[Soccer:] The Anti-American Pastime

I’ve always been a big sports fan, which explains why I have absolutely no interest in soccer. The fact is, I’d rather watch my accountant get his toenails clipped than take in a soccer game — and that includes the World Cup final, which I’m sure will be as scintillating as any other soccer game.

In soccer, they spend hours frantically trying to score. That’s not sport. That’s a young guy trying to convince his date that he likes her for her personality. If you could bottle soccer, you’d have a cure for insomnia.

But it’s not just because it’s so dull that I don’t like soccer. Another reason I don’t like it is because of the Americans who do like it. Most of these sports fans — a term I use with no regard for either word, “sports” or “fans” — wouldn’t know a fumble from a first down, a hit-and-run from a double play. But every four years they show up at bars and go wild when the American team ties the Tunisians zero-zero, or nil-nil, as they call it.

I’m not much of a fan of Ann Coulter either (though she’s infinitely more interesting than soccer), but she’s right when she says that soccer is “excruciatingly boring” and that “the reason there are so many fights among spectators at soccer games is to compensate for the tedium.”

Which brings us to how, for many Americans — almost always liberal elite Americans — soccer isn’t really about soccer so much as it’s about proving the superiority of the young over the old, of liberals over conservatives.

Take Peter Beinart, a liberal journalist and professor of journalism and political science at the City University of New York. Mr. Beinart was with Fareed Zakaria on CNN the other day and had a lot to say about how soccer just might save America — from its narrow-minded, insular self.

Soccer fans in America, he said, show us that “we have a less nativist sports culture and we’re more open — at least some groups in the United States — young people, immigrants, political liberals — are more open to liking the same kinds of things that people in other countries do. Things don’t have to be ours and ours alone.”

Part of the attraction of soccer, Mr. Zakaria says, is that we’re sharing the sport with the rest of the world; we’re following something the rest of the world is following. Yes, Professor Beinart says, but it’s much more than that. Younger Americans, who like soccer more than older Americans, “are far less likely than older Americans to say that American culture is superior or to say that America is the greatest country in the world.”

In case you were wondering, this is a good thing to Mr. Beinart, and I suspect many other liberals. Because “it reflects a more cosmopolitan temperament, more of a recognition that America has things to learn from the rest of the world, and that in fact maybe we have to learn from the rest of the world if we’re going to remain a successful country.”

After taking that in, Mr. Zakaria observes that soccer fans in the United States look a lot like the Obama coalition. To which Beinart replied: “That’s exactly right, and if you look at the states where soccer is most popular, they’re overwhelmingly blue states and the states where soccer is least popular are red states.”

You see: Soccer is much more than a game that puts people like me to sleep. It’s a bunch of guys running up and down a “pitch” in short pants teaching us an important lesson — a lesson about how the tide is turning, about how the same people who embrace soccer embrace the idea that despite all the talk from those old right-wingers, America isn’t so special after all. Or as Peter Beinart explains it: “Younger people are far more likely than older people to say they like the United Nations. There’s a willingness to accept the idea that America is one of many nations. Yes, we have a special affinity for it. But it doesn’t mean in some objective sense [that] us, and everything we do are necessarily better.”

So there you have it. He grants us that as Americans we might have “a special affinity” for our homeland, but thanks to soccer we can learn a lot from the rest of the world. We can learn that we’re not as great as we think we are — or, more precisely, that we’re not as great as old, conservative, red-state Americans think we are.

Turns out that soccer is teaching me a lot more about elite, liberal intellectuals than it’ll ever teach me about the rest of the world. In fact, soccer has already taught me that smug, liberal elites are the single biggest reason I have no use for soccer, and that Ann Coulter isn’t crazy when she says, “Any growing interest in soccer can only be a sign of the nation’s moral decay.”

— Bernard Goldberg is a news and media analyst for Fox News and the author of Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News. His website is BernardGoldberg.com.

Nothing in your screed negates the fact that the final 32 team tournament is called the FINALS. Look it up. That isn’t what I call it...its what FIFA calls it.

Those are the final 32 teams who made thru the regional groups. Being a finalist means that you get to compete in the final two stages of the event, i.e., the group stage and the knockout stage. Why is that so difficult to understand. They could call it applesauce and it would have no bearing on how they conduct the tournament. MLB calls it the World Series, but it doesn't involve the rest of the world.

