One Important Difference Between Pro Soccer and American Sports
Tags:
There has been some discussion on whether or not Soccer is more capitalistic than the pro sports popular in America and what benefits the game reaps through such competition.
But I think one important part is omitted. Not only is there competition between teams in soccer, and the movement between divisions of the best and worst teams, but there are competing leagues.
David Beckham doesn't like what he's paid at Manchester United? He goes to Real Madrid.
But no decent NBA player gives serious consideration to going abroad. Only washed-out MLB vets go to Japan. And only one time in the past 20 years has a good football player opted out of the NFL (Heismann Trophy winner Raghib "Rocket" Ismael went to the CFL's Toronto Argonauts for a few years). I'm not a close follower of the NHL, but it seems the best foreign players come to the US/Canada.
And in the US itself, NFL competitors like the USFL and XFL failed. The ABA had a lasting influence on pro basketball before it was absorbed by the NBA. There is little room for another top-tier hockey league. And having a competing pro baseball league is actually illegal.
Perhaps this increased competition will happen one day; three of the four sports have significant interest abroad. But until then, the NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL have a monopoly-like grip on their sports, even if teams compete within those confines.
Is that because American's only play sports that the rest of the world think are crap?
AJE:
You mean like how Michael Jordan is the most famous athlete in the world, adored by millions?
What internationally-beloved sports, other than soccer, aren't big in the US? IIRC, we make a damn good showing in every Olympics and whooped Mexico's ass in the last World Cup.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on July 5, 2004 6:33 PM | permalinkDo you think the popularity of Michael Jordon has more to do with an international love of basketball, or the marketing might of the Nike corporation? Surely you must accept the twin effects?
Rugby and Cricket are both internationally loved, commanding huge television audiences and sponsorship, yet aren't equivilantly popular in the US.
Your post gets to the bottom of the issue, but you must agree that it's fairly fitting that America, of all places, hold a 'World Series' in which there's is the only nation that competes!
Posted by: AJE on July 6, 2004 5:37 AM | permalinkAuto racing....
Drivers drive in their respective series, NASCAR, IRL, Champ Car, TransAm, and these are all American divisions. Then look abroad, F1, touring car, euro car, there are litterally dozens of options for top talent of drivers to go to. F1 is by far the most technical and requires the most skill to be a good let alone dominant racer, however within the US, it isn't even the most popular form of racing. NASCAR is where it is at for the TV dollar. Driver are constantly looking at thier contract and obligations, if they do not want to race in their own league anymore, they have many other options. Look at Tony Stewart, was racing IRL, won a championship, and then opted for NASCAR, where he won a championship.
Posted by: Alex on July 6, 2004 7:14 AM | permalinkOh, and the "World Series" does have Canadian teams too on occasion.
Posted by: Alex on July 6, 2004 7:15 AM | permalinkAlex beat me to the punch. But, yes, Canadian teams compete in Major League Baseball. Probably other nations would too, if the distance wasn't so far (the continental US is roughly the size of continental Europe). I suspect we'll have a team in Mexico within the decade.
Also, many of the MLB players are from Japan, Cuba, Dominican Republic, etc. Same with the NBA and NHL. American Football, is another story.
As far as auto racing goes, I don't consider that a "real" sport (though it is certainly competitive and challenging). But that's a whole 'nother debate. ;)
Rugby and Cricket are pretty much British (and British colony) sports, it seems. Does anyone in France, Germany, Russia, China or Brazil play?
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on July 6, 2004 9:57 AM | permalinkPut it this way, rugby and cricket have successful world cups. American football, baseball, and basketball do not.
That, I believe, answers your question.
Regarding Michael Jordon you've been silent - is avoiding the question and phrases such as "whooped Mexico's ass" the extent of your talents?
Posted by: AJE on July 6, 2004 10:28 AM | permalinkAJE:
Baseball and Basketball are Olympic sports. There are professional leagues of both outside the US, and international basketball tournaments are a big deal in Europe. Just because the UK isn't very active in either doesn't mean they're not "international".
As far as Michael Jordan goes, well of course marketing plays a role. But the fact that he has fans from China to Morocco to Argentina to Sweden -- for whatever reason -- is not in dispute. I assure you that if David Beckham was ugly and not marketed, he wouldn't be as big of a star either.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on July 6, 2004 10:59 AM | permalinkFor god's sake, if being 'Olympic' is the criteria for an internationally popular sport then we're in trouble...
I'd assume that Basketball is more popular in the UK than in the rest of Europe, but if you can substantiate your claim that international basketball tournaments are a big deal in Europe, i'd be interested to hear it...
I'm probably not explaining myself well: the sports that the US specialize in are not internationally competitive. Your post, as I understand it, claims that the sports the US specialise in are not competitive in terms of international leagues.
