RSS
Soccer looks pretty arbitrary due to the low scoring, dubious refereeing decisions, shootouts, flopping, famous teams collapsing during the 3-game mini-season, etc., but World Cup results always seem to wind up remarkably stable. For example:
2014 World Cup semifinals:
Netherlands (3x runners-up, 1x semifinalist) v. Argentina (2x champions, 2x runners-up)
Germany (3x champions, 4x runners-up, 5x semifinalists) v. Brazil (5x champs, 2x runners-up, 3x semifinalists)
Despite all the apparent randomness of the tournament, it’s almost hard to imagine a less historically flukish set of semifinalists. Substitute Italy in for Netherlands, I guess, but the Dutch have been the premiere smaller country in the soccer world since their famous run to the final in 1974.
But, as the tournament progresses, the games seem to get grimmer: only five goals were scored in the four quarterfinal matches.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
>>Steve Sailer observed:
“”””””””””””””””””Soccer looks pretty arbitrary due to the low scoring, dubious refereeing decisions, shootouts, flopping, famous teams collapsing during the 3-game mini-season, etc., but World Cup results always seem to wind up remarkably stable.””””””””””””””””
“It’s deja vu all over again!” — Yogi Berra
Penalty shootouts are a lottery. The outcome of individual games has a medium level of arbitrariness. Long tournaments like national championships and the World Cup are always won by one of the handful of teams (out of 32 in the world cup, out of roughly 20 in national championships) that looked strongest before the start.
Oh, here we go again...
No, PKs are not a lottery! Not in any conventional meaning of the word. There are keepers that are very well known for being good at taking penalties. See: Gianluigi Buffon, Tim Howard. To succeed with a PK against great keeper, you've got to be a good taker and have great nerves. Plus, when you are tired, your body does not always do what your mind wants.
All these little details is what frequently sets one team from another. Today's PKs from the Dutch were all executed perfectly - with a lot of power and precision. Not an easy thing to do. Germany was in PKs situation 4 times in World Cups - it won them all (their record is 1-1 in Euro Cup). For comparison, the mediocre England: 0-3 in WC and 1-3 in Euro.Replies: @Dave Pinsen
If only soccer would randomly disappear off the face of the earth…..then we’d have something.
In 1966 North Korea beat Italy 1-0 in the 1/8th round of the World Cup. The fact that this is still widely-known and talked about in 2014 tells you how non-arbitrary soccer really is. If soccer was indeed anything like arbitrary, everybody would have forgotten that game long ago.
It’s actually pretty weird when you think about it.
Shoot outs seem incredibly random. Why not just pick 3 players + goalkeeper from each team and go at it.?
I’m pretty sure to someone non-familiar with the American college basketball system, the first few rounds of the NCAA tournament would seem just as random as the World Cup to many Americans. Mercer beating Duke is pretty much the equivalent of, let’s say, Costa Rica beating Italy. Yes they’re upsets and yes they involve teams of guys with little recognition beating teams with historically great traditions, but that part of what makes sports exciting – those “did that just happen” moments.
Under dogs NEVER make it to the finals and win the World Cup. Cinderella stories usually come to an end either in the quarter finals or the semi-finals at the latest.
Examples of under dog cinderella stories in the history of the World Cup are Bulgaria, Cameroon, South Korea, Ghana, Costa Rica, Turkey,Poland, Mexico, Denmark, Chile, Croatia, The United States Of America, and Colombia. Yet if you follow the sport of football (soccer) for most of your life you will notice that NONE of these teams have ever made it to the finals of the World Cup and took home the gold.
>>Glossy said:
“””””””””””””””””In 1966 North Korea beat Italy 1-0 in the 1/8th round of the World Cup. The fact that this is still widely-known and talked about in 2014 tells you how non-arbitrary soccer really is. If soccer was indeed anything like arbitrary, everybody would have forgotten that game long ago.””””””””””””””””””””
Uh, that’s also called luck. How many WC’s has N.Korea won? Oh, none, that’s right. They got lucky. Like the US beating UK in ’50. It’s called luck, which in fact does confirm the “lottery” aspect of soccer’s biggest tournaments, and of course up to 40% of all total goals scored in Soccer are by pure accident. In fact, it proves just how arbitrary Soccer can be in the final outcomes.
And no, only the two nations remember that game, and most likely Italy’s probably forgotten it. They certainly didn’t remember beating the US for 70straight yrs until we recently beat them.
For an actual game that meant something, more people remember the Giants vs Dodgers playoff in ’51. “The Giants win the Pennant! The Giants win the Pennant!” THAT game meant something.
The luck factor in soccer is actually quite high. For such an amazing sport at times, the luck quotient is much much higher than in MLB, NFL, NBA, etc which tend to be more skill based.
Examples of under dog cinderella stories in the history of the World Cup are Bulgaria, Cameroon, South Korea, Ghana, Costa Rica, Turkey,Poland, Mexico, Denmark, Chile, Croatia, The United States Of America, and Colombia. Yet if you follow the sport of football (soccer) for most of your life you will notice that NONE of these teams have ever made it to the finals of the World Cup and took home the gold.Replies: @Andrew
Well, I wouldn’t say underdogs never win the World Cup. Uruguay was just a slight underdog to Brazil in the 1950 final.
Instead of a shootout after a half-hour of overtime, why not play another 10 minutes, but with no goalies?
When people talk about why soccer isn’t a huge spectator sport in America, they should recall the World Cup final at the Rose Bowl in 1994: 0-0 and then the whole tournament was decided on a stupid shoot-out that didn’t even come down to goalies making saves, but to the Italian star scorer missing the entire net from 12 yards away. That was soccer’s chance for a showcase in America and the sport laid an egg.
Instead of playing without goalies, my suggestion would be to suspend the offsides rule for extra time. Costa Rica played deliberately to catch the Dutch strikers offsides.
Yes, I remember that. I was around 10 years old and it was my first exposure to soccer. I don’t even remember who Italy played for that final. I do remember the final losing kick though, including the Italian player who lost it. I even remember his name -Roberto Baggio – and how he looked – he had a mullet I think. He sailed it way over the goal. At any rate, I was a die-hard baseball fan and Little Leaguer, and wouldn’t have given that up for soccer anyway, but it wasn’t the best impression at the time. It didn’t seem like anyone won. It just seemed like Baggio lost.
“Instead of a shootout after a half-hour of overtime, why not play another 10 minutes, but with no goalies?”
Because soccer, unlike football and other American sports, is a draining sport, you fool. So you want them to play yet another 10 minutes after 2 HOURS of running? Yes, because in soccer, unlike in American football, the running never stops.
A shootout straight to the goalie net is the quickest way to determine supremacy. My ability to kick the ball with accuracy vs your goalie’s ability to stop my skill. Very fair and straightforwar.
What if they play for those 10 minutes, no goalie at all, and no score is made? Will you make them play for yet another 10 minutes after that until they drop dead from hyperthermia or lactic acidosis? Kicking the ball straight to the goal is the quickest way to settle who is better.
When people talk about why soccer isn’t a huge spectator sport in America, they should recall the World Cup final at the Rose Bowl in 1994: 0-0 and then the whole tournament was decided on a stupid shoot-out that didn’t even come down to goalies making saves, but to the Italian star scorer missing the entire net from 12 yards away. That was soccer’s chance for a showcase in America and the sport laid an egg.”
Except that the final match between Brazil and Italy in 1994 was an EXTREMELY technical and beautiful game at the absolute highest level of play of the game. Both teams played defensive soccer with incredible skill and precision. you have to have been watching soccer for 10+ years to even understand what was going on in that game.
Typical American idiot.:”DUR…DUR..no scoring! That’s bad! How good a game is determined by the amount of scoring and not the action that is done attempting to score! DUR! DUR!”
Funny that in basketball, a sport where scoring happens all the time, people are completely unmoved every time the ball goes through the basket. I wonder why? Maybe because TOO MUCH SCORING AND NOT TO LITTLE IS WHAT ACTUALLY IS BORING?
Also, like the NCAA tournament, World Cup teams have already made it through a qualification process, so no really terrible teams make it in. 13 teams make it in from Europe due to Europe having many countries with impressive soccer traditions, while most other regions (Africa, Asia, South America, North/Central/Caribbean America) each make due with about 5.
Last year, in kind of a fluke situation, Tahiti, one of the truly poor soccer nations (a combination of low level profession players and skilled amateurs) made it into the Confederations Cup, which is kind of a dry run for the World Cup in that it involves the best teams from all the regions. Tahiti qualified because they won an Oceana tournament, which is even lower level than one might think because it did not include Australia. They played Nigeria, Spain and Uruguay and the respective score lines were 6-1, 10-0 and 8-0. Australia, the lowest ranked team in the World Cup, is about 100 places higher in the FIFA world rankings (the FIFA rankings are not considered by most to be an accurate measure of how good a team is, but it is useful for giving a general idea) than Tahiti.
I would gather many who see the World Cup as random, don’t even realize that the World Cup has a qualification process, much less that the process often involves multiple rounds, each time winnowing the amount of teams that can possibly qualify. Nations who have bad soccer teams, don’t even sniff the World Cup.
What about just making it sudden death for overtime? Would that not be enough?
ease, Steve. Don’t give them any ideas. I just want the thing to disappear. Once every four years is ENOUGH!
That’s not the point of a soccer game though. Otherwise there’d be no game in the first place. They’d start directly with the shootout. The whole point of the game is that it’s a team game, not one on one shootouts.
Most soccer spectators are Third World dolts though. I doubt they understand what’s going on.
