Freddy Adu = Millionaire

[thesloppy]

Freddy hits the jackpot (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=268288&cc=5901)

--------------------

WASHINGTON -- Thirteen-year-old soccer prodigy Freddy Adu agreed to a $1 million contract with Nike, The Washington Post reported Monday.

Adu, already an offensive star on the U.S. under-17 national team, also has agreed to be represented by SportsNet, LLC.

Arnold Tarzay, a lawyer and family adviser, did not confirm the amount of the deal to the Post, which cited sources for the worth of the multiyear contract. The paper said Adu is not likely to sign a pro contract for at least a year.

Celeste Alleyne, a spokeswoman for Beaverton-based Nike, did not comment to The Associated Press. A call to a representative of the U.S. under-17 team was not immediately returned.

The agreement comes less than a week after Nike signed high school phenom LeBron James, the expected No. 1 pick in the NBA draft, to an endorsement contract worth more than $90 million.

Adu would become ineligible for NCAA soccer with this deal, but he does not plan to play in college.

A native of Ghana, Adu came to the United States when he was 8 and has been training with the national team in Bradenton, Fla. He became a citizen in February.

Adu played for the under-17 team that lost to Mexico 2-1 in Lancaster, Calif., on Sunday.

--------------------

What the hell would I have done with a million dollars at 13? How many Club magazines does that buy?

[sabotai]

He got ripped off. He could have gotten much more.

[Schmidty]

Originally posted by sabotai
He got ripped off. He could have gotten much more.

My goal in life is to get ripped off like that.

[GoldenEagle]

Freddy Adu - already famous on the FOFC board

[sooner333]

For a sport that nobody cares about, that's a lot of money.

[stkelly52]

Originally posted by sooner333
For a sport that nobody cares about, that's a lot of money.


??????? you do know that soccer is by far the most popular sport in the world, don't you? Sure it has nearly no following in the US, but people in other countries buy Nikes as well

[sooner333]

Actually, I do know about it, I was just being sarcastic. But, now that he is an American Citizen, and plays in America, for America, he is getting a lot of money and nobody in America really cares...well, not many. Its probably the fourth most popular sport here with Hockey, maybe golf is more popular, but football, baseball, and hoops are for sure.

[Alf]

stkelly is right on spot. Surely in the US, soccer is not a major sport (yet), however it is the most popular sport in the world.

[GoldenEagle]

The contract will run out when he is 16 or 17. He should be in Europe by then. If he is th real deal he will be starting and a star. Then he can sign a $100 million+ contract

[daedalus]

Originally posted by stkelly52
??????? you do know that soccer is by far the most popular sport in the world, don't you? Sure it has nearly no following in the US, but people in other countries buy Nikes as well

Huh? You mean extract cranium from rectum and recognize that there is a world beyond the US border? You're kidding, right?

[Subby]

Originally posted by Alf
stkelly is right on spot. Surely in the US, soccer is not a major sport (yet), however it is the most popular sport in the world. Heh...folks have been saying 'yet' since the seventies...

Profesional soccer will never catch on in the U.S.. Hockey barely survives here and it is infinitely more popular.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Alf
stkelly is right on spot. Surely in the US, soccer is not a major sport (yet), however it is the most popular sport in the world. I don't get the "yet" there. Even the high school kids I know who have played since they were 5 or 6 years old always tell me: "It's fun to play, but boring to watch. Thanks so much for coming."

[fantastic flying froggies]

Originally posted by GoldenEagle
Freddy Adu - already famous on the FOFC board

He's the kid that will revolutionize the way people in the US dont watch soccer ......

isn't he ?

:D

[Alf]

Originally posted by Subby
Heh...folks have been saying 'yet' since the seventies...

Profesional soccer will never catch on in the U.S.. Hockey barely survives here and it is infinitely more popular.

As I already said on this board earlier sometime. I think Soccer will grow as the population is increasingly becoming hispanic (which is now the 2nd minority). Whether or not it is by following a US based league is another question.

[Subby]

Originally posted by Alf
As I already said on this board earlier sometime. I think Soccer will grow as the population is increasingly becoming hispanic (which is now the 2nd minority). Whether or not it is by following a US based league is another question. Those Hispanics sure love their futbol! And their flautas!

ME GUSTAN LAS MANZANAS!!!!!!

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Alf
As I already said on this board earlier sometime. I think Soccer will grow as the population is increasingly becoming hispanic (which is now the 2nd minority). Whether or not it is by following a US based league is another question. True, but not THAT fast. Well over 80% of this country is comprised of plain ol' white folks and black folks who have more in common with other Americans than the nations of their ancestry. True, soccer is popular in that rising hispanic population, but inevitably some folks of hispanic origin will become assimilated into a more "Americanized" view of sports. (Not "all," not "most," but "some".) I can attest to that, as I know many hispanic teenagers who have more interest in Mike Vick than in soccer. I doubt you'll see a big rise in soccer's popularity in the US in my lifetime.

