“Every four years, the world comes together around the little black-and-white ball, a carnival scene mixing sport and revelry with a not-so-subtle undertone of nationalism.” http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sports/jan-june06/worldcup_06-09.html
This statement, released prior to the 2006 World Cup kick-off, helped give an idea to the global effect the game of soccer has come to have. With the spread of globalization being consistent in many aspects of our lives, its no surprise that sports would be one of the many things that seem to connect countries around the world.
However, with all of this said, America seems to not be as consistent as the rest of the world in identifying with the sport and their team. This was noted and became a concern to the rest of the media world when the U.S. was chosen to host the 1994 World Cup. “For the first time the tournament was scheduled to take place in the United States, where soccer (in U.S. coverage was afforded this, its ‘proper’ name, to distinguish it from American football) had very little following compared to baseball, basketball, American football, and ice hockey. Concern about the likely adverse impact of this “American exceptionalism” on the success of the tournament exercised media across the world prior to the event itself,” (Tudor 227). So why is it that America hasn’t emerged ourselves in this international sport?
Other countries are well aware that we are content with our own sports such as football and baseball; and in Andrew Tudor’s article of “World Cup Worlds”, the term “ethnocentric” is linked to Americans, but would you agree? For a culture that seems to be so actively involved in all efforts of globalization do we realize that the world sees us as behind in this sport?
The article that best described this comparison of international soccer and American soccer stated that, “Soccer is still in diapers in America. It is not played on the street, in every park, or in every playground around the country, like it is in almost every other country. Kids don’t grow up exposed to the game on a daily basis – it’s not in the media, in politics or in recreation”.
http://soccerlens.com/the-generation-gap-in-american-soccer/3697/
After reading this article, would you argue this point? Do you think our interest in this global sport will ever increase, or are we too involved in our own past-times?
There is no question that soccer, or "football" in the global sense, just simply hasn't taken off in the U.S. Although there have been periods of luke-warm interest, such as Pele's play on the Metros in the 70's and the start of the MLS in the 90's, there have been far more examples that show simple disinterest in soccer in the U.S. As Markovitz and Hellerman noted in Offside: Soccer an American Exceptionalism, and on page 226 of the Handbook, "even a game against a nation led by a regime as hated as Iran's theocracy failed to put soccer on the radar screen of most American sports fans, let alone the public at large."
ReplyDeletePart of the reason for this is because soccer is a very slow paced game with little scoring. A counterargument could be made to say that baseball, America's past time, is just as slow. That is accurate, but the bottom line is that baseball is uniquely American, and will always be loved and followed because of its roots in America.
Secondly, the game is not media friendly. Few breaks for timeouts mean few breaks for commercials on TV, and not as much money, so stations stay away from the game. Also, how well do you think soccer would translate over radio?
However, I think a point made in that second quote is inaccurate. To say that kids aren't exposed to the game in recreation isn't true. I would go as far as to say that soccer is one of the biggest rec sports for kids when they are young. I know that I played rec soccer in my town for nearly 7 years. It may not be in the media, but it is certainly exposed to kids at a young age. The reason it doesn't thrive is because the media doesn't see any way to make money off of the sport. If David Beckham barely raises an eyebrow, that tells you that the sport is doomed.
The only reason that a smattering of people follow the U.S. during the World Cup is the same reason they follow the U.S. in the Olympics - national pride. That's the whole theme of both the Olympics and the World Cup, nations battling for world supremacy...in sports.
"A major international sporting event, such as the Olympic Games or the soccer World Cup, without comprehensive media coverage, national flags flying, national anthems playing, politicians involved in the ceremonies, military displays, tables comparing national standings, athletes competing in national uniforms - and no men - is almost inconceivable." (Rowe 120)
But there is a huge gap between viewership of the Olympics and the World Cup. Last year, we saw some of the highest ratings in history during the Beijing Olympics. There are a few reasons for this.
