Yep, another ESPN thread (MOD: Soccer popularity)

[KevFu]

Soccer operates on a completely different dynamic. Their ratings are very heavily driven by immigrant demographics (it certainly isn't Middle America watching Copa America) which is an area they have almost to themselves with the possible exception of MLB competition. The flip side of that is that there are no tickets being sold to these demographics, nor are they buying jerseys for the local team. Because they aren't half as interested in American soccer as they are in the league back home.

So yes, you have a large number of people watching soccer games on television... but it's not the same dynamic as local fans following their local teams in an American league.

Basically, "American soccer" (aka MLS) is a really terrible product compared to that of the rest of the world. Everyone considers me a "soccer guy" because I watch all the US games, I watch EPL... but I only watch MLS when one of the guys who played college soccer at my school is playing.

Yes, this is a major issue that needs to be addressed. Soccer fans vs MLS fans.

And that's why I giggle at all the people who still say soccer will never catch on here. The soccer fans in USA are extremely fragmented (MLS, EPL, Spanish, Latin leagues). But that's why the 1994 World Cup in the US set massive attendance records that STILL haven't been broken (despite adding more WC matches!).

We have fans of every country within our borders, and we have a large group who'd say "this is GOOD soccer, I'll go watch that."

Because they/their parents/grandparents came from another country their numbers don't count? Besides, Some of the tournaments like Copa America and Libartadores may not have a lot of 'middle America' (whatever the hell that term means these days) watching but other tournaments/leagues like Champions League, EPL (especially the bigger matchups), MLS etc. do. Maybe these legaues individually don't but combined do. The young-adult Americans who grew up with the sport (not all obviously but a lot of them) are following these leagues and hundreds of national teams games (world cup, Confed cup, Gold cup, Euro Cup, Cup qualifiers) on TV. Some religiously, some casually.

Soccer is not where it was in the '90s when even the world cups had low ratings and the haters said "world cup or not .. it's soccer. Americans just won't watch any soccer, the way they don't watch cricket, rugby and hockey world cups". Thanks to the youth soccer boom a decade earlier, the cable, internet, all the soccer exposuer on TV, some great storylines over the years, significant decrease in soccer bashing in the media etc. etc., ratings for all soccer properties kept growing leaps and bounds in this country. First, second and third generation Americans are helping the numbers too but the sport would be nowhere near the current level without significant support from the Caucasian Americans.

Many Americans see the world cup and international soccer as the highest level of the sport (it actually IS with 1000+ of the best players in the world competing), a global league where we also have a local team (USA) competiting against 100's of other teams. The region where we play most often and qualify from (Concacaf) is our division like eastern, western divisions in NHL or conferences in other leagues (takes over 18 games to qualify). US plays about 40 games a year on average and draws about 700,000 on English lang. TV (excluding the world cup) and 40,000+ at the gate with an average ticket price of over $50. We also have a pretty big supporters group called the Sam's Army, attending every home games and also away games in smaller number. Nothing remotely close exists in other sports.

The demographics of MLS is not much different than that of most other sports. Hispanics make up only few percent more of the supporters than most other leagues. And not all the Caucasian American soccer fans follow the MLS because its not the best of soccer leagues like they are used to following in other sports. They follow Champions league, EPL etc., although lack of true rooting interest does stop them from becoming hardcore supporters of those leagues. They do flock to the stadiums (along with the 1st/2nd generation Americans) in big number every time teams from those leagues visit the US for exhibitions and other events.

What's really funny is that everyone was comparing the Gold Cup ratings ON FSC to MLB's game of the week. And conveniently overlooked the 6 million people who watched on Univision as if they don't count. Why wouldn't that count?

People who love soccer in America are probably going to watch the US National Team. The England, Algeria and Ghana matches proved that. I work with someone who played on Mexico's U-23 women's team. She watches Mexico and US. And some MLS, and some of the Mexican leagues, on both English feeds and Spanish feeds. She watched the US Women on ESPN and the Gold Cup in Spanish.