And in this country, FIFA’s convoluted system just plain does not resonate. Don’t believe me - ask a random person how many teams started, or how big each group started out. Most people won’t know or care. Or try to envision the college basketball tournament in such a screwed up system. People would quit watching it.

What people are you talking to? They aren't soccer fans. Ask at random how many people know what the tiebreakers are for the NFL? The FIFA system resonates because they conduct the regional qualifying sessions the same way. The FIBA World Basketball championship operates the same way. The March Madness tournament equates to the knockout stage of the World Cup.

You are right about one thing - FIFA uses this screwed up system to give people hope that their team will prevail, and they keep watching.

It is not only FIFA that uses the playoff system. I can remember when there was no playoff in MLB or the NFL. There were just two winners of the division or league and they competed for the championship. The playoffs were introduced to keep more teams in the hunt thus maintaining greater fan interest. FIBA is looking at increasing the field to 40. It started out with 13 teams in 1930. I reiterate, sports are a business.

You seem to have a limited knowledge of how sporting events are conducted at the international level. The same system is used for team sports at the Olympics and at various world championships. The system is also used in regional championships.

I have a prediction - after the finals game, a new record will be set for US viewership...around 20 million people (English tv). And we will hear (as we do every 4 years) about how soccer is really taking off in this country. It will be billed as incredible.

Soccer has actually been taking off in this country and it will continue to do so. In 1970 one in 21 was foreign born in this country; today, it is one in 8, the highest it has been for over 90 years; and within a decade it will be one in seven, the highest in our history. Currently there are 45 million foreign born in this country. There is a definite correlation between these demographic changes and the rise of soccer in the US. Immigration drives 80% of our population growth. One in four children attending public school comes from a home where other than English is spoken. Look at the huge Univision numbers for the World Cup. You can't disregard them.

Put that in perspective though. The lowest rated Super Bowl was 39 million, in 1968. Now only 200 million people lived here at that time, so adjusted to today’s population, its the equivalent of 60 million people. So the ‘blockbuster’ ratings will really be duds.

Worldwide 800 million will watch. The Superbowl pales in comparison. Whatever the ratings for the final match in Rio de Janeiro on July 13, the 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil has been a record-setting success on television in the U.S. The match between the U.S. and Portugal on ESPN on June 22 drew a record audience for soccer, with an average of 18.2 million viewers, according to Nielsen (NLSN). On Univision, Mexico’s match with the Netherlands on June 29 set the viewership record for any U.S. Spanish-language telecast at 10.4 million viewers. Almost 25 million people watched the U.S. play Portugal on the two networks, about 10 million more than the average for the National Basketball Association finals and Major League Baseball’s World Series.

Because, no matter how many times you protest, it is quite factual to state that this tournament is not popular in the US. But, the media will state otherwise, and you will eat it up :)

And you would be wrong. Total viewership through the first 60 matches is up 42 percent over the 2010 World Cup. For Univision, the Spanish-language rights holder, viewership is up 38 percent over 2010. These figures don’t include record traffic on the two networks’ streaming services or the crowds watching at bars. If you include the Spanish-language network, total viewership for the US could top 30 million for the final.

Soccer and the World Cup are two different things. Lugeing is an "un-American" pastime, but people will watch it once every four years or so. It doesn't mean we'll flock to the luge tracks or runs or slopes in the off years.

A lot of comment on the Internet about how Beinart's soccer coalition replicates the new Democratic Party -- upscale liberals plus recent immigrants (somehow African-American's don't figure in Beinart's universe, though).

The irony here (as has also been pointed out elsewhere) is that soccer is, like golf and cricket and other sports, a British product than the rest of the world picked up in the bad old imperial days.

Plus, traditional American sports like football and baseball have shown a remarkable ability to attract non-WASPs, from Germans like Ruth and Gehrig, Italians like DiMaggio, to the Irish, Poles, Jews, French, African-Americans, American Indians, Hispanics, and now Asians. How often would we hear about the Samoans if they hadn't made their mark in American football?

