A Soccer Theory

I’ve been “watching the football,” as they say in Britain, and like most Americans my interest has waned. America falls to Ghana, England gets thumped by Germany. While we of course are disappointed, the English are positively beside themselves. How does a country that invented the sport, and has perhaps the top league in the world, end up doing so crappy? And does anyone outside of England care?

Certainly very few people in North America do. Obviously we’re more about (real) football, baseball and basketball. Our Canadian cousins like the hockey, as do some of us in the States. Now comes the obligatory “we North Americans don’t like soccer.” We don’t, at least not in large numbers. For the record, I do. I actually sometimes prefer it to basketball.

Every year about this time the discussion is had as to why we don’t get into soccer. The soccer bashers revel in the opportunity to point out the games foibles, and extol the virtues of “our sports.” Then there’s the paradox. Lots of kids grow up playing soccer, but after more than a generation of youth programs, we have a disproportionate number of people who have little interest in watching the game. It is one of the most perplexing mysteries in sports.

I think I may have figured it out, though I’m probably not the first to put forth the following theory. So here goes. Growing up in the ‘70s and ‘80s, if you played baseball, football, basketball, or hockey, you had Major League Baseball, the NFL, the NBA and the NHL to follow. At times you even had competing leagues (the ABA, WHA and briefly the WFL and USFL). In other words, after playing you had a lot of opportunities to watch the game played professionally, and would perhaps be further inspired. If you played soccer, you had The North American Soccer League (NASL). The NASL claimed it brought world-class soccer to the upper part of the continent, but it really didn’t. Some talented players from here were mixed with good players from other countries, but many of the latter were past their prime and overpaid. Cable TV, desperate for programming did carry games, but the wire was just starting to make inroads at that time. Seeing the NASL product, even if your city had a team, was difficult. Odds are if you did have a team, you wouldn’t have it for long.

If you want to use the chicken and the egg analogy, then today the egg is still youth soccer; however the MLS hasn’t quite evolved into a chicken. Actually it seems as though MLS is marketed more toward those of us who grew up enjoying the sport, as opposed to trying to indoctrinate new converts as the NASL attempted. That strategy seems to be working for MLS. The crowds (around 16,000) aren’t much bigger than they were with the NASL (14,000 at its peak), but it seems to be a more soccer savvy and consistent crowd today. The fiscal policies of the newer league also allow it to work with a smaller draw. Of course the NHL and NBA do fine with attendance numbers that aren’t a whole lot higher.

I liken it to golf, tennis and bowling, all sports that a lot of people participate in, but few comparatively watch on TV. Oh sure, there are those who will watch golf it’s The Masters and they want to see a Tiger, or a Phil, or…some other famous golfer. Odd thing about golf though, is no one will sat they hate it, at least not with the same fervor as the soccer bashers. I’m indifferent, and someone once said “the opposite of love isn’t hate, it’s indifference.”