Despite not having a central focus, the sheer volume of soccer fans in the US is off the charts. If 20% of Caucasians in the USA are either soccer fans, or casual soccer fans who'll watch the world cup; that basically gives us 100 million soccer fans in the country. And that sounds about right when you look at: US World Cup ratings on ABC/ESPN, plus the Univision/ESPN Deportes ratings, and the fact that TV ratings still haven't found a good way to count people watching in bars.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Basically, "American soccer" (aka MLS) is a really terrible product compared to that of the rest of the world.

That's got very little to do with it. How many people on the street are going to know how MLS stacks up against the rest of the world? I'm guessing only a very small fraction. Most people can only name one or two soccer players anyway, one of those being David Beckham because he's a mainstream celebrity. And he plays in MLS.

The reason MLS isn't successful is because the large majority of Americans have no interest in following professional soccer.

 

[DaleCooper]

I don't think that's necessarily true. It is the die hard fans and the media who drive the public interest in a sport. In this case soccer fans in America and the press are both all too aware of the lacking quality of MLS. There is no one to generate interest in those who have no knowledge or care for the sport. Case in point I think would be the fever that was generated by the Cosmos when Pele and Beckenbauer and and all those guys came over.

 

[KevFu]

That's got very little to do with it. How many people on the street are going to know how MLS stacks up against the rest of the world? I'm guessing only a very small fraction. Most people can only name one or two soccer players anyway, one of those being David Beckham because he's a mainstream celebrity. And he plays in MLS.

The reason MLS isn't successful is because the large majority of Americans have no interest in following professional soccer.

That's applying a very broad brush to the national canvas.

"Average PERSON" is a horrible litmus test, because 54% of average people are women, and at least 85% of sports fans are men.

I doubt many "average people" could name a single player on 2/3 of the major league BASEBALL teams. I doubt that in NFL cities, the average person on the street could name their own team's offensive line.



People do tend to generalize from their own experience, so maybe we just have different peer groups; The people I know can name more than two soccer players. Out of the six people still in my office at 4:45 pm, all of them could name at least FIVE, and Beckham and Dempsey were the only guys who've been in MLS recently. Dempsey, Howard, Messi were the other three everyone had. Adu and Rooney got mentioned a number of times. And one guy I told not to bother because he can name about 500. (Maybe I should call our IT department to balance the numbers).


Like I said, I'm a soccer fan. In New Orleans, I'd wake up, go to the pub and drink Guinness at 6 am on Saturdays or Sundays and watch Manchester City.

But I don't watch MLS (I watched City vs Vancouver Monday, had no idea who anyone on the Whitecaps were).

The MLS doesn't have a large following (it's successful because it's a cheap thing to do in the summer with your family, like minor league baseball) because their IDEAL AUDIENCE for the MLS (soccer fans) is someone who realizes their product is low quality.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

I think a very interesting dynamic in soccer fandom in the US is the "hipster" aspect, for lack of a better word.

It was my impression from being around the internet on forums and the like that soccer, really took off around a young, fairly educated and mostly white audience in big metropolitan areas in the 2000s, typically along with British indie music and other European cultural imports. In this set it would appear following soccer is a way of claiming the level of sophistication often associated in such circles with Europe.

I think at first that set would have focused mostly on the EPL (with La Liga and especially Barcelona as a club grabbing a fair number) but I think it's only a natural impulse to eventually follow a local MLS team. Following a team 6,000 miles away is possible but will not provide the same joy you would get from being involved with a team whose games you can actually attend.

The fact Seattle leads MLS in attendance from what I understand and Portland's fans have found a fair bit of media attention seems to be no coincidence. Both cities are commonly associated with "eclectic sophisticate" types. And both fan bases very consciously try to imitate European soccer fan culture (they aren't the only ones of course, but maybe the ones where it's least likely to stem from a big ethnic presence amongst the fans).

I don't know how big a % this group is of U.S. soccer fans, they might just be a minority compared to Hispanics sitting at home to watch Cruz Azul play Club America, but they are probably more interesting from a marketing perspective. They are young, spend money and in spite of maybe an "alternative" self-image they are receptive to branding if done properly.

