Why Americans Don't Like Soccer

Given the increased profile of this year's World Cup, discussion of it is cropping up in places you wouldn't normally expect, like The Volokh Conspiracy. But, as this chain of threads shows, it's brought out the usual soccer haters who pop up every few months. I've learned that, not only am I probably a communist for being a soccer fan,* but I'm also a girly man because I actually play the game. That's led me to think about why exactly Americans don't, as a whole, like the game. I'm not really thinking of the real haters (the Jim Romes of the world), but people who just don't see what the fuss is all about. Here are one fan's theories:

• Lack of scoring: I don't think, at the core, that this is about the small number of goals scored. Aside from basketball, most American sports don't have a lot of scoring, either (football scores are inflated by the points assigned to TDs). But I think people are turned off by how few legitimate chances a team can have during a game, even if they're playing really well. The offside rule comes up for ridicule a lot, and I do think that the implementation of it should be liberalized (no offside unless the offensive player is completely behind the last man - anything else is play on), but that's not really the problem, either. The fact is, striking a round ball with your foot with enough pace and accuracy to dodge several other players and find the back of the net is hard. Headers even more so. That's what makes it so great when a goal is scored. Too many of them and that joy is lost.

• Game turns on luck/officiating too much: This is a semi-valid complaint. I've seen lots of games (and played in a few) where one team clearly outplayed the other but couldn't get a result. Sometimes the ref makes bad calls, but other times it's just that the "better" team can't score a goal and seal the deal. It's much more likely in American sports for the better playing team to win, even in upset situations. The idea that a team can play badly and get a lucky call to setup a PK or free kick irks a lot of people.

• Draws: Deep down, I think this is the biggest problem the average American sports fan has with soccer. No major American sport (except pro football during non-playoff games) lets games end in draws. Furthermore, the epic overtimes that the sports sometimes generate are part of the allure. A baseball game that goes 20 innings is rare, but it is undeniably dramatic. Same with a triple-OT hockey game or a sudden-death NFL game. The fact that soccer seems to not only tolerate but lend itself to draws turns some people off. On a related note, I think a lot of times managers play for the draw rather than the win, leading to uninspired soccer.

• It's a game of endurance: American sports share two common traits - short bursts of action and very liberal substitution rules. Not only does soccer have a constant flow of activity over two 45-minute periods, it limits substitutions to 3, without any concession to injury. As a result, some games turn into tests of attrition, as the Italy-Australia game did the other day. Americans are used to seeing players give 100% when the ball is in play, whereas sometimes soccer games slow down to a pace where it appears that nothing is happening. Notably, the only American sport with a sub rule similar to soccer (once you're subbed, you're done for the game) is baseball, where subs are almost always motivated by tactical concerns, not fitness. For what it's worth, I think Americans are cool to endurance sports car racing for the same reason. The end of a 24-hour race with everyone just trying to make the finish is not exactly the razor-thin battle to the finish that an IRL race is.
  

• Lack of statistics: If anything else explains American apathy towards soccer, this is it. There is, at bottom, one meaningful stat in soccer - goals scored (and, on a team level, goals allowed). American sports have stats for every player in every position doing every conceivable thing. You can look at a baseball box score and almost recreate the game out by out. Soccer, by contrast, requires attention to the game itself to figure out what happened. That Totti scored a PK goal in the 93rd minute against Australia does not tell you much about the game, except who won.

There you have it, humble readers. I'd be interested in hearing from anybody who's tried to "get" the game and just didn't on their experience.

Finally, I'm not trying to covert anyone ("have you accepted David Beckham as your personal sports saviour?"). Sport, like art, is subjective. Some people just like some things and don't like other things. And that's cool.

* I've never understood the "soccer is a commie sport" barbs. Pro sports in the US are highly socialized/collectivized. Teams are required to share revenue, the worst teams get the first choice of new talent, and the owners maintain a monopoly on their sport being played at the highest level in their particular backyard. European soccer, by contrast, is Ayn Rand's wet dream. The best teams stay the best, money talks (ask Chelsea!), and the underperforming teams are sent to the lower division at the end of every season (and the top teams from that division promoted). London has the number of clubs it does in England's top flight because they've all played their way there, not because the FA decided how many London teams should be in the league.