We don't know if American soccer will have that kind of pull. Maybe -- there's some variety in the US World Cup team -- but growing up I always thought of soccer as a pretty white-bread, preppy sport. The more "ethnic" kids (however you want to define the word) went in for other sports. I don't think soccer will be any new American melting put, but Beinart (perversely) likes the sport precisely because he believes it undercuts traditional ideas about national identity.

Instead, in soccer, even that late in the finals, it can be win AND go home...err...because you scored fewer goals than another team two games back. This is exactly what happened to Portugal. That’s why its goofy.

It is just as goofy to have the Arizona Cardinals be shut out of the NFL playoffs with a 10-6 record and see Green Bay and San Diego advance with poorer records. The NFL regular season is similar to the group stage of the World Cup.

There are 8 divisions of four teams each in the NFL. In each division the teams play a round robin schedule with one another, i.e., they play each other twice. The other 10 games are outside the division. After the regular season, then the knockout phase (playoffs) begin. To qualify for the playoffs, there is a convoluted system that most fans don't understand.

TO BREAK A TIE WITHIN A DIVISION

If, at the end of the regular season, two or more clubs in the same division finish with identical won-lost-tied percentages, the following steps will be taken until a champion is determined. Two Clubs

Head-to-head (best won-lost-tied percentage in games between the clubs).

Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the division.

Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games.

Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.

Strength of victory.

Strength of schedule.

Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.

Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.

Best net points in common games.

Best net points in all games.

Best net touchdowns in all games.

Coin toss

And there are a similar list of tiebreakers if more than two teams are involved. And then there is an even longer set of rules for the selection of wildcard teams. Imagine, if all else fails, you use a coin toss. Talk about goofy rules.

I implore you....please don’t perpetuate the 800 million spectator myth.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/why-fifas-claim-of-one-billion-tv-viewers-was-a-quarter-right-438302.html

Like most international bodies, FIFA feels above the law, and commits fraud with its advertisers and sponsors by inflating its numbers four fold!

Don’t confuse this with the FIFA officials who let themselves get bribed into hosting the event in Qatar.

And don’t get mixed up with the match fixing in South Africa.

“You seem to have a limited knowledge of how sporting events are conducted at the international level.”

See scandals above...I have a basic working knowledge of how it works.

“Here’s a protip: turn off ESPN, then.”

I don’t have cable...personal choice. Usually there’s plenty to watch on the networks.

For me, CBS is 13.1 on the DTV dial, over the air. There is also a sister station 13.2, which shows ‘second run’ type television...Adam 12, Bosom Buddies etc.

And 60 miles away from me, there is a soccer team in Kansas City. The network started airing their games on 13.2. Fine.

But suddenly, the network has started airing them on 13.1, the main CBS station...my only CBS station. So more than once, I have turned on the tv expecting to watch something...only to find it pre-empted by soccer. I never watch, so I can’t be sure, but I’m fairly sure there aren’t even commercials. The commentary is bland and not in an ‘announcers voice’...they only seem to have two cameras, and the color and picture quality remind me of the 1970’s.

I have no idea why the networks airs this...they have to lose money. I suspect that since soccer is sacred, the network gets credit towards their ‘community service’ requirements for their FCC license.

Anyway, on some days I kinda do feel like soccer is being shoved down my throat.

The average in-home viewership around the globe for each of the 64 matches in 2010 World Cup was 188.4 million. Compare that to the US-record-setting 111.5 million viewers who tuned in to the 2014 Super Bowl.

If you tried to watch end-to-end all 71,867 hours of television broadcasted by global networks from the 2010 World Cup, you’d be watching TV for 8.2 years straight—without sleep.

The games were broadcast to 214 countries and territories, 21 more than the membership of the United Nations.

3.2 billion people watched part of the games from home in 2010, roughly half the world’s population at the time.

About 909.6 million home viewers watched some of the 2010 World Cup final between the Netherlands and Spain—more than 14 times the total population of both nations, and about three times of the population of the United States.

Out-of-home watchers of the 2010 final “likely pushed the total audience reach to more than 1 billion,” making it the most-watched event in the history of broadcast.

You can use a 2007 story. I can find tens times that number saying otherwise.

No matter how you try to spin it, the World Cup is the biggest sporting event in the world. More people view it than any other single sporting event. Follow the money when it comes to US viewership.