 

[nyrmetros]

I follow mls because it is my league. MLS, USMNT, these are mine. The EPL or Bundesliga are awesome to watch, bit at the end of the day, I am watching someone else's team and league. Going to an away game in Philly or DC is an event on the calendar. Going to Tottenham away is not.

 

[tarheelhockey]

That's applying a very broad brush to the national canvas.

This is slightly out of date (2007), but see the following list of the most marketable athletes in the USA.

Most Marketable Athletes (active)
1. Tiger Woods
2. Peyton Manning
3. LeBron James
4. Derek Jeter
5. Dwayne Wade
6. Dale Earnhardt Jr.
7. Tom Brady
8. Shaquille O’Neal
9. Maria Sharapova
10. Kobe Bryant
10. Brett Favre
10. Sidney Crosby
13. Shaun White
13. David Beckham
15. Jeff Gordon
15. LaDainian Tomlinson
17. Roger Federer
18. Kelly Slater
18. Tony Hawk
20. Jason Taylor
20. Reggie Bush
20. Michelle Kwan
23. Teemu Selanne
23. Phil Mickelson
23. Albert Pujols
23. Vince Young
23. Lance Armstrong
23. Alex Rodriguez

Now clearly there are a lot of moving parts to a list like that, but it can be taken roughly as a "Q score" metric. It's fair to say, for example, that even truly random people on the street will know who Derek Jeter and LeBron James are... and anyone who remotely follows sports will recognize Lance Armstrong and Alex Rodriguez. And, under the right circumstances such as winning a Cup at an old age, even a hockey player like Teemu Selanne will make a brief blip on the radar.

David Beckham is the only soccer player on the list. 2007 was the year Beckham created a media frenzy by signing with Los Angeles, doing the talk show circuit, was all over magazine covers, bought a house next to Tom Cruise... and that lifted him to the company of Jeff Gordon and Sidney Crosby in the public consciousness (as an athlete, anyway; his celebrity is something different). If that's what it takes to get David Beckham almost into the top 10, do you really think Middle America has any idea who Clint Dempsey is?

I think a very interesting dynamic in soccer fandom in the US is the "hipster" aspect, for lack of a better word.

You're dead on. Soccer as a spectator sport seems much more popular in the narrow demographic of young, urban sophisticates than any other besides immigrant communities. And it does indeed seem to parallel a preference for European beer, fashion, music, etc. Hockey often falls into the same category, though it also has some penetration into blue-collar demographics as well.

"Hipsters" (or whatever word best describes that group) are a valid marketing demographic, but they are extremely narrow and don't really resonate with the middle class... in a lot of ways, their entire lifestyle is a reaction against the middle class. It's not quite accurate to take 30,000 people holding up scarves in Seattle and draw conclusions about mainstream popularity. If anything, it's an expression of Seattle's "hipster" identity more than anything.

Take an image of a Sounders crowd and it's striking how almost everyone in the picture seems young and hip.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

Take an image of a Sounders crowd and it's striking how almost everyone in the picture seems young and hip.

There's like 2 gray haired dudes on the bottom and an old guy in a fedora center left but then no one else over 29.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

"Hipsters" (or whatever word best describes that group) are a valid marketing demographic, but they are extremely narrow and don't really resonate with the middle class... in a lot of ways, their entire lifestyle is a reaction against the middle class. It's not quite accurate to take 30,000 people holding up scarves in Seattle and draw conclusions about mainstream popularity. If anything, it's an expression of Seattle's "hipster" identity more than anything.

Absolutely, it's a niche. But at the same time it's a pretty influential niche. Quite a lot of cultural trends started out with exactly this subset. We're a culture that admires youth and trendiness. Through their "dark years" Apple remained relevant because of this set, and from there on out they went to conquer the rest of America and a lot of it had to do with the positive marketing image of Apple as a young, sophisticated brand.

A big question is of course whether all those 20-30 year old interns, graphic designers and grad students stick with soccer as they get older and can transform their soccer fandom into a more Americanized middle-class activity or whether this is just a fad. To some extent it's uncharted territory, because this is a generation that is more exposed to global cultural flows than any other previous generation and in which people are more able than ever to form their unique little cultural niches.