My suggested explanation is that this is because America is fairly unique in specialising in sports that other nations don't play. And by not playing them, we're implicitly suggesting that they're crap.
Posted by: AJE on July 6, 2004 12:46 PM | permalink"I'd assume that Basketball is more popular in the UK than in the rest of Europe, but if you can substantiate your claim that international basketball tournaments are a big deal in Europe, i'd be interested to hear it..."
Well, just for starters, here's one article on the 2002 Final:
http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2002/0908/1429096.html
Some choice quotes:
"Peja Stojakovic, Dejan Bodiroga, Vlade Divac and the team from Yugoslavia linked their arms and raised them in unison, then danced in a circle around the championship trophy.
Thousands of their supporters loudly chanted "Serbia!'' and sang their national anthem.
The heartland of America felt a lot like downtown Belgrade after Yugoslavia came back from an eight-point deficit in the final 2½ minutes of regulation and survived a crucial pair of missed free throws by Divac to beat Argentina 84-77 in overtime for the gold medal Sunday in the World Championships."
"In the Yugoslav capital of Belgrade, hundreds of thousands of jubilant fans poured into the streets, singing and dancing and shooting guns into the air. Thirty-two fans were injured, and police arrested 77 people."
Hundreds of thousands of fans celebrating in the streets? I'd say that qualifies as a "big deal," wouldn't you?
Come on man, Basketball is HUGE in many countries outside of the United States. In the NBA right now are players from Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, China, Canada, France, Germany, Croatia, Yugoslavia, the list goes on...just a decade ago you could count the number of foreign players on one hand, now there are dozens and the number is increasing every year.
Also, attendance in the Euroleague has increased from an average of 3,262 fans in 2000/01, to 4,719 in 03/04. Apparently there's a healthy market over there for this crappy American sport.
It's unsurprising that you've chosen to ignore the point of my comment, instead blindly defending anything American from the slightest insult...
Name an international basketball league that competes with the NBA. The fact that so many foreign players ply their trade in the NBA underlines that there are no competing international leagues. The game clearly isn't popular enough to sustain itself in Europe, otherwise these hoards of players wouldn't need to move to America - since the NBA is the only major league, that's where all the talent goes.
Indeed times are changing, and basketball is gaining in popularity. But that's irrelevant. This is a discussion on national leagues, and popularity as defined by a competitive relationship with the NBA.
You're not actually disagreeing with my point, you're just upset that I called American sports crap. Instead of giving me the entitlement to this opinion you're patriotically trying to change my mind.... it's like watching Bush or Powell at the UN.
I'll ask again - (and try not to react like an imperialist when I call your sports crap...) aren't American sports unusual in that the national leagues face little competition from abroad?
Go on... admit it....
Posted by: AJE on July 7, 2004 6:01 AM | permalinkAJE:
"aren't American sports unusual in that the national leagues face little competition from abroad?"
That was *exactly* my original point.
So it's pretty clear, by now, that you're just arguing for its own sake -- something I'm not interested in.
American sports are crap? Well there's no accounting for taste.
And, no, there is no relationship between international popularity and international-level competition. You're conflating two different things.
I'll be closing comments on this post. So "imperialist" of me, eh?
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on July 7, 2004 7:59 AM | permalinkDoes anyone in France play rugby? Is that a serious question?
Posted by: Wyatt Earp on May 16, 2006 6:11 AM | permalinkWyatt:
Good catch. What about the others?
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on May 16, 2006 7:32 AM | permalinksoccer is the #1 sport in the world...and nobody can change that. it takes real talent to play soccer...it's not what everybody thinks and that you just have to kick a little black and white ball into a net...it's way way way more than that...so have some respect for the sport will you!!!
-pissed
Posted by: Billy-Bob on October 5, 2006 10:48 AM | permalinkBilly-Bob:
When did I say it was just kicking a ball into a net?
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on October 5, 2006 1:36 PM | permalinkYes soccer is the #1 sport in the world compared to "Americas #1 sport Football" football cannot compete. Soccer is one the few sports where men and women can be looked at somewhat equally. The only sport played in 6 out of 7 continents. Every player on the field can touch the ball and play togther on the field at the same time. Not so many rules and regulations. No stopages, you can't review a play. And all that other BS
Posted by: Kevin Chavez on January 28, 2008 1:46 PM | permalinkYes soccer is the #1 sport in the world compared to "Americas #1 sport Football" football cannot compete. Soccer is one the few sports where men and women can be looked at somewhat equally. The only sport played in 6 out of 7 continents. Every player on the field can touch the ball and play togther on the field at the same time. Not so many rules and regulations. No stopages, you can't review a play. And all that other BS
Posted by: Kevin Chavez on January 28, 2008 1:48 PM | permalinkNo more comments! Either someone has violated Godwin's Law, I'm tired of the discussion or, most likely, the ten-week window has closed. You can, however, contact me through email.