Last year, in kind of a fluke situation, Tahiti, one of the truly poor soccer nations (a combination of low level profession players and skilled amateurs) made it into the Confederations Cup, which is kind of a dry run for the World Cup in that it involves the best teams from all the regions. Tahiti qualified because they won an Oceana tournament, which is even lower level than one might think because it did not include Australia. They played Nigeria, Spain and Uruguay and the respective score lines were 6-1, 10-0 and 8-0. Australia, the lowest ranked team in the World Cup, is about 100 places higher in the FIFA world rankings (the FIFA rankings are not considered by most to be an accurate measure of how good a team is, but it is useful for giving a general idea) than Tahiti.
I would gather many who see the World Cup as random, don't even realize that the World Cup has a qualification process, much less that the process often involves multiple rounds, each time winnowing the amount of teams that can possibly qualify. Nations who have bad soccer teams, don't even sniff the World Cup.Replies: @Steve Sailer
I’m surprised by the lack of Cinderella finalists down through history, at least since Uruguay beat Brazil in Brazil in 1950. And Uruguay back then was a well-to-do country with a big urban proletariat, so it wasn’t that surprising.
I’d compare the World Cup to NCAA in basketball. The era I can remember best is 1982-1985 when there were three all time great college programs — North Carolina with Michael Jordan, James Worthy, and Sam Perkins, Georgetown with four years of Patrick Ewing, and Houston with Olajuwon and Clyde Drexler. NC won one, and Georgetown won one by beating Houston, but Houston lost a final to NC State as a #6 seed, i.e., ranked between 21st and 24th best, and Georgetown lost two finals, one to NC, but the other to #11 seed Villanova (i.e., between 41st and 44th best).
"I’d compare the World Cup to NCAA in basketball."
Concerning Cinderellas, in April, Ken Massey of masseyratings.com -- known for his comparison of sports team rankings, as well as his own ratings -- tweeted:
My ratings show a greater disparity between #1 and #3 in women's college basketball than betweeen #1 and #120 in men's
https://twitter.com/masseyratings/status/453192400455081984
There’s lots of walking and standing around in soccer too. Also, there are stoppages in play, even though the clock keeps running.
Now that they are finally getting around to recording statistics on soccer games, they’ve noticed that in many games the ball is in play less than half of the 90 minutes of clock time, so the amount of action is about equal to somewhere between a college basketball game and an NBA game.
Yes, that’s interesting. That’s the impression you get from watching the games. There’s plenty of running for sure, but there’s also quite a bit of walking and standing while the clock runs.
Also players tend to stay in a portion of the field depending on their position rather than constantly covering the entire field
The right team won the game. The Netherlands had something like 15 shots on goal versus 3 for Costa Rica, and dominated possession something like 2/3rds of the time. To Costa Rica’s credit, though, they weren’t playing for a tie and had one or two good chances in extra time. Just before the end of extra time, the Dutch coach swapped out his goalie for a backup who was a shoot out specialist.
That back up, Krul, was a couple of inches taller, at 6’4″, and he had clearly studied up on Costa Rica’s shooters. He guessed the right direction all 5 times and saved 2 of them. And the Dutch shooters made all of their penalty kicks cleanly.
It’s also worth noting that the right team won the game when Costa Rica bear Greece on penalty kicks. Greece was playing with a man advantage for the last hour or so of that game plus extra time. If they couldn’t score given that opportunity, they didn’t deserve to win.
Finally, Olympic hockey uses a pretty similar setup as the World Cup. Who complains about it?
Steve,
Instead of playing without goalies, my suggestion would be to suspend the offsides rule for extra time. Costa Rica played deliberately to catch the Dutch strikers offsides.
The thing about Cinderella under dog teams is that they tend to not be consistent in their performance, they tend to be 1 hit wonders with a very short life span who fizzle out after their 15 minutes of fame are up. They perform well in 1 World Cup but than 4 years later they either do not make it out of the group stages or they do not even qualify at all for the World Cup. An example of this is Turkey who made it all the way to the semi-finals of the 2002 World Cup, but than 4 years later they do not even qualify for the 2006 World Cup at all, in fact if they have not qualified for any World Cup since 2002, let alone go beyond the group stages. Turkey has not been a relevant football team in over 12 years. They were 1 hit wonders.
During the 2018 World Cup in the host nation of Russia, I do not expect Colombia to perform anywhere near as well they did in this current World Cup. I predict the best case scenario for Colombia is they qualify for the World Cup but do not make it out of the group stages. Worst case scenario for Colombia is a repeat of the 2010 World Cup where they do not even qualify at all.
Soccer can be exciting, but often is not. In this cup so far the most exciting teams have lost: Mexico, Chile, Algeria. Sometimes you get two exciting teams against each other, and that is the best. I don’t see that happening this time. Germany looks to be the sure winner.
Penalty shootouts are a lottery
Oh, here we go again…
No, PKs are not a lottery! Not in any conventional meaning of the word. There are keepers that are very well known for being good at taking penalties. See: Gianluigi Buffon, Tim Howard. To succeed with a PK against great keeper, you’ve got to be a good taker and have great nerves. Plus, when you are tired, your body does not always do what your mind wants.
All these little details is what frequently sets one team from another. Today’s PKs from the Dutch were all executed perfectly – with a lot of power and precision. Not an easy thing to do. Germany was in PKs situation 4 times in World Cups – it won them all (their record is 1-1 in Euro Cup). For comparison, the mediocre England: 0-3 in WC and 1-3 in Euro.
Two other questions about the game:
1) Anyone know what Krul was saying to the Costa Rican penalty kickers when they placed the ball? He seemed to be trying to get in their heads.
2) Any translations available of those written statements the captains read before the game? That seemed a bit Orwellian.Replies: @reiner Tor
The most exciting play of the tournament so far was by the Dutch (Van Persie’s flying header off of Blind’s long pass), and the Dutch are still in it.
Oh, here we go again...
No, PKs are not a lottery! Not in any conventional meaning of the word. There are keepers that are very well known for being good at taking penalties. See: Gianluigi Buffon, Tim Howard. To succeed with a PK against great keeper, you've got to be a good taker and have great nerves. Plus, when you are tired, your body does not always do what your mind wants.
All these little details is what frequently sets one team from another. Today's PKs from the Dutch were all executed perfectly - with a lot of power and precision. Not an easy thing to do. Germany was in PKs situation 4 times in World Cups - it won them all (their record is 1-1 in Euro Cup). For comparison, the mediocre England: 0-3 in WC and 1-3 in Euro.Replies: @Dave Pinsen
One thing I was wondering about: the Costa Rican players waiting on their knees during the shoot out. That doesn’t seem like a good way to stay loose.
Two other questions about the game:
1) Anyone know what Krul was saying to the Costa Rican penalty kickers when they placed the ball? He seemed to be trying to get in their heads.
2) Any translations available of those written statements the captains read before the game? That seemed a bit Orwellian.
“Now that they are finally getting around to recording statistics on soccer games, they’ve noticed that in many games the ball is in play less than half of the 90 minutes of clock time, so the amount of action is about equal to somewhere between a college basketball game and an NBA game.”
I doubt this very much. I think that you are flat out lying. It would be a very odd game one where the ball is in play less than half the total play time. I have watched at least several hundred games, and no way does the amount of interruption add to less than half of the total playing time. In how “many” games? On average, soccer has less interruptions, substitutions and basketball, and MUCH less than than American football.
*I mean, no way does the amount of interruption add up to MORE than half of the total playing time. Sorry for that.
My solution. Maybe allow more substitutions in extra time. There are 11 men on the field and each team carries 23 people. Keep it to 3 subs during regular time, but allow unlimited subs after regular time, but before extra time begins. This would allow some interesting strategies such as keeping tired better players or replacing them all with less talented but fresh bench players.
@Greg
“Most soccer spectators are Third World dolts though. I doubt they understand what’s going.”
You mean like Italians, Germans, Brits and Spaniards? Because there are actually MORE people from those countries that watch football year-round than Brazilians and Mexicans. The soccer clubs from those countries make a LOT more money than those from Third World countries because far more people in Europe watch soccer on T.V than in Brazil or Mexico. Also, the people who watch football in America are usually working-class. They are usually not very educated. Professionals and those with PhDs usually regard football as barbaric. It is usually the dumb folk in America who watches football.
That's offensive! USA is the belly of the Solar system and American football is the best game in the world! All the players are absolute freaks, measuring 4 elbows, 0,8 feet, 1 inch and 1,5 pinkie on average. And they weigh about 1 bucket, 4 stones and 25 lbs! That explains, why it is such a popular game everywhere in the Milky Way, because 95% adult men can't compete in it. It is also extremely thrilling, because the players chase the ball for 5 seconds and subsequently the TV channel offers the replayed action from 950+ different angles for the next 5 minutes.
“far more people in Europe watch soccer on T.V than in Brazil”
In raw number yes because Europe is an entire continent and Brazil is just one country. But per capita/percentage wise just as many Brazilian watch football year round as do Europeans.
When I was in Brazil on vacation it was extremely common to see Brazilians (especially males) wearing football jerseys from various different Brazilian football clubs like Corinthians Paulista, Flamengo, Santos, Atletico Mineiro, etc.
Brazilians love for football is not limited to just once every 4 years.
Again and again.
Mandate one automatic penalty kick from 24′ away on every 15 minute interval in regulation time. This is to be based on shots on goal, the team that has had the most SOG during the 15min. interval gets the penalty kick. Of course, since so much of the game is based on luck, accidents, and of course 0-0ness of it all (nothing going on ‘cept bunch peeps running up and down, up and down a field for 90min and then some but no one knows when the game actually ends, etc), since entire intervals of no shots on goal occur (e.g. oftentimes there are NO shots on either goal for almost 60 mins per game, that is a huge chunk of time to watch keep away via running footies)….in the case that no one team has the most shots on goal,THEN it goes by visiting team gets the SOG, followed by the home team, that actually might be a better format.