[Alf]

I assume you guys (Subby & SkyDog) know your country way better than me of course.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Alf
As I already said on this board earlier sometime. I think Soccer will grow as the population is increasingly becoming hispanic (which is now the 2nd minority). Whether or not it is by following a US based league is another question.

I think you're on to something with that last sentence. I'd say unless if there were to be a big influx of hispanic players into a US league, it's not going to grow from hispanic support. Soccer will be followed how it would have been in their native countries, at least for a generation or so - international matches, Mexican leagues, etc. I don't watch Telemundo or Univision very often, but I'd imagine that's what is shown there most of the time. If I were to move somewhere else, I would still try to follow US teams/leagues if there was an outlet showing them.

[oykib]

Why the hell would anyone want to follow the third-rate soccer that is played in America. Even the soccer fans on this board pay more attention to Europe.

Mainstream American sports fans are never going to regularly spend their ( very late ) evenings watching soccer matches from 5000 miles away that don't involve Americans.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by cuervo72
I think you're on to something with that last sentence. I'd say unless if there were to be a big influx of hispanic players into a US league, it's not going to grow from hispanic support. Soccer will be followed how it would have been in their native countries, at least for a generation or so - international matches, Mexican leagues, etc. I don't watch Telemundo or Univision very often, but I'd imagine that's what is shown there most of the time. If I were to move somewhere else, I would still try to follow US teams/leagues if there was an outlet showing them. Excellent point. If I were to move to, say, Barcelona, Spain, I'd still do whatever I could to follow the Atlanta Falcons, not the Barcelona NFL Europe team (there is one, isn't there?) With the internet and satellite television, people will probably tend to follow their "original" teams more and more. I've lived in Georgia all of my 34 years, but if for some reasons I moved to somewhere else in the country, I'd get one of those packages that would allow me to watch the Falcons, the Dawgs and the Braves game-in-and-game out. I'd get on the internet every day and read the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's sports page. (In fact, their online version actually has MORE info than the printed version...)

[Bee]

Originally posted by sooner333
Actually, I do know about it, I was just being sarcastic. But, now that he is an American Citizen, and plays in America, for America, he is getting a lot of money and nobody in America really cares...well, not many. Its probably the fourth most popular sport here with Hockey, maybe golf is more popular, but football, baseball, and hoops are for sure.

I think soccer would probably be around number 10 or so.

Football, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey, Auto Racing, Golf, Tennis, Boxing, Wood Chopping on ESPN2 and then Soccer.

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by fantastic flying froggies
He's the kid that will revolutionize the way people in the US dont watch soccer ......


Too bad I don't do the QotM thing but I say this is still the best quote to have come up.

I still find it amusing that the rest of the world has to constantly trumpet their one and only inferior sport while we have too many here to choose from. But I guess something is better than nothing. :D

[scooper]

Originally posted by Bee
I think soccer would probably be around number 10 or so.

Football, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey, Auto Racing, Golf, Tennis, Boxing, Wood Chopping on ESPN2 and then Soccer.

I was drinking coffee when I hit the wood chopping comment. Time to clean off the keyboard.

[Anrhydeddu]

Hey, wood chopping on espn2 is cool, esp. when they bring out the kick-ass chainsaw. :)

[dacman]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Hey, wood chopping on espn2 is cool, esp. when they bring out the kick-ass chainsaw. :)

Oh yeah, Great Outdoor Games rox. One day I'm gonna own one of those champion long jumping dogs -- maybe a nice chocolate lab. :cool:

[JeeberD]

Freddy Adu ain't no Lebron James...

[GrantDawg]

I think your all missing a point on the deal. Whether or not the proffesional league is a "top" sport in the US, rec soccer is a top sport, and he will be selling soccer gear to the rec league players. That is a major sports market and Addu is a name most of the kids playing will recognize in the next couple of years.

[scooper]

Originally posted by JeeberD
Freddy Adu ain't no Lebron James...

Nor is he Duke, the chocolate lab.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

LeBron got more money than that!

[Craptacular]

Does anyone else intentionally avoid products and services solely because of their marketing / advertisements??

[GoldenEagle]

I disagree. Soccer will become more and more popular in the United States, with latinos as well as white and blacks. Every year more and more kids play soccer through high school. If you play the sport in High School, chances are your kids will because they will see the soccer ball on your letter jacket. Its a slow and gradual process. It will not happen overnight (like some, including myself) but it is here to stay. Soccer is much more popular than hockey in the South and vice versa with the north.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

True Golden . I believe it will be a generation before soccer catches on .

