I'm just very confused with why some Americans dislike football (soccer) so much, dat even after de world cup dey still bashing de number one sport in de world. There is dis sport talk radio in south Florida, called 790 am (de ticket), dey always have something negative tuh say about soccer. Today de host of one of de programs, even made a suggestion dat Americans should stop playing and supporting a game wid 22 players running up and down on a field, wid 2 big goal post, which dey cannot score in.
Its about economics padnah. You can't stop a "soccer" game every 5 mins so the sponsors can get airtime. They especially learn't that lesson when the USA was hosting the Worldcup. Because of this, the big networks feel they won't draw much advertising money for soccer, and this is where the big money is for the networks, the Athletes, the sports announcers, everybody. If you notice, The NFL, NBA, NHL etc...all have breaks and timeouts all game long. These are more for TV and the sponsors, than they are for the sport. They were designed this way.
The creators of American Sports felt that the perfect spectator sport involves lots of goals, pure physical matchups, and innovative ways to attract money. Soccer as currently designed is none of this. It is simply "The beautiful game". The American sensibility as far as sports are concerned cannot come to terms with the simple nuances of soccer, ie, the play on the field is about as important as the goals scored. A tie for them just won't do. In American Sports, you cannot for instance say after a Football or basketball game that so and so played better, but just did not win and go away happy. Their sports don't involve enough on field creativity for the pure enjoyment of the fans to make a tie game satisfactory. Someone MUST win every game. Is this better?
It's actually debatable.Not only that, the current Sport announcers have learn't their craft at a time when "Soccer" was not really a big sport in the US. Thus, they know NOTHING about the sport. They have to learn something new that may not be financially beneficial to them so why bother. If cricket started to grow in popularity, it would be met with the same resistance, though cricket is probably a little more sponsor friendly for the TV.
It all boils down to money padnah. The only reason "Soccer" is getting more airtime is because it is too popular now to ignore. If it was up to Americans, the game would change so quickly you wouldn't believe,ie, unlimited subs, no offside(so more goals would score), time outs, no penalty kicks (Sudden death after overtime...there must be a winner).....and so on, all to attract sponsors and create their view of the "perfect spectator sport".
In doing so however, the game will become all about speed, fitness and goals,(actually kinda like whats happening now anyway) and real skill will be lost.