Either way, by instituting a mandatory shot on goal for each 15min interval, basically the tedious boredom of nothing going on is pretty much relieved: At least then EVERY single 15min. interval there would be an actual “possibility” of a team scoring a goal.
2. Uh, you know. The clock thing. Every other major sport that uses a clock, the clock counts BACKWARDS. High time for Soccer to do the same. That way it gives a better illusion that the game will (theoretically at least) come to a conclusion.
3. Widen the nets.
“Soccer is the one game you can play where it’s totally okay to f*!!! up and no one notices.”—Rolling Stone, Esquire, essayist author Chuck Klosterman.
He has a strong point. For the most part, the best athletes don’t generally go into soccer anyway. Too much luck and accidents and not near enough skill, specially when compared to other major team sports.
“In raw number yes because Europe is an entire continent and Brazil is just one country. But per capita/percentage wise just as many Brazilian watch football year round as do Europeans”
This statement makes no sense: raw numbers by definition are the only thing that matters since “Greg” brought up total numbers and not percentages. What has Europe being a continent and Brazil a country got to do with anything? Again, he argued that MOST soccer fans are from the Third World, which is proven exclusively by total numbers of people who watch it and not by percentages relative to the total size of the population. FYI, Brazil is actually significanty larger than western Europe.
The Blind
debating colors….
” FYI, Brazil is actually significanty larger than western Europe.”
If you are talking about population and not land mass, than no it is not. Western Europe has about 400 million people.
I suspect the sort of person who complains that soccer is boring because there aren’t enough goals is the sort of person who measures the quality of sex by how quickly they can climax.
From
this and similar debates by readers replies on soccer subjects,
I have the impression that Americans do not understand / like
tragedy esp. the tragic hero.
Game wins have to be “deserved” , not random, and so on.
Europeans know since Achilleus and Siegfried, that heros
will fail by fate in the end.
Contrary to this America (at least the official Press/TV America)
makes heroes from flies and forgets them fast.
Superman is kind of an extreme example for that way of thinking.
Guess why such comic heros do not sell in Europe?
Regards
Georg
The penalty shootout is not random, usually better teams are better at it. The Dutch yesterday only used up two of their three substitutions, so that incredibly they could substitute their goalkeeper for the shootout. What is it if not skill to totally dominate the play for 120 minutes with one less substitutions?
I hated penalty shootouts (most soccer fans don’t like them much) but there’s a lot of drama in that.
I’m actually thinking soccer is more like real life than say basketball. You need a lot of luck, but over time (several games) good and bad luck cancel each other out. And sometimes everything hangs on just one very bad or very good move, and you have to have the nerves when your whole life depends on it. Also, there’s just one place at the very top, and often not the very best make it there. But you need to be reasonably good to get there. This makes soccer more interesting, at least for me.
During the 2018 World Cup in the host nation of Russia, I do not expect Colombia to perform anywhere near as well they did in this current World Cup. I predict the best case scenario for Colombia is they qualify for the World Cup but do not make it out of the group stages. Worst case scenario for Colombia is a repeat of the 2010 World Cup where they do not even qualify at all.Replies: @reiner Tor
Colombia is a great team. They were actually as good as Brazil (even though Brazil played way better than in any of the previous matches), and if it weren’t for the referee (who allowed the Brazilians faulting all the time) the Colombians might have won yesterday either. Since many of their players seemed to be young, I expect them to be around the next time.
"""""""""""""""""In 1966 North Korea beat Italy 1-0 in the 1/8th round of the World Cup. The fact that this is still widely-known and talked about in 2014 tells you how non-arbitrary soccer really is. If soccer was indeed anything like arbitrary, everybody would have forgotten that game long ago.""""""""""""""""""""
Uh, that's also called luck. How many WC's has N.Korea won? Oh, none, that's right. They got lucky. Like the US beating UK in '50. It's called luck, which in fact does confirm the "lottery" aspect of soccer's biggest tournaments, and of course up to 40% of all total goals scored in Soccer are by pure accident. In fact, it proves just how arbitrary Soccer can be in the final outcomes.
And no, only the two nations remember that game, and most likely Italy's probably forgotten it. They certainly didn't remember beating the US for 70straight yrs until we recently beat them.
For an actual game that meant something, more people remember the Giants vs Dodgers playoff in '51. "The Giants win the Pennant! The Giants win the Pennant!" THAT game meant something.
The luck factor in soccer is actually quite high. For such an amazing sport at times, the luck quotient is much much higher than in MLB, NFL, NBA, etc which tend to be more skill based.Replies: @reiner Tor
In Hungary many people still know that factoid about North Korea, just as I do. So you’re wrong that only those two countries remember, if at all.
NASL Shootout: http://youtu.be/uJEnwi7otu0?t=47s
Sort of like in hockey.
,
I suspect the sort of person who complains that soccer is boring because there aren’t enough goals is the sort of person who measures the quality of sex by how quickly they can climax.
You made my day with this comment. Classic!
Christ almighty….
When Americans talk about football they sound like women. You just don’t get it. That goes for you too Sailer.
P.S. Krul was brought on to psych out the Costa Ricans. Alas, it worked.
@ Steve
“I’d compare the World Cup to NCAA in basketball.”
Concerning Cinderellas, in April, Ken Massey of masseyratings.com — known for his comparison of sports team rankings, as well as his own ratings — tweeted:
My ratings show a greater disparity between #1 and #3 in women’s college basketball than betweeen #1 and #120 in men’s
The blind debating color, indeed. These iSteve World Cup threads every four years are painful to read. So many contributors demonstrate their ignorance of soccer but if you try to point it out to them, they get offended. But they never feel any obligation to be polite towards soccer fans, and are insulting and condescending from the getgo, “because soccer is gay, communist, third world, boring, random, etc”. It’s like talking to children.
“What about just making it sudden death for overtime? Would that not be enough?”
Well, if you paid attention to soccer more than once every four years, you would know that FIFA had the golden goal rule, ie sudden death, back in the 1990s. By the early 2000s however the golden goal rule was removed, because it had the opposite of the intended effect – teams were afraid to concede a goal which would end the game, and preferred to play even more defensively and take their chances with the penalty kicks. In other words, sudden death made penalty kicks more likely.
Sudden death or the golden goal might work in a system without penalty kicks. The only solution that might work would be to remove a player from each team for each period of overtime. So say have a ten minute overtime with 10 v 10; if no score, another ten minute period with 9 v 9, and so on, with the first goal scored in overtime ending the game. The steady removal of players would guarantee someone would score before too long, and the tie breaker would seem more natural and less arbitrary than penalty kicks. This is just theory though: to my knowledge no one has ever tried this to see if it would work as described.
Two other questions about the game:
1) Anyone know what Krul was saying to the Costa Rican penalty kickers when they placed the ball? He seemed to be trying to get in their heads.
2) Any translations available of those written statements the captains read before the game? That seemed a bit Orwellian.Replies: @reiner Tor
He told them he knew where they would be shooting. He said he wasn’t sure they understood it, but he thought it must have gotten on their nerves that this guy was so arrogant after not doing anything for the previous 120 minutes.
“And no, only the two nations remember that game, and most likely Italy’s probably forgotten it.”
This is a perfect example of arrogant statements of certainty from people who don’t actually know what they are talking about.
I am an American who as a kid in the 1970s was a soccer fan, and I most certainly learned about the famous North Korean World Cup upset. It’s still talked about today, all over the world, and not just in North Korea and Italy. It is part of the general World Cup knowledge that all fans of the game know about, regardless of nationality.
Why would anyone who knows soccer take seriously the opinions about soccer from people who so clearly demonstrate that they know almost nothing about soccer at all? Rhetorical question.
What many people don’t understand is that teams can change their relative strengths over time. My native Hungary used to be one of the greatest teams ever (the Golden Team in the 1950s, “The Magical Magyars”), but since then we’ve decayed to be a less-than-mediocre team, not even qualifying for the WC since 1986.* Uruguay used to be great, too, but then it fell into obscurity, only to make a comeback in the last five years or so. Portugal didn’t use to be really great, but in recent decades they became one of the major powers, they almost defeated the Spanish in the 2012 penalty shootout. (Had they done so, I’m sure they’d have defeated Italy, too, and would have become the European Champions.)
So Colombia might be on its way of becoming a major power.
*Other sports fare better. We are still doing fine in the Olympics. Just check the statistics at Wikipedia.
Steve’s football posts of 4 years ago made me rethink a few assumptions this year. Lucky outsiders are getting more rare in world cups, not the other way around.
Soccer looks pretty arbitrary due to the low scoring, dubious refereeing decisions, shootouts, flopping, famous teams collapsing during the 3-game mini-season, etc., but World Cup results always seem to wind up remarkably stable.
Indeed. Even the teams that actually make it to the World Cup have been remarkably stable over the years. There are 222 national soccer associations who compete for the final 32 World Cup spots, so even with a more than 85% attrition rate it’s the same 20-25 teams who qualify almost every time, plus a handful of others.
There have only been 8 nations that have won the World Cup and only 13 that have made the finals. This year is the 20th World Cup and all of the semi-finalists have previously made the finals so the total number of finalists won’t change, and the number of winners will go up to 9 only if the Netherlands win.
At least one of the Big Four soccer powers (Brazil, Italy, Germany and Argentina) have made every final except for 2010 and at least one of them is guaranteed to make this year’s final. The Big Four have won 14 of the 19 World Cups and six finals have been all-Big Four affairs. Think about that for a second: four teams have won 14 times while the world’s remaining 218 teams have a paltry 5 wins between them! That’s stability in a nutshell.