 

[billycanuck]

Everybody who has been dismissing or complaining about soccer/MLS, just wondering who has actually been to a MLS or professional soccer match?

Soccer is a great sport to watch in person because the atmosphere is nothing like an NHL, NFL, or MLB game (haven't been to an NBA game yet).

I cannot see the MLS' popularity declining in North America and it will continue to see revenue growth, albeit at a steady pace.

Montreal will be joining the league next season and is expanding it's stadium from 13,000 to 20,000 and I am sure the club will see average attendance of 18,000 or higher.

 

[Rocket]

I cannot see the MLS' popularity declining in North America and it will continue to see revenue growth, albeit at a steady pace.

Having all these billionaires get involved with MLS, building stadiums, youth academies, making rule changes to sign expensive players (that don't count toward the cap), awarding expansion teams to deep pocket investors only (even though the current level of expense doesn't require it) etc., you knew something was brewing in the MLS land but it's different to actually see the commissioner out with a timeline on it..

And one of the first things that came out of that plan was we want Major League Soccer to be one of the top leagues in the world by 2022. That’s still our goal. We believe that over the next 10 years if we continue to be smart, focused and innovate that our league can compete with the other leagues around the world 10 years from now."

- Don Garber

http://www.nj.com/redbulls/index.ss...don_garber_has_overseen_growth_of_league.html

 

[billycanuck]

Having all these billionaires get involved with MLS, building stadiums, youth academies, making rule changes to sign expensive players (that don't count toward the cap), awarding expansion teams to deep pocket investors only (even though the current level of expense doesn't require it) etc., you knew something was brewing in the MLS land but it's different to actually see the commissioner out with a timeline on it..

- Don Garber

http://www.nj.com/redbulls/index.ss...don_garber_has_overseen_growth_of_league.html

Good article with some insight into what "The Don" has envisioned for MLS.

It is important to note that the league itself has only been around since the 90's (1996 I believe the league started). I like what Don said here:

We are the NFL 50 years ago, we’re baseball and basketball 50 years ago. We’re still figuring out what things we need to do and how to innovate, how to evolve and how to take advantage of market change and opportunity and doing it in real-time.

I think the biggest thing that will help the MLS in the future are the youth academies. More homegrown talent will lead to a better product on the field and large transfer fees (just read any article on Dutch club Ajax).

 

[nyrmetros]

That was a very honest article.

 

[billycanuck]

A blog entry on the Free Beer Movement website about a MLS soccer fan.

It reads like a typical children's story, but the message is pretty clear.
The Story of the Little Red Fan
Planting the Seed of Soccer Across America: Danny Beerseed

Once upon a time there was an American soccer fan who lived in a big American city. He was friends with a Manchester United supporter, a Bayern Munich fan, and a guy with a Brazil jersey.

One day he read that that a new Major League Soccer team was starting in his city. MLS guy had an idea. He, so desperately wanting to watch live, local soccer, would buy season tickets to this new team.....

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Good article with some insight into what "The Don" has envisioned for MLS.

It is important to note that the league itself has only been around since the 90's (1996 I believe the league started). I like what Don said here:

I think the biggest thing that will help the MLS in the future are the youth academies. More homegrown talent will lead to a better product on the field and large transfer fees (just read any article on Dutch club Ajax).

College football was huge in American society 50 years ago so that's not a good comparison.

 

[nyrmetros]

A blog entry on the Free Beer Movement website about a MLS soccer fan.

It reads like a typical children's story, but the message is pretty clear.
The Story of the Little Red Fan
Planting the Seed of Soccer Across America: Danny Beerseed

Free beer movement.... Lol

 

[KevFu]

This is slightly out of date (2007), but see the following list of the most marketable athletes in the USA.

It's fair to say, for example, that even truly random people on the street will know who Derek Jeter and LeBron James are... and anyone who remotely follows sports will recognize Lance Armstrong and Alex Rodriguez. And, under the right circumstances such as winning a Cup at an old age, even a hockey player like Teemu Selanne will make a brief blip on the radar.

