Abel Tasman
Well-known member
Ah well that is ludicrous even for FIFA standards.Talking about a 64-team World Cup.
Ah well that is ludicrous even for FIFA standards.Talking about a 64-team World Cup.
Total attendance has indeed increased substantially BUT there are far more teams. Average crowds at most of the older established teams are falling. NY, LA, Chicago all losing fans. The fan profile is different to Europe - more women and many expats. American males are still not into it. Some are interested but it's not like football or baseball.I do think football is growing in the US; MLS attendance has more than tripled in the last 25 years, and there are now professional leagues below that.
Just because it isn't one of their main sports, it doesn't mean there aren't millions into it.
I don’t think it should be compared to NFL or baseball to be honest, it’s never going to compete with national sports. I don’t especially WANT to see USA adopting it wholesale, but I can mention “soccer” to an American in a random bar or whatever and they usually have a basic knowledge of it. I doubt that was the case before 1994.Total attendance has indeed increased substantially BUT there are far more teams. Average crowds at most of the older established teams are falling. NY, LA, Chicago all losing fans. The fan profile is different to Europe - more women and many expats. American males are still not into it. Some are interested but it's not like football or baseball.
Soccer is coming to a crossroads in the US - unless something changes clubs will start to disappear and interest will dwindle again.
On field play acting is the biggest turn off. Americans hate it.
It certainly won't become a mainstream sport in the US. The issue is whether it survives as a league, or whether soccer fans get their fix by watching games from South America or Europe on tv.I don’t think it should be compared to NFL or baseball to be honest, it’s never going to compete with national sports. I don’t especially WANT to see USA adopting it wholesale, but I can mention “soccer” to an American in a random bar or whatever and they usually have a basic knowledge of it. I doubt that was the case before 1994.
They're still people going to watch football.Total attendance has indeed increased substantially BUT there are far more teams. Average crowds at most of the older established teams are falling. NY, LA, Chicago all losing fans. The fan profile is different to Europe - more women and many expats. American males are still not into it. Some are interested but it's not like football or baseball.
it was....but the last 5 mins of the France vs Portugal game had that same shameful, one team keeps the ball, the other goes deep and doesn't pressure because both teams knew the other game had finished and they would both go through.Group F has been awesome. Fair play Hungary, so close.
It was nice to see the crowd give them stick pretty much straight away which I noticed shamed a few players into a more dynamic approach.it was....but the last 5 mins of the France vs Portugal game had that same shameful, one team keeps the ball, the other goes deep and doesn't pressure because both teams knew the other game had finished and they would both go through.
The expat thing is quite important I think. If you like soccer and you go to live in the US for a while, you might be tempted to go to a few matches at your local team.They're still people going to watch football.
And I don't think it matters what sort of people go, surely one sort isn't more important than another?
As I said, there's no need for it to be their national obsession. I'd believe there are more people into football in the US than there are actual people in many European countries.
again, it's fine,but a lot of them get free tickets from schools or colleges and go to meet their friends and have a chat. It's wholly different to the way people watch in Europe.
Any bid from the US is about money and sponsorship and tourism $s and far less about growing the game in the US.
The qualifications would drag on forever. In 1966 72 teams entered qualification. Now we have 210 teams. To whittle that down to 16 would be torturousGo back to 16 teams as in '66. It will make the qualifying tournaments much better and stop the finals dragging on forever.
The qualifications would drag on forever. In 1966 72 teams entered qualification. Now we have 210 teams. To whittle that down to 16 would be torturous
Well that’s one way of sorting it out. Just don’t have it.No, we could just use the winners of each confederation tournament: get it down to 6 nations straight away.
Actually having a tournament at all is such a drag...
I thought 32 was just right.
I'd just tweak qualifying so it wasn't so biased in favour of the Europeans, and give other continents the opportunity for more places if they could beat the European qualifying-group runners up over 2 legs.
Sometimes a particular continent will be particularly strong, and it's right they should have extra places in that year.
Do you mean during group stages?Eliminate draws by a penalty shoot out after 90 mins. That would stop most of the sandbagging.
Yes, in the group stages. I agree, it wouldn't necessarily stop teams from parking the bus, but it would stop the third group games where - if it's a draw - both teams go through.Do you mean during group stages?
I don't think it would: if you think a 0-0 draw is your best result now, you'd think a shootout would be your best chance then. Teams would think they could win by parking the bus, not just drawing.
For me, draws have always been part of football, so should remain. I know they are considered oddities in the American market and, while I'd like to see the game spread in the US, I wouldn't remove something as ingrained in the game as a draw just to pander to their market.
Yes, in the group stages. I agree, it wouldn't necessarily stop teams from parking the bus, but it would stop the third group games where - if it's a draw - both teams go through.
That's just a daft way to write it. Is it a thing?Slovakia/venia