One might expect this extreme concentration of power in another, regionally-based team sport like football, baseball, basketball, hockey, cricket or rugby. But soccer truly is the universal game, widely played in every country and territory on Earth, making the Big Four’s perpetual domination all the more remarkable. And judging by this year’s World Cup, that domination is not going to change any time soon, if ever.
Trying to make football more interesting by using electroshock collars meant for dogs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuKva8GUwBk
Soccer’s biggest problem in America has always been its fans. Fans of other sports are fully aware of the defects of those sports. They are open to all sorts of improvements. Baseball, football and basketball are always tinkering with the rules. Football is fundamentally different today from fifty years ago. Basketball is a different sport today than 50 years ago.
Soccer fans refuse to acknowledge the defects of their game. Instead, they lecture the rest of us about how much we don’t understand the sport. That’s in between the lectures on how wildly popular it is and how it is growing in America. For a sport allegedly so popular, they sure spend a lot of time trying to prove it.
Let’s see if I win my bet on how long it takes for this to approved.
For the blind/color commenters, I again quote the great Dan Jenkins: if this game were as complex as you make it out to be, those low-rent mofos out there couldn't play it!
There’s an easy way to find out how much luck matters in different sports, tournaments, shoot-outs, etc. :
Gambling odds.
"Now that they are finally getting around to recording statistics on soccer games, they’ve noticed that in many games the ball is in play less than half of the 90 minutes of clock time, so the amount of action is about equal to somewhere between a college basketball game and an NBA game."
I doubt this very much. I think that you are flat out lying. It would be a very odd game one where the ball is in play less than half the total play time. I have watched at least several hundred games, and no way does the amount of interruption add to less than half of the total playing time. In how "many" games? On average, soccer has less interruptions, substitutions and basketball, and MUCH less than than American football.Replies: @EriK
If you really think that Sailer would flat out lie about something as trivial as soccer, why bother reading the blog?
“Soccer looks pretty arbitrary …”
Only to people who don’t follow it regularly.
“Most soccer spectators are Third World dolts though. I doubt they understand what’s going.”
Of course, it can be argued that most American football, basketball, and baseball ‘athletes’ are third world dolts.
It could also be pointed out that most American sports spectators are white beta-male fanboys with a fetish for big dumb African men, which is also connected (one could argue) to the popularity of interracial cuckoldry fetish.
I think, Steve, that you have a point that much of the American animus against football (soccer) derives from the fact that is that it is not dominated by blacks. It explains a lot of what is going on.
There’s something fundamentally wrong with a sport that doesn’t allow 90% of the players use of their upper body. And if they use their upper body, they call a penalty.
Talk about a sport made for women!!
Steve, your first impression was right. It’s all random. The lack of any true possession time for a team, even if only fleeting like in basketball, gives this dull, stupid sport it’s ho-hum feeling.
US football is growing like crazy in Mexico. So is NASCAR. Can country music be far behind?
We went to the quarter or semi final of the 1994 WC held at Stanford. By the middle of the 2nd half the players were so tired the game ground to halt. There was no scoring and the game was won on a shoot out. REALLY boring. I’ve been to plenty of post season baseball games. Far more energy excitement and action.
Unlimited substitutions and no offsides penalty. Sudden death OT for all single elimination games. It will never happen. Funny how these countries run wild social experiments on their people and then won’t fix the flaws in the “beautiful game.”
It is usually the dumb folk in America who watches football.
Obama?
“it proves just how arbitrary Soccer can be in the final outcomes… The luck factor in soccer is actually quite high.”
If that were really the case then the results should be a lot more unpredictable than they actually are. The fact that the best teams consistently make it to the semi-finals demonstrate that luck plays a marginal role.
Talk about a sport made for women!!
Steve, your first impression was right. It's all random. The lack of any true possession time for a team, even if only fleeting like in basketball, gives this dull, stupid sport it's ho-hum feeling.
US football is growing like crazy in Mexico. So is NASCAR. Can country music be far behind?Replies: @Steve Sailer
“US football is growing like crazy in Mexico. So is NASCAR. Can country music be far behind?”
Mexican kids love to dance to a genre of music that I don’t know the name of but in English would be something like hootenanny or hoedown.
Reading the isteve commenters talk about soccer gives me a sense of what liberals must feel like reading the comments about race.
So Colombia might be on its way of becoming a major power.
*Other sports fare better. We are still doing fine in the Olympics. Just check the statistics at Wikipedia.Replies: @Steve Sailer
Pele picked Colombia to win at all in 1994, but then they scored an own goal and lost to the U.S. A cocaine baron put a price on the head of the Colombian player who scored the own goal and he was murdered within weeks.
"What about just making it sudden death for overtime? Would that not be enough?"
Well, if you paid attention to soccer more than once every four years, you would know that FIFA had the golden goal rule, ie sudden death, back in the 1990s. By the early 2000s however the golden goal rule was removed, because it had the opposite of the intended effect - teams were afraid to concede a goal which would end the game, and preferred to play even more defensively and take their chances with the penalty kicks. In other words, sudden death made penalty kicks more likely.
Sudden death or the golden goal might work in a system without penalty kicks. The only solution that might work would be to remove a player from each team for each period of overtime. So say have a ten minute overtime with 10 v 10; if no score, another ten minute period with 9 v 9, and so on, with the first goal scored in overtime ending the game. The steady removal of players would guarantee someone would score before too long, and the tie breaker would seem more natural and less arbitrary than penalty kicks. This is just theory though: to my knowledge no one has ever tried this to see if it would work as described.Replies: @Steve Sailer
In World Cup games, after 120 minutes, remove the goalie for 15 more minutes of play. If that doesn’t lead to a score, then penalty kicks. That’s a better balance between different aspects of the game. And move the distance for penalty kicks back some. Remember Beckham’s last hurrah in the 2006 World Cup when he bent in a free kick from 37 yards — it was like Bubba Watson’s hooked wedge shot in the Masters, a memorable accomplishment.
The current penalty distance was worked out eons ago with a heavy, unresponsive ball, but now it’s too easy to score from that distance, so it’s not a proud accomplishment for the penalty kicker to score, it’s shameful for the kicker not to score, like Biaggio in the 1994 World Cup final. It’s kind of like the extra point in the NFL, as if ties were played off by kicking PATs until somebody screws up and misses. The best things in sports are around 50-50, so move the penalty kick distance back some until both the kicker and goalie have about equal chances.
Similarly, I think the NFL should narrow the goal posts so that a last minute field goal to tie or win the game would be real accomplishment to make rather than an almost sure thing that is only remembered if the kicker screws up.
Pepito de los Cuentos: players can use their upper body (chest and head) just not their hands.
Soccer gets a lot more exciting when you want a team (in the current case a country) to win or lose.
Look if we’re going to improve sports lets get rid of the after point kick in Football. Other than giving TV a chance for another commercial what’s the point? Just put the ball on the 3 yard line and give them a chance to score 2 points.
Someone up thread spoke the truth. There’s something incredibly annoying about Soccer fans. They’re always buttonholing you, shouting, “Why don’t you love the beautiful game?! What’s wrong with YOU?!” If you demure, the next stage is call you a racist/xenophobe/redneck who won’t get in step with Globalization and ONE WORLD. “Don’t you know Soccer is the No. 1 sport in Sudan and Paraguay?” “Whats wrong with America?”
And Heaven Forbid, you should suggest something, anything, however minor might, conceivably, make the sport more interesting. IMPOSSIBLE says the futbol lover, the game is the greatest of all possible sports and every rule is the best of all possible rules. Its absolutely, postiively perfect. And anyone who differs “Just doesn’t understand Futbol”.
There is a lot of truth in it. Soccer is namely the most democratic sport on the planet, where everybody can compete. That's why it is so popular. But you can't stand the fact that when you leave New York's airport, you will hardly find anybody, who knows your cosmic stars from NFL or MLB. Well, that was your choice. Enjoy your beloved sports, where only 5% freaks can participate.Replies: @Dave Pinsen
In her second screed, Ann Coulter whines about “heat rests”, ignoring all the time players in the top four U.S. sports spend on the bench and other factors (like basketball courts being smaller and usually inside, etc.) She also says you can never tell how much time is left, which isn’t exactly true: they announce how much time they’re adding (to compensate for time spent not playing) when the added time is to begin.
I’d be interested in hearing others’ thoughts on this part from her second screed: “I was in Paris the night Algeria played Russia, prompting hordes of drunken Algerians to riot on the Champs Elysees, hanging out of cars, yelling and honking all night.”
I'd be interested in hearing others' thoughts on this part from her second screed: "I was in Paris the night Algeria played Russia, prompting hordes of drunken Algerians to riot on the Champs Elysees, hanging out of cars, yelling and honking all night."Replies: @Steve Sailer
“I was in Paris the night Algeria played Russia, prompting hordes of drunken Algerians to riot on the Champs Elysees, hanging out of cars, yelling and honking all night.”
Sounds exactly like how a lady I know who lives a block from the Rose Bowl in Pasadena describes the four hours after Mexico beats USA in a soccer game: thousands of drunken Mexicans driving around and around her house honking their horns.
There is a reason why US soccer authorities try to hold as many US-Mexico World Cup qualifiers as they can in Columbus, Ohio.
@
Yes. And that is why Costa Rica’s winning odds were something like 1/7 – possible but not likely. For the outright winner right now, Holland is at 4/1 while the three others are tied at 11/4. I think Brazil is overvalued.
Reading the isteve commenters talk about soccer gives me a sense of what liberals must feel like reading the comments about race.