First, the Olympics occur every two years, compared to the four of the World Cup. Secondly, we are generally successful in the Olympics. We are NEVER successful during the World Cup. Also, there are a myriad of events in the Olympics, compared to only soccer in the World Cup.
In my mind, it all comes back to media exposure. If there were a reason for the media to show more soccer, they would. No ad time and a boring game where you can't even use your hands, combined with other naturally American sports make it impossible for soccer to be successful in the United States.
It is amazing to see how different cultures embrace a sport, in this case soccer. The sport is called the “world’s game”, but the United States seemed to have missed that boat. However looking at where the game was developed and how long it took for it to actually cross into our country, I am not surprised at all that we lack interest. I do not believe that the generation gap is the main reason for this lack of interest. I believe the biggest issues revolved around media coverage. Head to England and “football” is 24/7 news. Games take over the television stations, the newspaper columns, and the stories of reporters. Because my family is from Poland, we have a few Polish channels on our television. There is no doubt that at least one of those channels will have either a game or news about players or coaches on. Here, turn to the outrageous number of sports channels and you will find stories on football, basketball, baseball, college sports, and golf. Soccer will rarely find its way to the headlines. Coverage is lacking and the media is not making any efforts to increase exposure. It seems like the only time they make an effort is when something goes wrong—WSL falls under, brawls between fans, etc. It is as if the media wants the sport to fail because in their minds it has no place in our society. This is where the idea of “American exceptionalism” (Tudor 226) comes into play. We as a society already have our set sports. Like England was raised on soccer, we were raised on baseball and football. In my opinion the idea that there is a greater “awareness of the notion of one world,” (Maguire 436) is absurd when talking about sports and the United States. People here are very determined in sustaining their own identity, and the notion that “their lives and place of living are part of single social space—the globe” (436) does not sit well with our way of thinking, even if has to deal with something like a soccer game. Like the media does not want to embrace the sport, we as a culture have no desire to support it at a national level. We are quite content on keeping it a recreational sport--a means for getting the kids out of the house for a few hours.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, ESPN has been trying its best to capitalize on the popularity soccer has during the World Cup. For example, tune into ESPN2 at 2:45 today and you can catch Chelsea vs. Liverpool in the UEFA League quarterfinals. Also, ESPN's Bottom Line has also begun to run scores from games in various Soccer Leagues. From the Champions League, to the Spanish Primera Divisions, even the German Bundesliga, ESPN has been trying to push soccer to the forefront.
ReplyDeleteFor the first time last summer, ESPN also showed the Euroleague tournament. The Euroleague tournament is just like the World Cup, only it involves only European teams. Obviously, I had no rooting interest in any of these games, but for two weeks of the summer, there I was with my friends at noon watching Euroleague soccer. I guess it does have to do with media exposure, but now that international soccer is actually being televised, we'll see how America reacts to it. My gut tells me not favorably, even though I've become a fan recently.
I agree with Jamie about soccer being popular recreationally. "Soccer is played by more people than any other sport" (Wenner 130). In my hometown, EVERYBODY played rec soccer. After taking a quick poll of my five roommates, all of them played soccer as well. For whatever reason, that recreational popularity has yet to crossover into professional popularity. I think a lot of it has to do with people needing someone to root for in order to watch a sport. The MLS, and rightfully so, is not popular. The quality of play is poor, which is the reason David Beckham is cutting his time short here to head back to Europe. So if the only "good" soccer to watch is from Europe, Americans are left without a team to root for. Some people just pick a team, like Liverpool or Chelsea, but it's truly not the same as being able to root for a team that's close by. This is why soccer becomes popular during the World Cup. If Americans had a team to root for all year round, soccer's popularity would skyrocket.
The fact remains that soccer is not a popular sport in America. There seems to be a lack of interest. Sports such as Baseball and Football originated in the states, so people tend to be more interested and know more about the sport. Jamie mentioned that soccer is a slow sport with little scoring, however baseball is just as slow. People seem to love baseball more because it is the American past time. There is so much history behind the sport.