Moreover, both networks (ESPN and UNIVISION) were outbid for the next two World Cups, in Russia in 2018 and Qatar in 2022. Fox (FOX) owns the English-language rights to the pair, and Telemundo, a property of Comcast (CMCSA)/NBCUniversal, has the Spanish-language rights for the U.S. “It’s bittersweet,” Scott Guglielmino, ESPN’s head of soccer programming, says of the network’s lame-duck status. “We are certainly living in the moment.” Both Guglielmino and Juan Carlos Rodriguez, president of Univision Deportes, say the success of this year’s World Cup is partly a testament to their coverage. “Univision Deportes continues to be the No. 1 destination for soccer fans 12 months out of the year,” writes Rodriguez in an e-mail. Still, according to Brad Adgate, director of research at Horizon Media, “there has got to be some second-guessing” at the two networks over the failure to bid high enough for the next two World Cups.

Although FIFA doesn’t disclose financial details of its agreements, multiple news outlets reported that ESPN paid $100 million for the rights to the 2010 and 2014 World Cups, while Univision paid $325 million for the same pair. For 2018 and 2022, fees more than doubled, with Fox paying roughly $450 million and Telemundo $600 million. The steep price increases are in keeping with a boom in the cost of sports programming, which has maintained its live audience better than most television against digital recorders.

“No matter how you try to spin it, the World Cup is the biggest sporting event in the world”

You keep hearing things that I don’t say and/or you are putting words in my mouth. I never said it wasn’t. I just said FIFA exaggerates their numbers four fold. The real number (260 million) is still larger than the Super Bowl, and I never said it wasn’t.

Of course, all I’ve ever talked about in this thread, as far as popularity is concerned, is US audience....its those pesky apples and pears again.

BTW...NFL tv contracts are measured in billions, not millions. Why on earth would the networks pay so much more for football (I’m sorry...American football), than the world cup?

Answer: TV networks rely on independent auditing firms (like the one in the story I linked) for viewership information, and not corrupt international bodies that stand to profit from inflating their numbers.

PS, as long as you’re posting parts of other stories...post all of them , or link to them. That way, we can see, from your own story, these gems:

“Brazil’s peak audiences are probably not sustainable. The record-setting U.S. match with Portugal aired at 6 p.m. on a Sunday on the East Coast.”

“The team’s elimination match with Belgium at 4 p.m. the following Tuesday attracted a slightly smaller audience of 16.5 million.”

“Both matches fell within an ideal window for many, toward the end of the workday but before competition from prime-time programming.”

““The time zone this year was perfect,” says SportsCorp’s Ganis. And the two main attractions for the U.S. audience—the U.S. and Mexican teams—made it to the round of 16.”

“Time zones in Russia and Qatar are far less favorable”

“The TV ratings, I think, will be going down,”

And I disagree. The real number is far larger than 260 million. You use a 2007 article to dispute 2010 figures.

Of course, all I’ve ever talked about in this thread, as far as popularity is concerned, is US audience....its those pesky apples and pears again.

So I must confine my comments to the US? We are talking about a worldwide event that is taking place in Brazil.

BTW...NFL tv contracts are measured in billions, not millions. Why on earth would the networks pay so much more for football (I’m sorry...American football), than the world cup?

Duh. Because it makes financial sense. You are missing the point. The amounts paid by Fox and Telemondo for 2018 and 2022 are exponentially higher than what ESPN and Univision paid for 2010 and 2014. The question that needs to be asked and the answer is obvious, why are they willing to pay so much more? Duh.

You are desperate to find ways to diminish the World Cup. You don't like the way the tournament works calling it goofy, yet I provided you with even more goofy rules as to how the NFL selects conference and division champions and the wildcards. The last tiebreaker is a coin toss. And the rules are far more convoluted.

The big difference between you and me is that I am a big fan of the World Cup and the NFL. I don't view them as competing against one another. For you, it is a zero-sum proposition. You don't like soccer and view it as a threat to football.

We can only go around this tree so many times. I'll end it by saying that I am looking forward to watching Sunday's final at a packed local pub filled with knowledgeable, passionate fans. I hate to see the tournament end.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.