I don’t understand this comment? Do liberals enjoy pointed debate about the topic of race? I’ve read a lot of good comments here that are probably more meaningful to me because I’ve spent an inordinate amount of time on a new couch watching as much soccer as anything else over the last few weekends. And as a generally jingoistic, reactionary paleo-conservative (ie “racist/xenophobe/redneck”), American basketball and (more recently) baseball fan, I tend to agree with the pro soccer comments here, particularly Nate Diaz’s about the reasonableness of the penalty kicks to end the game. But maybe after two hours I’m thinking, jeez, just get it over with already. And of the three I’ve seen, both Brazil and Netherlands were overwhelmingly deserving of their wins, and the third Costa Rica, certainly didn’t deserve to lose to Greece.
And I’m perfectly happy watching the players pass the ball around with some skill, make some runs, and get very close to scoring without actually doing much of it. It’s about as mindless as most other things.
On the other hand, that’s about all the time I have for reading, thinking, and writing about the specific subject.
The comment about Mexicans getting into NASCAR above reminds me of when the Carolina Hurricanes started up and the good old boys in NC just fell in love with the sport. It was surreal to hear them sitting around the water cooler at work talking about hockey. Just wasn’t something I thought would happen in the South.
In World Cup games, after 120 minutes, remove the goalie for 15 more minutes of play. If that doesn’t lead to a score, then penalty kicks. That’s a better balance between different aspects of the game.
In a truly conservative vein, I think you would agree that this is something you would definitely have to test out on a small scale before just installing it at the World Cup. I have just the roughest idea of what this would be like in practice.
And move the distance for penalty kicks back some.
I was curious about the stats, and this page seems to have some good ones: Premier League Penalty Stats. The total league percentage (upper-right) of saves went up pretty drastically in the last decade to hover between 10 and 20%
Steve:
they’ve noticed that in many games the ball is in play less than half of the 90 minutes of clock time, so the amount of action is about equal to somewhere between a college basketball game and an NBA game.
Like Nick, I couldn’t quite believe it, so I went googling: http://www.nationalsarmrace.com/?p=475
“Per the Soccerbythenumbers.com website 2011 study, between 62 and 65 minutes of ball-in-play action is seen on average in the major European pro leagues per game”
So with the mean of about 2/3 of total (90 min + stoppage time), it’s a stretch to claim that “many” games have less than 1/2 of action. And no basketball game ever sees this much playing time. The 60+ minutes in soccer can be contrasted with 10-15 minutes in football.
they’ve noticed that in many games the ball is in play less than half of the 90 minutes of clock time, so the amount of action is about equal to somewhere between a college basketball game and an NBA game.
Like Nick, I couldn't quite believe it, so I went googling: http://www.nationalsarmrace.com/?p=475
"Per the Soccerbythenumbers.com website 2011 study, between 62 and 65 minutes of ball-in-play action is seen on average in the major European pro leagues per game"
So with the mean of about 2/3 of total (90 min + stoppage time), it's a stretch to claim that "many" games have less than 1/2 of action. And no basketball game ever sees this much playing time. The 60+ minutes in soccer can be contrasted with 10-15 minutes in football.Replies: @Steve Sailer
“In the average 2014 World Cup match through Monday, the ball was out of play for 42 minutes and 11 seconds, according to data provided by Prozone, one of several companies that log every play in every match.”
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/was-the-u-s-robbed-against-portugal-it-depends-on-what-time-means/
"During the World Cup’s first 36 matches, the ball was out of play an average of 38 percent of the time during the first 15 minutes, and 47 percent of the time during the 15 minutes in the middle of the second half. Other 15-minute segments also featured more than 40 percent dead time."
There is an obvious inconsistency between two sets of numbers - one claims >50%, another 38-47%. Further, the same article links to another: "Currently, according to Fifa, the ball is in play for anywhere between 48 and 61 minutes per game". That's the range. The mean is probably closer to 61 than 48.
Sorry, Steve. There is no way below 50% number is right. Numerous other numbers contradict it.Replies: @Steve Sailer
In a truly conservative vein, I think you would agree that this is something you would definitely have to test out on a small scale before just installing it at the World Cup. I have just the roughest idea of what this would be like in practice.
And move the distance for penalty kicks back some.
I was curious about the stats, and this page seems to have some good ones: Premier League Penalty Stats. The total league percentage (upper-right) of saves went up pretty drastically in the last decade to hover between 10 and 20%Replies: @Steve Sailer
“In a truly conservative vein, I think you would agree that this is something you would definitely have to test out on a small scale before just installing it at the World Cup.”
It’s my vague impression that soccer is played even when the World Cup isn’t happening, so, yes, it could be tested quite easily.
It’s my vague impression that soccer is played even when the World Cup isn’t happening
So they claim.
Sailer: “In the World Cup …<insert radical untested change here>” Similarly well thought-out things end up with names like “ObamaCare”
Penalty shootouts are a lottery.
As someone who made every penalty kick he ever took in practice or a game, I can assure you that is false.
And then, in the same article, he cites:
“During the World Cup’s first 36 matches, the ball was out of play an average of 38 percent of the time during the first 15 minutes, and 47 percent of the time during the 15 minutes in the middle of the second half. Other 15-minute segments also featured more than 40 percent dead time.”
There is an obvious inconsistency between two sets of numbers – one claims >50%, another 38-47%. Further, the same article links to another: “Currently, according to Fifa, the ball is in play for anywhere between 48 and 61 minutes per game”. That’s the range. The mean is probably closer to 61 than 48.
Sorry, Steve. There is no way below 50% number is right. Numerous other numbers contradict it.
"During the World Cup’s first 36 matches, the ball was out of play an average of 38 percent of the time during the first 15 minutes, and 47 percent of the time during the 15 minutes in the middle of the second half. Other 15-minute segments also featured more than 40 percent dead time."
There is an obvious inconsistency between two sets of numbers - one claims >50%, another 38-47%. Further, the same article links to another: "Currently, according to Fifa, the ball is in play for anywhere between 48 and 61 minutes per game". That's the range. The mean is probably closer to 61 than 48.
Sorry, Steve. There is no way below 50% number is right. Numerous other numbers contradict it.Replies: @Steve Sailer
An average of 42 minutes and 11 seconds of the ball being out of play during the early rounds of the World Cup is < 50% of 90 minutes, especially because many games are more than 90 minutes of clock time, between stoppage time and overtime (or whatever they call it).
The World Cup may have more arguing, writhing around on the ground, and general time wasting than regular season games, kind of like how Yankees-Red Sox games take forever, or the last minute of a close NBA game can trundle on for 15 minutes. Perhaps during regular season games the players want to put on a good show for fans and want a chance to score goals themselves, so they don't dither around as much when they have the lead as they do in the World Cup? In timed American sports, big games get played at a less brisk pace, too, but the difference is that time-wasting with the ball out of play doesn't make it harder for the losing team to come back.
Now we can see that all available numbers from numerous sources make it clear that this is incorrect - the amount of action in soccer is >50% of total time and that definitely means longer than any basketball game ((at least 93)-42>=51> (48 or 40)). Good that we can finally agree.Replies: @Steve Sailer
"Most soccer spectators are Third World dolts though. I doubt they understand what’s going."
You mean like Italians, Germans, Brits and Spaniards? Because there are actually MORE people from those countries that watch football year-round than Brazilians and Mexicans. The soccer clubs from those countries make a LOT more money than those from Third World countries because far more people in Europe watch soccer on T.V than in Brazil or Mexico. Also, the people who watch football in America are usually working-class. They are usually not very educated. Professionals and those with PhDs usually regard football as barbaric. It is usually the dumb folk in America who watches football.Replies: @G. I. Joe
“Also, the people who watch football in America are usually working-class. They are usually not very educated. Professionals and those with PhDs usually regard football as barbaric. It is usually the dumb folk in America who watches football.”
That’s offensive! USA is the belly of the Solar system and American football is the best game in the world! All the players are absolute freaks, measuring 4 elbows, 0,8 feet, 1 inch and 1,5 pinkie on average. And they weigh about 1 bucket, 4 stones and 25 lbs! That explains, why it is such a popular game everywhere in the Milky Way, because 95% adult men can’t compete in it. It is also extremely thrilling, because the players chase the ball for 5 seconds and subsequently the TV channel offers the replayed action from 950+ different angles for the next 5 minutes.
Bradley moved the most at 8.5 miles a game in 97.5 minutes per game. Most players moved 7 miles a game. For a comparison rugby averages 4-5 miles a game. In tournaments there are sometimes three games a day.
My solution. Maybe allow more substitutions in extra time. There are 11 men on the field and each team carries 23 people. Keep it to 3 subs during regular time, but allow unlimited subs after regular time, but before extra time begins. This would allow some interesting strategies such as keeping tired better players or replacing them all with less talented but fresh bench players.
Someone up thread spoke the truth. There's something incredibly annoying about Soccer fans. They're always buttonholing you, shouting, "Why don't you love the beautiful game?! What's wrong with YOU?!" If you demure, the next stage is call you a racist/xenophobe/redneck who won't get in step with Globalization and ONE WORLD. "Don't you know Soccer is the No. 1 sport in Sudan and Paraguay?" "Whats wrong with America?"
And Heaven Forbid, you should suggest something, anything, however minor might, conceivably, make the sport more interesting. IMPOSSIBLE says the futbol lover, the game is the greatest of all possible sports and every rule is the best of all possible rules. Its absolutely, postiively perfect. And anyone who differs "Just doesn't understand Futbol".Replies: @G. I. Joe
“IMPOSSIBLE says the futbol lover, the game is the greatest of all possible sports and every rule is the best of all possible rules.”