David Beckham is the only soccer player on the list. 2007 was the year Beckham created a media frenzy by signing with Los Angeles, doing the talk show circuit, was all over magazine covers, bought a house next to Tom Cruise... and that lifted him to the company of Jeff Gordon and Sidney Crosby in the public consciousness (as an athlete, anyway; his celebrity is something different). If that's what it takes to get David Beckham almost into the top 10, do you really think Middle America has any idea who Clint Dempsey is?

Again, the "average American" isn't a good litmus test. Based on the US demographics, if there was ONE PERSON who was "The Average American," it would be a 38 year old woman.

But 67 percent of American SPORTS FANS are "non-Hispanic, white men."

Only 35% of all women say they follow sports.
While 31% of men said they "follow sports very closely" (and another 25% say "closely").

(also of note, is that sports fans are also more likely to follow "international events" aka News than non-sports fans; and also more likely to watch network TV. In other words, sports fans are more aware of "pop culture" or "media culture.")


So, when I see that list of marketable athletes, that list is targeting a demographic. A demographic of males, age 18-54 (and predominantly white).

Alex Rodriguez, when his career is over, he has to be in the argument for the best baseball player of all-time (A 15-time All-Star with 3 MVP awards and 626 career homes at age 35. He'll probably be the all-time home run king when he's done).

And he's #23 on that list. That list is the extreme upper echelon of sports icons. In 2006, A-Rod was #46 on Forbes list of most powerful CELEBRITIES. Not just athletes, but all celebrities. He was on the list with Oprah and Tom Hanks. He was ranked AHEAD of Will Smith.

The fact that there's "just one" soccer player on a list of upper echelon guys isn't any type of indicator at all about name recognition.

Here's a list of others who didn't make the list:

2007 NBA MVP Dirk Nowitzki
2007 NBA Playoff MVP Tony Parker (who married Eva Longoria in 2007)
2007 NFL All-Pro Wide Receivers Randy Moss and Terrell Owens.
2007 NFL Passing Completions leader Drew Brees (returning to the Superdome in Sept 2006 was a big story for name recognition)
2007 NFL Rookie of the Year Adrian Peterson.
2007 Madden Cover boy Shaun Alexander.
2007 Dogfighter Michael Vick was unmarketable. but still had name recognition in 2007.

2007 MLB NL MVP Jimmy Rollins
2007 MLB NL Cy Young Winner Jake Peavy
2007 MLB AL Cy Young Winner CC Sabathia
2007 MLB hits leader Ichiro
2007 MLB new home run leader of all time Barry Bonds (hit 756 in 2007)

2007 Naismith winner Kevin Durant
2007 Heisman winner Tim Tebow
(I don't know if the list is only professionals, so does that make college sports aren't marketable?)

Those are athletes people have heard of. Yet they're not on the marketable top 25. Which kind of renders that list ridiculously incomplete in any kind of name recognition test.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Again, the "average American" isn't a good litmus test. Based on the US demographics, if there was ONE PERSON who was "The Average American," it would be a 38 year old woman.

But 67 percent of American SPORTS FANS are "non-Hispanic, white men."

Only 35% of all women say they follow sports.
While 31% of men said they "follow sports very closely" (and another 25% say "closely").

(also of note, is that sports fans are also more likely to follow "international events" aka News than non-sports fans; and also more likely to watch network TV. In other words, sports fans are more aware of "pop culture" or "media culture.")


So, when I see that list of marketable athletes, that list is targeting a demographic. A demographic of males, age 18-54 (and predominantly white).

It seems like you're twisting yourself into a knot trying to avoid the conclusion that MLS fandom remains mostly confined to an extremely narrow niche: young, white, affluent, cosmopolitan urban males in a few specific regions. Break down the demographics any way you like, the fact of the matter is that people outside that demographic niche evidently are not interested in professional soccer (well, I'll give you immigrants who are interested in foreign leagues) and until that changes soccer is simply never going to become a major sport in this country.

The quality of play in MLS has little to do with it; if it were the best league in the world, people wouldn't just drop everything and go watch soccer. It would simply draw a larger share of that same niche.

