You are missing the point of the thread. The question is essentially do you want the game to succeed in Canada and the US? I am not saying it's not popular here as we have more soccer players in organized leagues then any where in the world and we have the best women's program on the planet. When you say football player here one pictures a large, fast, strong athlete that can take physical contact and stay on their feet. A football (football) player here ranges from about 6'3" and 220 lbs for a finesse player (the quarterback) to the powerful players at 6'6" 350 lbs and larger in the line positions. When you say football player in relation to a player that is typically 5'9" and 165 lbs it looks a bit silly. Back to the original question, do you want the game to succeed in Canada and the US?
Well the way the original post is worded implies that caring about the game equates to wanting it to succeed in the US/Canada; along with bizarre assumptions that the reason we don't call it soccer is because we don't want it to succeed over there. Frankly, I think I speak for many football fans when I say we simply don't care... love the sport, don't love the sport; its up to you - but if you're too busy trying to figure out what to call it then thats for you to sort out. The success of the sport in the US is not dependant on the rest of the world following suit in calling it soccer. You guys do have more youth involvement in organised football/soccer leagues than anywhere else in the world (although whether this holds true when looked at proportionately in relation to population, I don't know) - so where are you going wrong? Is there not enough money being pumped into development? I'd wager theres a lot more goes into this area in America than in most other parts of the world. A hell of a lot of the sports big names came up simply by kicking a ball around in a park. Perhaps then its the media focus given to the sport? The airtime allocated to it by the major sports channels? If so, then how are "we" responsible? Surely then its an in-house problem; in which case suggesting that those outside of the US refer to the sport as "soccer" is a million miles away from actually being what is needed to help make the sport a success. So then, back to the original question... do I want the sport to be a success in the good old US of A? Meh... what difference does it make to me as a football fan or to the sport in general? Football is the most watched sport worldwide as it is; its a powerhouse of popularity; and attracting new fans from the US doesn't help or hinder the sport in any way in my opinion. However, if you want the sport to be more popular, then its your marketing guys, your media network execs, your sports councils etc etc etc that need to work towards it - sort out these issues first.
Good thread. I'm sorry tbarr60 but I will NEVER use the term 'soccer' when talking about football because it's a snobby, upper-class word. As you know there are two types of 'football' played in the UK: Association football and Rugby football. Many towns have teams that play both codes and it's not uncommon for teams to be called <something> AFC (Association Football Club) or <something> RFC to denote what code they play. Both codes call their sport 'football' but by common convention among us lower orders 'Rugby football' is known as 'Rugby' and 'Association football' is known as simply 'football'. The term soccer is indeed used in the UK, the legend is that someone was once asked if he fancied a game of 'Rugger' and he replied he'd rather play 'Soccer'. Shortening a word and appending an 'er' sound at the end is a very upper class 'Hooray Henry' thing to do (not for nothing is the home of English rugby, Twickenham, referred to as 'Twickers'). If you did it where I come from you'd get the crap kicked out of you; ergo the term 'soccer' is not used. Also the rest of the world (that's the big place the other side of those blue bits and the lump below Texas on your maps), almost without exception, calls it the equivalent of 'football' in their respective languages. So it's you guys who are out of step. Finally I have to say that I really don't give a monkey's whether professional football succeeds or fails in the US. That isn't empty bravado because I think it's going to fail; it's just that it's irrelevant. There will always be Americans who want to play football (there are some good ones playing in England at the moment) so you will always be part of the world football family. A strong domestic league may help, but many other countries (like virtually all the African ones) survive and prosper on the international stage with almost no domestic infrastructure at all. As you say there is no tradition for it and the current professional circus may well go the way of New York Cosmos and Tampa Bay Rowdies - especially as it appears to be making the same mistake of recruiting fading European talent. PS - There is also a difference between Rugby Union (upper class) and Rugby League (working class), but that's another story.
In Australia, there are several codes of Football: Australian Rules (AFL) Rugby League Rugby Union Soccer Touch Football Tag Football Gaelic Football Forgive me if I have missed other codes. When someone mentions football to me I automatically think AFL. Mainly due to the fact that I was raised in a state where AFL was predominant. For the last 7 years I have lived in a Rugby League state. So, it gets a little confusing at times. Therefore, I call it Soccer as I have always known it. My son gets very annoyed when I don't say Football. I call him a SoccerHead....LOL Col
Actually, no, I didn't know it was irritating. I suppose thinking about it it irritates ME greatly to hear it called 'soccer' so I suppose I can have some sympathy. I guess we're going to get on each others nerves! PS - Do you mind if I call 'American football' (that's what we call your football over here) 'gridiron'? I think it's a much more descriptive term than 'football'. And it's a uniquely American term for a uniquely American sport.
Excellent first post Sid. I agree that they maybe having Mr. Beckham follow in the steps of Pele but organized leagues were non-existent in the early 70s and now there are almost too many leagues and clubs and now futsol is catching on too. So there is more interest in the game now. I may see things a little bit differently as I'd like to see sports that are popular here spread worldwide. Baseball has done that throughout Central America, South America, the Caribbean, Asia, and Southeast Asia. Basketball is worldwide despite the fact that you need a decent surface to play on. Hockey requires prosperity so that limits its reach but there are a few games scheduled for London this September. The game known as football in North America does have limitations due to rather direct competition from Rugby and Australian Rules Football and due to it's complexity. Although I do know a guy from the Ukraine that said he played football over there, I tried to correct him but he insisted that he played the kind with helmets and pads and the types of collisions they were designed for.