There is a lot of truth in it. Soccer is namely the most democratic sport on the planet, where everybody can compete. That’s why it is so popular. But you can’t stand the fact that when you leave New York’s airport, you will hardly find anybody, who knows your cosmic stars from NFL or MLB. Well, that was your choice. Enjoy your beloved sports, where only 5% freaks can participate.
What's true is, as I've mentioned before, a lot more countries can produce competitive soccer players than, say, basketball players. Japan may not have a great national soccer team, for example, but it has a couple of players on top European teams. I don't think it has any in the NBA.
“Colombia is a great team. They were actually as good as Brazil (even though Brazil played way better than in any of the previous matches), and if it weren’t for the referee (who allowed the Brazilians faulting all the time) the Colombians might have won yesterday either. Since many of their players seemed to be young, I expect them to be around the next time.”
If I were a betting man, I would gamble on Colombia not putting on a repeat performance in the Russia World Cup as they did in the Brasil World Cup.
I don’t see Colombia reaching the quarter finals or beyond in the next WC in 2018. The only football teams were you see consistency at World Cups is among football dynasties like Brasil, Netherlands, and Germany.
There is a 95%-100% chance that in the 2018 World Cup, you will see teams like Germany, Netherlands, and Brasil advance pass the group stages.
In theory, the ref can add stoppage time to account for time-wasting, but in practice there seems to be an upper limit on the amount of stoppage time added (~6 minutes?). Refs can penalize for time wasting though. One goalie got a yellow card for it last week.
“you have to have been watching soccer for 10+ years to even understand what was going on in that game.”
You say this like it is a good thing. This ensures that young fans and fans in countries new to soccer will find it boring. And find fans like you insufferably arrogant. Good luck with that.
I think the basic comparisons are off. World Cup soccer (and its relative arbitrariness) should not be compared to college basketball, or professional US sports, since they have salary caps, lotteries, and high turn over, factors which by design or by outcome tend to level the playing field, thus yielding increased arbitrariness. All the Moneyball in the world won’t help Bahrain become a world soccer power, unlike the Oakland A’s or KC Royals. And you only need a couple of good guys to transform a college basketball team (and they improve so fast at that age). I went to Stanford and the Collins twins and the Lopez twins changed the team when they were on it. In contrast, national teams are developing their players for literally decades before they contribute to a World Cup (Ronaldo played professionally at 8 years old).
A better comparison is a team sport, held every 4 years, such as women’s gymnastics at the Olympics. This sport may seem arbitrary since a single poor performance on an inherently difficult apparatus can kill one’s chances. But we see the same countries on the podium, year after year.
And, how can you measure arbitrariness without controlling for differences in levels of quality? Golf seems highly arbitrary but Tiger dominated in his prime so in that era it may have seemed less arbitrary. Boxing or Horse Racing seem far less arbitrary, but if you have a number of evenly matched opponents, the results seem highly arbitrary. Countries tend to be far less evenly matched than horses or individuals and change far less frequently relative to one another. Germany in 20 years will still be richer and more populous and spend far more on development of their national team than Costa Rica. In contrast, the winner of the 2018 Kentucky Derby hasn’t been born yet, so we cannot judge consistency or relative quality.
I think we already went over this. Steve tried to suggest this, but it turns out to be incorrect. The whitest fan base for the major American sports is for MLB, which is dominated by whites and has few blacks and has had declining black participation. The blackest sport, the NBA, is less popular than MLB and the NFL. The biggest stars in the NFL tend to be white quarterbacks.
The fact that you have to resort to this incorrect argument explains a lot of what is going on: You’re insecure about the fact that soccer is so Third World, that almost every European national team has blacks and Latins on them, that the major Euro club teams have black stars on them, etc.
No one said soccer is random. Eventually, the better teams do win out.
But the difference between the good team and bad team is like the difference of millimeters, and the difference between the good team and the great team is like the difference of centimeters.
I don't think this is correct. Like everywhere else, the rise in quality follows ~ logarithmic function, not exponential. E.g., Australia can beat Samoa 32-0 but Germany cannot beat Australia 10-0.
Ah, sorry – I misread that 42 min number because you cited it to support your claim that “ball is in play less than half of the 90 minutes of clock time, so the amount of action is about equal to somewhere between a college basketball game and an NBA game.”
Now we can see that all available numbers from numerous sources make it clear that this is incorrect – the amount of action in soccer is >50% of total time and that definitely means longer than any basketball game ((at least 93)-42>=51> (48 or 40)). Good that we can finally agree.
You say this like it is a good thing. This ensures that young fans and fans in countries new to soccer will find it boring. And find fans like you insufferably arrogant. Good luck with that.
I think the basic comparisons are off. World Cup soccer (and its relative arbitrariness) should not be compared to college basketball, or professional US sports, since they have salary caps, lotteries, and high turn over, factors which by design or by outcome tend to level the playing field, thus yielding increased arbitrariness. All the Moneyball in the world won't help Bahrain become a world soccer power, unlike the Oakland A's or KC Royals. And you only need a couple of good guys to transform a college basketball team (and they improve so fast at that age). I went to Stanford and the Collins twins and the Lopez twins changed the team when they were on it. In contrast, national teams are developing their players for literally decades before they contribute to a World Cup (Ronaldo played professionally at 8 years old).
A better comparison is a team sport, held every 4 years, such as women's gymnastics at the Olympics. This sport may seem arbitrary since a single poor performance on an inherently difficult apparatus can kill one's chances. But we see the same countries on the podium, year after year.
And, how can you measure arbitrariness without controlling for differences in levels of quality? Golf seems highly arbitrary but Tiger dominated in his prime so in that era it may have seemed less arbitrary. Boxing or Horse Racing seem far less arbitrary, but if you have a number of evenly matched opponents, the results seem highly arbitrary. Countries tend to be far less evenly matched than horses or individuals and change far less frequently relative to one another. Germany in 20 years will still be richer and more populous and spend far more on development of their national team than Costa Rica. In contrast, the winner of the 2018 Kentucky Derby hasn't been born yet, so we cannot judge consistency or relative quality.Replies: @Steve Sailer
Yes, women’s gymnastics, figure skating, and perhaps especially ice dancing are sports with deep cultural roots. If you want to know why the Russians won a bunch of medals in these ballet-like sports in the 21st Century, you shouldn’t forget to mention Tchaikovsky in the 19th Century.
Now we can see that all available numbers from numerous sources make it clear that this is incorrect - the amount of action in soccer is >50% of total time and that definitely means longer than any basketball game ((at least 93)-42>=51> (48 or 40)). Good that we can finally agree.Replies: @Steve Sailer
On average. There are likely some World Cup games where it’s out of play more than half the time.
An average of 42 minutes and 11 seconds of the ball being out of play during the early rounds of the World Cup is < 50% of 90 minutes
Source?
And using the definition of “out of play” which I suspect is being used here, the typical NFL game probably has about 20 minutes of actual “play”.
If I were a betting man, I would gamble on Colombia not putting on a repeat performance in the Russia World Cup as they did in the Brasil World Cup.
I don't see Colombia reaching the quarter finals or beyond in the next WC in 2018. The only football teams were you see consistency at World Cups is among football dynasties like Brasil, Netherlands, and Germany.
There is a 95%-100% chance that in the 2018 World Cup, you will see teams like Germany, Netherlands, and Brasil advance pass the group stages.Replies: @Steve Sailer
“There is a 95%-100% chance that in the 2018 World Cup, you will see teams like Germany, Netherlands, and Brasil advance pass the group stages.”
There’s a fair amount of randomness at the group stage — e.g., Italy crashed and burned this year.
Soccer = Third World Kickball.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/was-the-u-s-robbed-against-portugal-it-depends-on-what-time-means/
This is one of those cases, so frequent on the internet, where a link, if examined, simply does not support the claim being placed upon it. Clicking through you see this.
All logged events scrolled down a screen at his station, and when an important one came up, he conferred with the analyst who entered it.
This is when soccer’s rare stoppages of play are so valuable for analysts. A lengthy goal celebration allows loggers to rewind and rewatch goals and other major events, often while Pettitt looks on.
“rare stoppages of play” does not jibe with the claim that 50% of a typical match is made up of the ball being “out of play”. You’ll search in vain for any justification for that 50% claim on Prozone. From what I can see, some soccer ignoramus at fivethirtyeight misinterpreted the data.
If you don’t think Soccer fans are insufferable, imagining Futbol is the “most perfect sport, ever, ever” – just look at the responses to Steve’s factual comments regarding the time played vs. time on the clock!
One thing I do like about Soccer is the understatement. Knee a guy in the back and fracture his vertebrae? Oh that’s not a “flagrant foul”! No, in futbol-ese that’s a “difficult challenge”.
LoL.
There is a lot of truth in it. Soccer is namely the most democratic sport on the planet, where everybody can compete. That's why it is so popular. But you can't stand the fact that when you leave New York's airport, you will hardly find anybody, who knows your cosmic stars from NFL or MLB. Well, that was your choice. Enjoy your beloved sports, where only 5% freaks can participate.Replies: @Dave Pinsen
This isn’t quite true. People seem to be extrapolating too far from some close World Cup games. Every team in the World Cup represents the best players in that particular country, and only the best 32 national teams get to even compete in the tournament. A game between a top pro team or national team and a weaker team can be a blow out.
What’s true is, as I’ve mentioned before, a lot more countries can produce competitive soccer players than, say, basketball players. Japan may not have a great national soccer team, for example, but it has a couple of players on top European teams. I don’t think it has any in the NBA.