And honestly, throwing out names like Tony Parker and Jake Peavy as examples of "recognizable" athletes is kind of ridiculous. Their relevance extends to fans of their leagues, and that's about it.

 

[projexns]

A good MLS club would be able to compete in the EPL, but probably just above the relegation battle. IMO. MLS teams could absolutely compete in the English First Division and gain promotion to the EPL. And I am sorry TFC has been so poor on the pitch. But MLSE certainly knows what they are doing........... especially with the Leafs....

I'm not sure how you could arrive at such a conclusion. An MLS team has a salary cap of $3 million while EPL clubs get what 55 million pounds each just from TV revenues alone?

The top MLS team according to the aggregate market value of it's players is the New York Red Bulls whose players are worth 12,500,000 pounds:

http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/major-league-soccer/startseite/wettbewerb_MLS1.html

Nevermind comparing that with the 300,000,000 pound clubs of Chelsea and the two
Manchesters. That New York roster would only rank 18th among teams in the league below the Premier League (the Championship):

http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/championship/startseite/wettbewerb_GB2.html

The 3rd Division (League One) is where the Red Bulls would find their level, bouncing back and forth between promotion to Division 2 and relegation back to Division 3.

 

[Rick Nash homework]

Again, the "average American" isn't a good litmus test. Based on the US demographics, if there was ONE PERSON who was "The Average American," it would be a 38 year old woman.

But 67 percent of American SPORTS FANS are "non-Hispanic, white men."

Only 35% of all women say they follow sports.
While 31% of men said they "follow sports very closely" (and another 25% say "closely").

(also of note, is that sports fans are also more likely to follow "international events" aka News than non-sports fans; and also more likely to watch network TV. In other words, sports fans are more aware of "pop culture" or "media culture.")


So, when I see that list of marketable athletes, that list is targeting a demographic. A demographic of males, age 18-54 (and predominantly white).

Alex Rodriguez, when his career is over, he has to be in the argument for the best baseball player of all-time (A 15-time All-Star with 3 MVP awards and 626 career homes at age 35. He'll probably be the all-time home run king when he's done).

And he's #23 on that list. That list is the extreme upper echelon of sports icons. In 2006, A-Rod was #46 on Forbes list of most powerful CELEBRITIES. Not just athletes, but all celebrities. He was on the list with Oprah and Tom Hanks. He was ranked AHEAD of Will Smith.

The fact that there's "just one" soccer player on a list of upper echelon guys isn't any type of indicator at all about name recognition.

Here's a list of others who didn't make the list:

2007 NBA MVP Dirk Nowitzki
2007 NBA Playoff MVP Tony Parker (who married Eva Longoria in 2007)
2007 NFL All-Pro Wide Receivers Randy Moss and Terrell Owens.
2007 NFL Passing Completions leader Drew Brees (returning to the Superdome in Sept 2006 was a big story for name recognition)
2007 NFL Rookie of the Year Adrian Peterson.
2007 Madden Cover boy Shaun Alexander.
2007 Dogfighter Michael Vick was unmarketable. but still had name recognition in 2007.

2007 MLB NL MVP Jimmy Rollins
2007 MLB NL Cy Young Winner Jake Peavy
2007 MLB AL Cy Young Winner CC Sabathia
2007 MLB hits leader Ichiro
2007 MLB new home run leader of all time Barry Bonds (hit 756 in 2007)

2007 Naismith winner Kevin Durant
2007 Heisman winner Tim Tebow
(I don't know if the list is only professionals, so does that make college sports aren't marketable?)

Those are athletes people have heard of. Yet they're not on the marketable top 25. Which kind of renders that list ridiculously incomplete in any kind of name recognition test.

I would say the opposite. More people are more aware of pop culture when at the same time not following any kind of sport. The same with the news. I bet the so called "average person" has heard the name John Boehner more then Araon Rodgers. The average person has heard of Will Smith far more then Bautista from the Blue Jays. The average person in United States would know more about Warren Buffet then Jerry Jones. There are some names in sports that the average person knows such as Lebron James , Kobe Bryant, Tom Brady, Tiger Woods, Peyton Manning but most other names aren't that universial known when talking to the average person.