Soccer term came from England and is apparently used in London based on the link from Wikipedia that kingcaw pointed out. The problem with calling it American football is that wouldn't be to kind to the CFL?
Is that national team of yours called the Socceroos. I really enjoyed watching them in the World Cup, they played like men, never diving or faking injury. It was only spoiled by the Italian diver, you could see the dive coming three strides away. Remind the boy that if he does well he can grow up to be a Socceroo.
No like i said they dont, there are less Americans here than others and im sure most people on this forum do not think of football as American football.
The difference might be seeing bigger, stronger, more athletic athletes in the game. Imagine Peter Crouch going up to head a ball and Newcastles Vince Carter (we're imagining here) jumping over him to chest the ball away like this dunk over a 7'2" euro. That would be exciting and good for the game, wouldn't it?
Anything involving Peter Crouch could never possibly be good for the game On a serious note though - if you're implying that these "bigger, stronger and more athletic" players would be American I think you're missing the boat a bit. Sure, that descriptor could be used for people within certain American sports, but those attributes aren't exclusive to Americans, and having those traits doesn't necessarily make you a great footballer. The best footballers in the world aren't the biggest, or the strongest, or the most athletic... otherwise America would actually be able to offer at least one half decent football team. Perhaps the problem with the sport over there is the attitudes of those involved in running the show... they bought Beckham because it was a wise marketing move; and after reading about the Vinnie Jones incident (an LA Galaxy scout who saw Vinnie having a kick-about in a local event told him he thought he had potential and offered him a trial) its possible that theres a complete lack of knowledge amongst the ranks.
Lol what the hell? Why would being American mean they would be stronger and bigger? Football is better suited to smaller people, fit athletic yes but not huge. If they needed to be huge they would be huge like rugby players, the nationality means nothing. I remember you had the same hang up about football during the world cup, whats up with you seriously you cant seem to grasp its not an American sport and nobody wants to see it played like one, you bang on so much about big guys with muscles, maybe you should be over here instead
Our big guys tend to play rugby. The ideal height for a footballer (ok, 'soccer player') is about 5ft 9ins because that gives you a good, balanced centre of gravity. Neither Pele or Maradona, two of the greatest players of all time, were big men. Rugby on the other hand caters for all shapes and sizes: smaller, nippier guys are the backs (although even though they're getting bigger nowadays) and the fat boys play up front in the equivalent of the offensive and defensive lines. As the French say: it's a game for piano players and piano shifters.
Oh I'm not denying that the term came from England (I mentioned it's supposed origins in my original post), it's just a class thing. Have you seen the movie 'Green Street' starring that guy who used to be a hobbit? Very early on he mentions to his sister "You've become a SOCCER fan?" and she says something like "Shhh! Don't use that term here!"
Im from Australia and the same thing happens here people call "football' soccer. However we know that around the European and South American countries (like Brazil, London, Chile etc) call it football. I guees we jus say soccer in Australia because its not as popular like Rubgy or Cricket. P.S Boo football (soccer) rubgy is the way
Could you imagine a American Football star who is bigger, stronger and more athletic running virtually non-stop for 2 45 mins period? I can't. Even in Baseball, the players get long rests between short bursts of play. This is possibly why you get faster players in the US games, however, football is more of a stamina sport where players are on the go for long periods of time. Take Rugby League as and example, the rules of Rugby League have been changed to allow players to be substituted and then reintroduced to the game (we call it spelling - as in they have a spell of rest or play), this (along with a more professional attitude amongst players) has resulted in the game becoming a faster sport. Its more of a reflection of the individual rules for each game that creates players with different abilities. If the rules of American Football were changed and the games were more fluid (without so many breaks and less changes in players from defence to offence), the physical appearence of the players (and the ideal condition they are in) would change over time. How many William 'the fridge' Perry's (?!) do you see playing pro 'Soccor' or Tennis or riding in the Tour de France? None because that is not the ideal phyisic for those sports. Likewise how well do you think David Beckham would do in a Sumo bout?
"virtually non-stop", ha! Have you ever watched the whole field...err pitch during a game. The next time you see a player moving fast take a look at the whole field and see how all players are moving. When his sprint ends (make note of how long he actually sprinted) note how the player movement is then. I would say it's virtually not stop walking interrupted by sprints. There was a time in my life that I could run 90 minutes at conversation pace and cover 15 miles, I could to 26.2 in under 3 hours. I laughed the first time a soccer player told me the guys he plays with were more fit than marathon runners. Thanks to the internet I can research running in a soccer game and it turns out there is something like 6 miles covered by an average player or about 4 miles per hour, a brisk walk is 3 mph. In football (football) there are a variety of body types from the 300+ lbs lineman, to Olympic caliber sprinters, to kickers that are soccer sized guys. The actual energy expended is much greater in football (football) as the big fellows have almost a sumo wresting match every 30 seconds for the time they are on the field (something under half of the game) and the receivers sprint 20 to 100 yards as often with a little sumo mixed in.
amazing...I dunno what that has to do for "calling it soccer"...especially when you compared basket ball dunk with Crouch lol...athletes are best at what they do...I dunno why you mixing things up...and who actually gives a damn who calls it what...you can call it whatever you want but surely it is known as Football around the world and the only reason they call it Soccer here is because the name "Football" was already taken
I always wished that we north american's could experience the joy of 'football.' I mean, i dont mind the name soccer, but it just alienates us from europe! PS. American football sucks and so does baseball. YAY hockey...