We went to the quarter or semi final of the 1994 WC held at Stanford. By the middle of the 2nd half the players were so tired the game ground to halt. There was no scoring and the game was won on a shoot out. REALLY boring. I’ve been to plenty of post season baseball games. Far more energy excitement and action
I saw Germany vs. S. Korea at the Cotton Bowl in ’94, typical Dallas weather. The papers said it was 120 degrees on the field. Germany — with the older lineup — was exhausted and almost blew a three-goal halftime lead. But it was a great game, and the Germans held on to win 3-2. After the game the State Bar was packed with German fans, including quite a few Bavarians who spoke no English. They were of course happy that Germany had won but seemed more excited at their discovery of Shiner Bock, vom Faß.
I’m sorry your game experience was less interesting.
Some of what looks like randomness really isn’t. E.g., Spain flaming out in the World Cup doesn’t looks so random if you watched them get clobbered by Brazil in a qualifier last summer. Spain didn’t do poorly this year because of randomness, but because they’re simply not as good as they were 4 years ago. Whether that’s because their core players have gotten older or the rest of the world has figured out how to defeat their style of play, I don’t know.
Sweden is another example of a cinderella under dog team that was only strong as a football team for a very short period of time.
Sweden went from going all to the World Cup finals against Brasil, to now struggling just to qualify for the World Cup. Only a very small handful of football teams in the world show consistency. The very few teams who show consistency are the ones who dominate the World Cup.
“You’re insecure about the fact that soccer is so Third World, that almost every European national team has blacks and Latins on them, that the major Euro club teams have black stars on them, etc.”
Nice try. Just take a look at an American football [60%+ Third World], basketball [75%+ Third World], or baseball [35%+ Third World] game and the overwhelming Third Worldness of those sports hits you in the face. It’s undeniable. Millions of white beta-male fanboys spend an inordinate amount of time on the couch drinking beer, eating Doritos, and watching black men. It’s odd.
I think a lot of American Anti-Soccerites are just sore that games like American football, basketball, and baseball never caught on with the rest of the world. Bitter much?
Basketball very much caught on with the rest of the world. It is played widely in Europe and parts of South America and watching top basketball on TV is widely popular everywhere.
“I think a lot of American Anti-Soccerites are just sore that games like American football, basketball, and baseball never caught on with the rest of the world. Bitter much?’
You got it exactly wrong dude. Its the Soccer imperialists who want to have everyone liking the same sports. all round the world, “We are the borg”.
I never met an American who gave a Damn whether the rest of the world liked BB, Baseball, or Football. Its why we call the Baseball ML Championship “The World series”. If a pack of foreigners want to kick a soccer ball around OK with me.
The English used to say “Fog in Channel, Europe cut off”. Now they use Kilograms and Kilometers, and worry whether the EU will allow them to do this or that. We Americans haven’t reached that stage yet. Thank God.
But the difference between the good team and bad team is like the difference of millimeters, and the difference between the good team and the great team is like the difference of centimeters.Replies: @Anonymous
But the difference between the good team and bad team is like the difference of millimeters, and the difference between the good team and the great team is like the difference of centimeters.
I don’t think this is correct. Like everywhere else, the rise in quality follows ~ logarithmic function, not exponential. E.g., Australia can beat Samoa 32-0 but Germany cannot beat Australia 10-0.
“games like American football, basketball, and baseball never caught on with the rest of the world.”
Basketball very much caught on with the rest of the world. It is played widely in Europe and parts of South America and watching top basketball on TV is widely popular everywhere.
Sweden is another example of a cinderella under dog team that was only strong as a football team for a very short period of time.
Sweden went from going all to the World Cup finals against Brasil, to now struggling just to qualify for the World Cup.
You’re clueless. Short period of time? There were 56 years between their first top-4 finish and their last.
They were 4th in ’38 and 3rd in’50.
They were were runners-up in ’58 as hosts.
They finished third in ’94. They made it into the final 16 of the knockout rounds) in ’02 and ’06.
Then why can’t you demonstrate any examples of football or baseball fans badgering the world about not playing those sports. Honestly we really don’t care.
And frankly I really don’t care about an old grouch like fogey incessantly whining about people criticizing soccer. What makes me roll me eyes is that a complete mediocrity like him honestly thinks he’s better than anyone else because of the sport he watches. Not plays watches. This guy probably hasn’t seen a girl naked in person in fifteen years and he thinks he’s cool cause he watches soccer. Tells us about your sweet war hammer collection while your at it. Or better yet tell us some more stories about the 1950s.
We went over this already, but let’s go over it again since apparently you don’t understand. The whiter the American sport, the whiter the stars, the whiter the fan base. NASCAR, MLB, NFL, etc., all more popular than the NBA.
You and millions of Third Worlders watch a Third World game played by athletes with the physical dimensions of your typical undersized, malnourished Third World manlet.
No, I don’t think they’re bitter that their sports are not popular with the Third World.
“In World Cup games, after 120 minutes, remove the goalie for 15 more minutes of play.”
So you DO want them to die from hyperthermia or lactic acidosis. Good to know.
“If that doesn’t lead to a score, then penalty kicks. That’s a better balance between different aspects of the game.”
How is taking the goalies away from the equation a “better balance”? The teams have, by your own admission, already played for 120 minutes to no avail. Removing the goalies for the odd chance of a goal, when the odds of a goal being scored are much higher by simply doing penalty kicks with a goalie, is idiotic as it unnecessarily sacrifices the health of the players when you could easily end it with penalty kicks. There is nothing wrong with ending it by matching kicking skills Vs goalie skills since the the skills of the teams as a whole has alreaby been etermined to be insanely close since neither team scored in a fuckin’ 120 minutes of game. It is not a more “balanced” result to make all the players except the goalies play for another 15 minutes when their skills have already been determined to be similar. Spare the 20 players and sacrifice the 2 goalies for another 5 minutes for CERTAIN scoring, instead of sacrificing 20 players for another 15 minutes with no garantee of a score. That is a far more reasonable solution than yours, Sailer.
““In the average 2014 World Cup match through Monday, the ball was out of play for 42 minutes and 11 seconds, according to data provided by Prozone, one of several companies that log every play in every match.”
This seems anomalous to me. But it doesent matter, because time that is wasted arguing, bickering or replacing players is often added by the referee at the end to compensate for it. Referees in soccer have been known to add as much as 15+ extra minutes to compensate for time wasted not playing. On average, it is between 5-a0 minutes.
Also, you are missing the crux of the matter: even if in soccer there is a lot of stalling, the game was DESIGNED for there to be a continuous 45 minutes of action. This is diametrically opposite to American football, a game that was designed with a lot of interruptions specifically to git in commericial breaks. America is the country of uber-capitalism, and everything is designed for profit. This includes it’s sports. I find American sports EXTREMELY boring.
You got it exactly wrong dude. Its the Soccer imperialists who want to have everyone liking the same sports. all round the world
Rubbish. The amount of vitriol directed against American soccer fans by white American beta-males clearly indicates that it’s the beta-males who are insecure here. Now, why is that? I think it’s an interesting question worth exploring.
Re the pace of changes in the NFL versus FIFA, might that have something to do with the scale of the organizations? I imagine it’s harder to get agreement in a global organization than among 32 team owners.
I have noticed one minor change in soccer over the years. I don’t know when it started, but they now use multiple balls during a game, like the NFL does. It used to be that the ball would go into the stands and the ref would wait for someone to toss it back.
We have explored this. In American sports, the whiter the sport the whiter the fan base. American soccer fans tend to be SWPLs and immigrants.
No, vitriol is directed at American soccer fans because American soccer fans are SWPLs and immigrants.
No, vitriol is directed at American soccer fans because American soccer fans are SWPLs and immigrants.
I guess I must repeat it for the hard of learning, but the vitriol directed at American soccer fans is due to white beta-male fanboys angry at the relative dearth of big African males in soccer [shades of homosexualist longing here?] and bitterness over failure of rest of world to take up bogus Third World games like American football, basketball, and baseball. Thwarted desire and bitterness make a lethal combination.
It cannot be denied that there is a horrible SWPL aspect to American soccer fandom. My lefty cousin, for example, who noisily destests professional sports, becomes a huge soccer fan every 4 years so he can cheer on the likes of Cameroon and Colombia and post Spanish language messages on Facebook. Yay.
The good news is that the better America becomes at soccer the more the SWPLs will drift away from it, and complain that America has “ruined the game.” Maybe they can take up cricket.
OTOH, German fans of American Football that I’ve met in Europe tend to be pretty normal middle or working class types. It just reinforces my pet theory that American Football is really a hybrid product of the strong German undercurrent in American culture, and a lot of Germans would be happier playing our football if they could.
I used to think it would be possible to expand American football internationally, but maybe it isn't. You'd think there'd at least be an NFL franchise in Canada by now, considering the Canadians play almost the same sport.Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
But it's easy to gain from a small base. Soccer is still by far the most popular spectator sport, and is bound to stay there.
@50 My native Hungary used to be one of the greatest teams ever (the Golden Team in the 1950s, “The Magical Magyars”), but since then we’ve decayed to be a less-than-mediocre team,
Before the Anschluss Austria was a soccer power as well. The Habsburg Monarchy was actually one of the leaders in continental soccer before WWI, much more advanced than Germany or France, but then it all kind of petered out over time. I still think a “Danube Superleague” makes a lot more sense than a bunch of tiny countries each trying to fund their own 10-12 team Premier Leagues.
@
“I still think a “Danube Superleague” makes a lot more sense than a bunch of tiny countries each trying to fund their own 10-12 team Premier Leagues.”
Sounds like fun to have a six country league with teams representing the capital and the second city of each country. You get nationalism or internal rivalries with each game.
“There’s a fair amount of randomness at the group stage — e.g., Italy crashed and burned this year.”