 

[KevFu]

It seems like you're twisting yourself into a knot trying to avoid the conclusion that MLS fandom remains mostly confined to an extremely narrow niche: young, white, affluent, cosmopolitan urban males in a few specific regions. Break down the demographics any way you like, the fact of the matter is that people outside that demographic niche evidently are not interested in professional soccer (well, I'll give you immigrants who are interested in foreign leagues) and until that changes soccer is simply never going to become a major sport in this country.

The quality of play in MLS has little to do with it; if it were the best league in the world, people wouldn't just drop everything and go watch soccer. It would simply draw a larger share of that same niche.

And honestly, throwing out names like Tony Parker and Jake Peavy as examples of "recognizable" athletes is kind of ridiculous. Their relevance extends to fans of their leagues, and that's about it.

I'm not an NBA fan at all, and I know who Tony Parker is. Sports fans pick up on the world of other sports, even if they don't follow them. You can't help it.

If you have SportsCenter on to follow the sports you like, you're going to know things like: Jimmy Johnson, Dale Earnhardt, Jeff Gordon, Robby Gordon, Kyle Busch, Kurt Busch, Kevin Harvick, Mark Martin, Casey Cane, Dick Trickle are NASCAR drivers names... and I on't watch or like NASCAR.

You're going to know about 40 NBA players, even if you don't have a favorite NBA team or watch more than the occasional NBA Finals game. You might not keep up with what team they are on when they move. But you'll know Tony Parker is on the Spurs and married to Longoria.


And I'm not avoiding saying it's a "niche sport." Well, I am because everyone keeps using it like it's a bad thing to belittle a sport. All sports are niche ("a distinct segment of a market." Men being the overwhelming majority of sports fans, and men being a distinct segment of the market), but aside from that context, I'm arguing against faulty logic.

You're implying only a very very tiny subset of Americans like soccer, and using MLS as an example of that.

If "quality of play" has nothing to do with MLS not being as popular in the US, why aren't known soccer fans NOT watching MLS?

Why did an average of 251,000 watch MLS on ESPN2 in 2010, and a 2010 Man U-Chelsea match draw 526,000 viewers? at 7:45 in the morning.

ESPN2's first 14 MLS games in 2010 drew 251,000 viewers
ESPN2/FSC's EPL games the opening weekend of 2010 (all I could get a reasonable average for besides the records) was 291,000.

MLS games are in PRIME TIME, while EPL time slots are 7:45 am, 10 am, and 12 am eastern.

The English Premier League has more fans in the United States than MLS does. And it's going to get bigger as the EPL teams continue to do summer trips to the US.

 

[Rick Nash homework]

And I'm not avoiding saying it's a "niche sport." Well, I am because everyone keeps using it like it's a bad thing to belittle a sport. All sports are niche ("a distinct segment of a market." Men being the overwhelming majority of sports fans, and men being a distinct segment of the market), but aside from that context, I'm arguing against faulty logic.

QUOTE]

..........

 

[tarheelhockey]

You're implying only a very very tiny subset of Americans like soccer, and using MLS as an example of that.

It's a matter of fact that only small subsets of the non-immigrant population follow pro soccer. I don't see any way around that. It's just the truth. Same as hockey, but smaller subsets.

If "quality of play" has nothing to do with MLS not being as popular in the US, why aren't known soccer fans NOT watching MLS ... The English Premier League has more fans in the United States than MLS does.

If we're being honest, a lot of it has to do with that same Euro-phile demographic which follows pro soccer in the first place. You mentioned that you'd get up early, go to the pub and drink Guinness while watching soccer. I assume you were part of a social group that all did the same; everyone goes to the pub (British), drinks Guinness (Irish) and watches Manchester City (English). It wouldn't make sense to replace the English soccer club in that scenario with, say, the Columbus Crew. It screws up the English-ness of the whole activity. If you're gonna do that, you might as well drink Miller Lite at a bar and watch baseball.

Even in places where MLS is successful, say Seattle, they're self-consciously English about holding up their scarves and making up chants and so forth. The sport isn't assimilating into American culture; if anything, it's become a popular alternative to American culture. And as long as it holds that niche, it's kind of hard to imagine it ever breaking into the mainstream regardless of how many marquee players it attracts.