ReplyDeleteSoccer was started in Europe and Baseball in America, trying to make soccer popular in the states is like trying to make baseball popular over there. It is just not going to be that successful. Granted baseball is played in other countries like Japan, but still not as popular. People are going to love what the know best and stick with it. Parents do love to get their kids involved in after school programs and that is were soccer is probably most popular. Its not a very exciting game so people are least likely to attend soccer games.
As for media coverage in America soccer is at the bottom of the list. Baseball, Football and basketball are all over ESPN and other sports networks, but not soccer. After reading chapter 13 in the Handbook the televised tournament seems to be growing. Research has been done to try and make the sport more media friendly. "Changing technology and the globalization of television technique would make examination well worthwhile. Such innovations as action replays, and extension of the range of camera setups, have strikingly enhanced the possibilities for stylistic elaboration in television coverage" (Tudor 222). Networks are really trying to make soccer a national interest to all buy doing research and seeing what people like.
As for the article Janelle posted I think that Americans are too caught up in our own past times. People really love the sports we have and I don't think that will every change even if soccer becomes a popular sport in America.
Farrell Henneberry
I would definitely agree with Janelle in that soccer in America is not nearly as popular as it is in other countries. Soccer for other countries like Italy, England and Spain is what Football is to America. However the U.S has made some efforts in trying to popularize the sport in the U.S. by drafting David Beckham to the Los Angeles team the most recognizable face of world soccer to Americans. David Beckham is a huge commodity in the game of soccer and having Beckham play for LA would hopefully bring in fans and more revenue. However, the infamous star was not satisfied in the US and is now playing for A.C Milan.
ReplyDeleteFrom the Handbook, "although American exceptionalism molded much of 1994 research, by the 1998 and 2002 tournaments media researchers outside the United States were returning to the familiar questions of nation identity and national styles"(226).
From being abroad and attending soccer games in Italy, the fandom I witnessed when Firenze played Roma was equivalent if not surpassing the level of fandom for a superbowl game. Futbol is associated with these countries and has been a part and will always be a part of their national identity.
As far as the globalization of sport is concerned, I would argue that the nationalism it creates is just like any other fandom, only with slightly higher stakes. When your team allegiances are called into question, especially when you are a “true” sports fan, it hurts, and you become defensive. But if your team allegiances to your country are question, while that is your patriotism called into question. To me, it makes taking pride in a national team, like US World Cup Soccer, it’s more high risk/low reward than anything else. It’s high risk because if you are really into soccer, more is at stake, but if the team wins no one really notices. This is not the scenario that bodes well for the success of soccer in the United States. It’s not like having a favorite (American) football team, where if you are a fanatic and everyone knows it, when your team loses there’s complete devastation. American soccer really isn’t anyone’s team, it is ours collectively, but you can’t ridicule your neighbor when Team USA does poorly, because then you’re just an un-patriotic jerk. And as American’s, as much as we enjoy winning, we LOVE to throw it in someone else’s face when they lose.
ReplyDeleteWe also only watch these nationalistic sports when they are happening, but that’s the end. As Rowe, McKay, and Miller call it in their article “Come Together: Sport Nationalism, and the Media Image,” “the periodic media spectacles of the Olympics or the soccer World Cup” (Wenner 133).That is exactly what they are to us, spectacles for observation, not participation, which is a practice that won’t lead to success.
As for exposure to the game, I totally disagree. Soccer is like gymnastics in the United States today. Everyone does it and loves it when they’re young, but because there is no real future past high school (i.e.: the pros), few people pursue it here. I don’t think that our interest will increase, either, because we are an incentive based society. There is no real incentive to follow soccer here like there is in other countries. You can’t talk about soccer at the water cooler when no one follows it and when the media barely follows it. And sports is a true part of our social make-up.