Brasil is extremely consistent when it comes to advancing beyond the group stage. The last time they were eliminated in the group stage was way back in 1966. The last time Brasil was eliminated in the group stage, Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King were still alive, The Beatles were still together, and American troops were fighting a war in Vietnam.
Most people who post in the Unz were not even alive in 1966.
And when the First World people hear about NFL or MLB stars, it is most probably in connection with their doping affairs.
Soccer fans refuse to acknowledge the defects of their game. Instead, they lecture the rest of us about how much we don't understand the sport. That's in between the lectures on how wildly popular it is and how it is growing in America. For a sport allegedly so popular, they sure spend a lot of time trying to prove it.
Let's see if I win my bet on how long it takes for this to approved.Replies: @Brutusale
Right you are, Z. They feel that the perfection that is futbol is perfect as it is and should be worshiped by ignorant Americans on its own merits.
For the blind/color commenters, I again quote the great Dan Jenkins: if this game were as complex as you make it out to be, those low-rent mofos out there couldn’t play it!
The good news is that the better America becomes at soccer the more the SWPLs will drift away from it, and complain that America has "ruined the game." Maybe they can take up cricket.
OTOH, German fans of American Football that I've met in Europe tend to be pretty normal middle or working class types. It just reinforces my pet theory that American Football is really a hybrid product of the strong German undercurrent in American culture, and a lot of Germans would be happier playing our football if they could.Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @reiner Tor
There is one German player on the New York Giants, and of course the NFL Europe had teams in Germany, but that ended up being a bust.
I used to think it would be possible to expand American football internationally, but maybe it isn’t. You’d think there’d at least be an NFL franchise in Canada by now, considering the Canadians play almost the same sport.
Pro football in Europe has a similar problem as pro soccer in the US - why watch an inferior product? Germans just want to watch NFL games on TV, the same way a lot of US soccer snobs prefer to watch Premier League rather than MLS. And the amount of work and infrastructure to develop a football program to even striking distance of NCAA Division 1 football, to say nothing of NFL standards, is far more than the amount required to develop a semi-decent soccer product.Replies: @Dave Pinsen
How about People’s Golf?
Make the golf ball the size of a soft ball and have people hit it with a big club shaped like a hockey stick.
I’ll bet it will be more popular with the folks.
@
Many people flirted with the idea in Hungary, but I guess neither UEFA nor the national associations want anything of that.
The good news is that the better America becomes at soccer the more the SWPLs will drift away from it, and complain that America has "ruined the game." Maybe they can take up cricket.
OTOH, German fans of American Football that I've met in Europe tend to be pretty normal middle or working class types. It just reinforces my pet theory that American Football is really a hybrid product of the strong German undercurrent in American culture, and a lot of Germans would be happier playing our football if they could.Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @reiner Tor
American football is definitely getting more popular in Hungary. The Hungarian football league currently consists of just a handful of teams, but they are growing in popularity and organization. AFAIK even rugby is getting more popular. And ice hockey is getting more popular either. Basketball used to gain in popularity sometime in the 90s (when Michael Jordan was playing many people watched basketball), but I think it’s plateaued and probably retreated since then.
But it’s easy to gain from a small base. Soccer is still by far the most popular spectator sport, and is bound to stay there.
I prefer soccer over baseball or American football, but if I were given the choice, I would choose a 100% white country with American football, and not a 30% white country with horrible AA etc. policies and soccer.
So many posters are referring to a British sport that’s always been centred in Europe as “Third World”. The last two soccer countries I visited were Denmark and Germany. The last two American states were New York and Michigan. I don’t think anyone whose visited all four would have much doubt which two are more “Third World”. (Are NY and Michigan in some kind of contest to see who can have the most potholes per mile?)
BTW the world champs in baseball are the very First World country known as the Dominican Republic.
And Heaven Forbid, you should suggest something, anything, however minor might, conceivably, make the sport more interesting. IMPOSSIBLE says the futbol lover, the game is the greatest of all possible sports and every rule is the best of all possible rules. Its absolutely, postiively perfect. And anyone who differs “Just doesn’t understand Futbol”.
The changes Americans suggest for soccer are more extreme than those they’ve brought into hockey and I think it is fair to say the Americanisation of hockey is ruining it. Ties are Un-American so you have to have stupid overtime and even stupider penalty shoot-outs. (Those are fine in IIHF knockout tournaments but not in regular season games). “New York lawyers” have a bigger say over rule changes than all of Canada. There are teams in the desert, Nashville, and south Florida but only 7 in all of Canada. Playoff games at noon (very Un-Canadian) to suit American TV even when Canadian networks give the NHL more money. There’s little doubt that America-centric NHL owners are the main obstacle to having proper international tournaments. (I suspect their business models (and parochialism) had something to do with the new arenas not being flexible enough to widen the ice to the international standard size).
A lot of Europeans and Canadian soccer lovers (many ex-NHL/MLB fans) are digging in their heels because they know from experience that Americans usually get their way over us and we can see where this might go. No matter how unpopular an American idea, or general way of doing things is, it always seems to get forced on us. When the names of products we’ve consumed for generations are changed to align with American equivalents it doesn’t matter to the companies involved if we don’t want the name change. If that company in a 99% white area of Europe wants that American contract then they have to have diversity workshops and representation no matter how impractical or irrelevant to the task at hand. You WILL have those gay pride parades sooner or later Eastern Europeans! Even when it comes to war, our troops can be sent into conflicts that are opposed by over 90% because our leaders seem to place a higher value on pleasing the US than on their own political careers. At the micro level I think every European and Canadian has encountered the American business counterpart or visitor who instead of accepting something he is unfamiliar with (like D/M/Y instead of M/D/Y on a memo) agitates to have it changed as the American way appears to be the only way that is acceptable. TV networks and the sport’s governing bodies will do just about anything to make money and the most American way is usually the way to make more money. Changing our most popular sport out of some hope it will appeal to Americans is just too much. It is rubbing our noses in our semi-colonial status.
Most (though certainly not all) suggestions in these threads would change the essence of the sport. Some things in soccer should be changed (it is not perfect) but in a worldwide sport that values international competition – not just Palookaville State v Palookaville College – there has to be some uniformity and thus general agreement regarding the changes in all regions. Radical changes are impossible and, just as importantly, not welcomed by the billion or so people who already follow it and who would be surprised to learn that it is so random.
I saw Germany vs. S. Korea at the Cotton Bowl in ’94, typical Dallas weather. The papers said it was 120 degrees on the field. Germany — with the older lineup — was exhausted and almost blew a three-goal halftime lead. But it was a great game, and the Germans held on to win 3-2.
Something similar happened in the Spain v South Korea match, also in Dallas. The most memorable match of the tournament – Brazil v The Netherlands was at the Cotton Bowl too.
The whitest fan base for the major American sports is for MLB, which is dominated by whites and has few blacks and has had declining black participation.
But in absolute numbers white NFL fans almost certainly outnumber white MLB fans.
The whitest fan base for the major American sports is for MLB, which is dominated by whites and has few blacks and has had declining black participation.
But in absolute numbers white NFL fans almost certainly outnumber white MLB fans as the NFL is much more popular with all demographics (I think).
I used to think it would be possible to expand American football internationally, but maybe it isn't. You'd think there'd at least be an NFL franchise in Canada by now, considering the Canadians play almost the same sport.Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
There is also a German playing for the Patriots.
Pro football in Europe has a similar problem as pro soccer in the US – why watch an inferior product? Germans just want to watch NFL games on TV, the same way a lot of US soccer snobs prefer to watch Premier League rather than MLS. And the amount of work and infrastructure to develop a football program to even striking distance of NCAA Division 1 football, to say nothing of NFL standards, is far more than the amount required to develop a semi-decent soccer product.
"I still think a “Danube Superleague” makes a lot more sense than a bunch of tiny countries each trying to fund their own 10-12 team Premier Leagues."Sounds like fun to have a six country league with teams representing the capital and the second city of each country. You get nationalism or internal rivalries with each game.Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
The KHL (the Russian hockey super league) has some of that – there are teams from Slovakia, Czech Republic, Latvia, Croatia, Kazakhstan and Belarus, but most of the league is still Russian. There is also a team from Donetsk, Ukraine, although that might be part of Russia as well by the time the new season starts.
The World Baseball Classic is not a world championship event for baseball like the World Cup is for soccer. It’s a novelty event that started a few years ago. The best American players haven’t played in it.
The World Cup has been around for more than 80 years and the best country has been Brazil, the quintessential Third World country.
That’s not certain as far as white fans go. MLB is more locally driven. White MLB fans are homers go to games and watch their local teams on the local cable package. The NFL is more nationally driven. Most fans can’t go to any games as there are fewer games and as it’s more expensive than baseball. The NFL depends more on national TV ratings and national stars.
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/10/sorry-nfl-baseball-is-still-americas-pastime/280985/
Pro football in Europe has a similar problem as pro soccer in the US - why watch an inferior product? Germans just want to watch NFL games on TV, the same way a lot of US soccer snobs prefer to watch Premier League rather than MLS. And the amount of work and infrastructure to develop a football program to even striking distance of NCAA Division 1 football, to say nothing of NFL standards, is far more than the amount required to develop a semi-decent soccer product.Replies: @Dave Pinsen
I think you’d want to balance quality with local talent. What the NFL could have done is liaise with top German soccer clubs to find 16 year old German athletes with size & speed but not enough soccer chops to be assured pro careers and bring them to the US to play a couple of years of high school football and then college football. Then have the best of them play pro in the US. Then start an expansion division of 4 teams in Europe, and let the German teams get the German players, so the teams are at least half German.