOL. The Canadians embraced the tournament. The WC in the US was met with derision. Maybe you disagree, but you'll find most football fans/media in the world saw the WC treated in that light. Maybe you should read press outside the US to discover this?

As if soccer would become a big sport in Canada after a WC?

LOL again. No one said anything about football becoming major in Canada. FIFA took the WC to the US with that sole intention, what don't you understand about that? And seeing as I have to reiterate, IF FIFA chose to take the WC back to that part of the world (which inevitably they will some day), I would rather it go to Canada than the US.

Many Americans would probably agree with that, but you're unlikely to foolishly label them Anti-American, are you? Not much of an argument is it - "you're anti-american". Something tells me you've probably incorrectly used that label in the past on a bunch of people who happen to disagree with something that relates to the US. :lol:

Anyway, whatever ... you are totally right. The 1994 WC was a fucking abomination and disgrace, and I'm sure your sour attitude had nothing to do with Maradona's ass getting booted out of the tournament for doping! :angel:

No, it doesn't. Diego deserved to be suspended from that competition and football there after.

Oh I see...this is the bit where you expected me to label you Anti-Argentine?

Pathetic. :lol: This ends here for me, hopefully in future you won't be so quick to label people you know little or nothing about based on the whereabouts of the WC.

Enjoy MLS. :wavey:

LoveFifteen
07-26-2007, 09:39 PM
No soy anti-argentino, boludo de mierda! :wavey:

Y perdoname por no haber leído la prensa extranjera cuando tenía 12 años. :tape:

Fedex
07-26-2007, 10:20 PM
The NHL is Canadian and Football is the by far the best American sport...the season is one month away!!!
True. I wont try to take credit for your sport. The NHL is still popular in a few places in the US, namely Detroit. The coverage of the league blows however. It'd still be popular in Boston if their team wasn't so god damn awful! :lol:
I am looking forward to the football season. Patriots! :rocker2: :cool:

Fedex
07-26-2007, 10:31 PM
American kids dont play soccer because it requires a lot of running and most of them are overweight
If you're going to be critical or make fun, atleast get your damn facts straight! Soccer is popular among the youth, it just doesn't translate to the other levels as we've already discussed. That can be attributed to several things, popularity and the opportunities other sports provide that soccer cannot.

Fedex
07-26-2007, 10:43 PM
:lol:

I don't doubt you have to be very skilled and talented to be good at basketball, it just doesn't appeal to me as a sport. 50 odd times per team throwing the ball into a net just doesn't do it for me. Yes you could argue soccer is similar with teams just trying to kick the ball into the net, but in my opinion there is a lot more variation to scoring goals than there is scoring baskets.


I know most people look at that brawl being the low point in the NBA's history, but to me it was its high point! I still wish they had let Ben Wallace and Artest go at it; Wallace would've kicked his ass. That was a proud moment for me, especially seeing as that was my team, the Detroit Pistons. They had gotten their asses killed the whole game, so that was the best part of the game.:) :lol:
Personally, I thought the fans reacted the only way you could in that situation, and they are only lucky that about 75% of the fans had left at that point. It could have been a lot worse had all 22,000+ fans still been there. :scared:

buddyholly
07-27-2007, 01:59 PM
"about 1 percent of the homes with ESPN were tuned in to Beckham's first game."

Like i said before, No one in the US really gives a shit about Dave

You seem to be under the illusion that if you repeat this enough times it will come true.

buddyholly
07-27-2007, 02:10 PM
Be assured that there are far more fans in South America and Europe who have no interest in the game becoming more popular or liked in the US. In my view it was a disgrace that the World Cup was held in the US (it was about money, as nearly everything is) and I very much hope it never happens again.

With the way the Canadian fans embraced the U20 WC, I'd be happy to see the WC played there one day, but never again in America. :hatoff:

As I remember the World Cup in the US was perfectly organised and played to full houses. It got off to a fabulous start when Ireland beat Italy. I can not understand how you preferred to see the U20 in Canada, playing to half-empty houses. And with the behaviour of the South American teams, I suspect Canada will not be in a hurry to stage another one.