 

[KevFu]

I would say the opposite. More people are more aware of pop culture when at the same time not following any kind of sport. The same with the news. I bet the so called "average person" has heard the name John Boehner more then Araon Rodgers. The average person has heard of Will Smith far more then Bautista from the Blue Jays. The average person in United States would know more about Warren Buffet then Jerry Jones. There are some names in sports that the average person knows such as Lebron James , Kobe Bryant, Tom Brady, Tiger Woods, Peyton Manning but most other names aren't that universial known when talking to the average person.

Yes, but the average person is still irrelevant. The average American you'd meet on the street watches the Super Bowl and that's it. That's not the NICHE of sports fans. Sports fans are a minority in the United States based on age/gender statistics. I really don't understand why this whole name recognition, guy on the street thing came up.


I jumped into this thread because of the sheer ridiculousness of an "us vs them" mentality, as if other sports are an enemy; that no one in the USA cares about soccer; that MLS is a gauge of the popularity of soccer; that the US will never be a soccer-loving country, etc, etc.

If a baseball or football fan tried to tell you that no one likes hockey and it will never be popular, it would kind of tick you off, wouldn't it? As a hockey fan, you'd say "Um, right here buddy. I like hockey. All the guys I see in the arena when I go to games like hockey. You don't know what you're talking about."

That's where I'm at in this conversation. I'm basically the guy this thread is saying doesn't exist.

And I refuse to except that I'm some how a rare breed, considering everywhere I've ever gone, I've found a number of people like me. Every single time I've gone somewhere with the purpose of watching a soccer game, there's been someone else doing the exact same thing. Even in California, where the first EPL match comes on at 4:45 in the morning.

 

[Rocket]

The quality of play in MLS has little to do with it; if it were the best league in the world, people wouldn't just drop everything and go watch soccer. It would simply draw a larger share of that same niche.

If MLS became the best soccer league in world here's what would happen:

1. Majority of the hardcore MLS fans would become ultra hardcore, taking more people to the games with them. More would travel to the away games and more often.

2. Semi-hardcore MLS fans would become hardcore and all the supporters groups would grow bigger in size and rowdier. Some would even start going to the away games (with the SG's). Half/season ticket sales would go through the roof.

3. Many of the casual MLS fans would become semi-hardcores, buy half/season tickets and/or simply attend and watch more games.

4. Vast majority of the soccer fans living in this country would start to follow it (maybe not solely but in addition to other soccer leagues they follow), many casually at first but more seriously over time. Their offsprings would likely be bigger MLS fans without as much attachment to the foreign leagues.

5. Millions of young-adult Americans who grew up with the sport would start following the league casually and many would become hardcore over time. They wouldn't "drop everything and start watching soccer" (although they seem to do exactly that during the world cups) but they would in addition to other sports they follow.

7. MLS' international audience would keep growing (read big int. TV/merchandise revenue), and decade(s) after MLS is the best league in the world the immigrants coming to this country would start/keep following this league without missing a beat, the way the immigrants of today watch the best leagues in the world now. The number of ethnic MLS fans would keep growing over time if the immigration policy stays the same.

8. More 'soccer investors' would invest in MLS and heavily, without as much concern for profitability as now (not sure if that's a good or bad thing for American soccer). Right now there are only a few MLS owners who admitted to growing up playing and watching soccer and becoming involved as a result.

9. There would be a lot more money for the American soccer players, leading to more of them choosing soccer as a pro career. With the increase in size usually comes increase in talent when a lot of them are fighting for relatively few spots and raising their game, improving not only the MLS but also the US national team as a result. US would likely become more competitive on the international stage, leading to more (casual and hardcore) interest in the sport and better treatment by the media. Bigger and better talent pool would likely churn up better coaches as well when the players retire, taking up coaching jobs in every level and guiding the next generations of players better.

These are some of the changes I could think of at the top of my head that would occur. I'm sure there are more. The league only needs to become the best soccer league in the world once and the snowball would keep rolling. There would be no going back.