And of course it is about money and also about FIFA having confidence in the ability of the host country to stage the event successfully. Which is why Argentina will not see one in the near future.

Castafiore
07-27-2007, 02:32 PM
So if we're so uncool then why are Europeans obssessed with getting Americans to like soccer?
Obsession?
Not to get drawn in yet another Europe vs US argument and which continent is more cool but where I live in Europe, people don't really care all that much about soccer becoming popular in the US. Sure, they wouldn't mind it becoming popular there (just to add a big market) but it's far from important.

The "Beckham goes to the USA" story is mainly of interest in the UK, I think. It's a non-story here anyway. Becks only gets coverage in the gossip section of the newspapers and magazines but not really in the sports section these days.
For example, today in the newspaper: a pic of Posh with a nipple showing through her dress, stating that showing nipples is becoming big fashion (it was better to cover up before apparently). That's the sort of Beckham story that gets in the (trash) press here.:rolleyes:

I've always thought that the answer to the question why soccer isn't that popular in the USA is very similar to the reply to the question why clay court tennis doesn't catch on all that much over there.
It's not a coincidence that both soccer and clay court tennis do well in South-America and Europe. Is it?
In clay court tennis, I often read a lot of complaints that it's too slow, the rallies are too long, the time in between the points is too long. Same complaint with soccer: not enough goals, too slow.
Whereas people who love soccer don't judge the quality of a match based on the goal count and people who love clay court tennis don't tend to judge the quality of a match on clay based on the number of aces.
It's just a slightly different perception of sports.

buddyholly
07-28-2007, 12:02 AM
I've always thought that the answer to the question why soccer isn't that popular in the USA is very similar to the reply to the question why clay court tennis doesn't catch on all that much over there.


With the USA ranked 14th in the world and Belgium in 70th place, I would say the USA is doing OK at the sport.

LoveFifteen
07-28-2007, 12:44 AM
With the USA ranked 14th in the world and Belgium in 70th place, I would say the USA is doing OK at the sport.

Oh, snap! :lol:

buddyholly
07-28-2007, 03:20 AM
[quote]

LOL. The Canadians embraced the tournament. The WC in the US was met with derision. Maybe you disagree, but you'll find most football fans/media in the world saw the WC treated in that light. Maybe you should read press outside the US to discover this?




Where are the examples of derision? Was it treated with derision by the US press? In that case why would anyone have to read the press outside the US to discover how the US press treated the World Cup? You are trapped in your own phony arguments.

What I remember most about the World Cup in the US is that hooliganism is unknown there, and the games were all held in a carnival atmosphere. Everyone had a great time. I think this treatment of sport in the US as fun, contrasts with other, less successful, countries where the fans use sport as an escape from a dreary life and identify so much with a team that they get mad when they lose and take it personally. In the US if you ask a Lakers fanatic how the team did, he will reply, ''they won.'' In Buenos Aires if you ask a fan how Boca did, he will reply, ''WE won."

In short, your unfounded insistence that the US World Cup was met with derision is just your attempt to deal with your resentment that it was such a success.

Castafiore
07-28-2007, 12:02 PM
With the USA ranked 14th in the world and Belgium in 70th place, I would say the USA is doing OK at the sport.
:spit: :scratch:
And the reason for bringing Belgium into this discussion is....?


For some odd reason, you're trying to get to me by attacking my country, I think. It's cute as a tactic (cute that you actually looked that statistic up) but it doesn't really work as an argument since it's utterly besides the point.:wavey:

Besides,
Belgium has about 10 million people.
The USA has a population of about 300 million people.


Besides, I wasn't attacking the USA so relax, buddy. I was merely stating a point: soccer doing well in the US would be welcome since it would add a big market but it's not important here so Europeans are no at all obsessed by the idea. Soccer is doing well enough without the US and I think that most soccer lovers have given up on the idea that the US would ever become soccer crazy.