[TroyF]

I have a chocolate lab. :) A black one too. Great dogs. :)

TroyF

[B & B]

Originally posted by Craptacular
Does anyone else intentionally avoid products and services solely because of their marketing / advertisements??

Ummm... yeah. For many years

[cartman]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Excellent point. If I were to move to, say, Barcelona, Spain, I'd still do whatever I could to follow the Atlanta Falcons, not the Barcelona NFL Europe team (there is one, isn't there?) With the internet and satellite television, people will probably tend to follow their "original" teams more and more.

I was hoping I would be able to still keep tabs on American sports after I moved to Milan, but no games are shown live. If anything, there is a "game of the week" that is shown tape-delayed. So CNN.com's GameCast has been my lifeline.

I have found I have been keeping a closer track on soccer (football, calcio, fussball) since I moved over here. I agree that in the current situation, soccer is not going to move up the popularity charts in the US. But if something big happens, like Beckham moving to the US, and/or we somehow win the Men's World Cup in 2006 or 2010, then the marketing machine will jump into hyper-drive and many more people will become interested.

[cuervo72]

I for one couldn't care less if David Beckham moved to the US, I still wouldn't watch soccer. Heck, Renaldo could be in my back yard and I probably wouldn't care, except that he'd be trespassing.

Tony Kornheiser had a comment on the women's world cup moving to the US because of SARS...basically how 4 years ago everyone was saying that women's soccer had arrived and the US team's victory would be a major boon to soccer here in the states. Hasn't exactly turned out that way.

[GoldenEagle]

But that is womens sports. No offense, but no guy can really enjoy a woman's sport like they do males. Everyone knows I am a big time soccer fan, but I dont care for women's soccer. While my girlfriend, who is a women's sports freak, will watch the womens world cup but no other soccer. Not even when I play.

[Bee]

I don't think soccer will ever be very big in the US because as a spectator sport it's too slow and Americans just don't have the attention to watch a sport like that. Soccer has been pretty popular as a particpant sport in schools, etc for a long time, but still hasn't taken off like everyone was predicting 20 years ago. I remember reading an article when I was in high school that by the year 2000 soccer would be the one of the top 3 sports in the US. I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it will be in another 20 years.

[GoldenEagle]

Back to the topic, how many of us which we had a million dollars when we were 13?

LeBron wouldnt have gottten that money at 13.

[NYFAN]

Well, since I've apparently got more time I've been back on the board hitting up topics that catch my eye. So here I go.

I'm not much of a soccer fan (although their sims do seem to interest me), but my roommate at college loves the game, and played his first two years before injuries took their toll and he decided to hang up the cleats. As a result I've seen more soccer on TV and live in the last 3 years than I have the other 18 put together. I've grown to enjoy it, a little, although I still won't watch much voluntarily.

I do however see the sport growing in the US. With programs like they have in Florida (where they basically just develop the top prospects) American talent is going to blossom. As our elite players catch up to other top tier teams in the world we're going to advance farther and farther in the World Cup. Each time we get there new fans will be interested, and watch the game. If it can last for an extended (4, 5, 6 cups where we advance to the final four maybe) time people are going to start tuning in because certain players, teams, or whatever catch their interest.

Assuming this happens at some point (and I do believe it will, because it is a popular sport to play, and the US committee is doing everything possible to catch up) we will have a lot more depth in terms of top players. As a result players are going to gradually play in American leagues (why go to Europe if the talent is here too?). Going to a game (with high quality players) is a heck of a lot more fun than watching it on TV, I don't care what sport it is. People will gain interest in their local team because big names that have now become household names will be playing their local teams (or maybe on them). It'll be an easier ticket in comparison to other sports, probably cheaper too. The more games you attend the more you're going to follow the team, watch them on TV, and then the sport will boom into the big markets.

This won't happen overnight, or even in the next 10-15 years most likely. But my guess is that within 25 years soccer will be regularly televised on national TV much as the NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL are now.

[tucker342]

Nike got a steal with that one.

I do think that Soccer is on the rise here in the states. The better the United States does in the World Cup, the more popular it will be. Within 15 years, it will be at least the third most popular sport maybe second, depends how far Baseball drops, in America.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by cartman
I was hoping I would be able to still keep tabs on American sports after I moved to Milan, but no games are shown live. If anything, there is a "game of the week" that is shown tape-delayed. So CNN.com's GameCast has been my lifeline.Dang....so no Direct-TV-like satellite packages are available??? I didn't realize the rest of the world was that backward... ;)

[aquavit]

As long as MLS is still around and they are still building brand new soccer stadiums (see: Home Depot Center in LA, so sweet!) then soccer will continue to grow in the US. It's not going to pass hockey anytime soon but it's going to be the fifth sport if it's not already. It will need star power like Adu to do it. When was the last time there was so much soccer on US TV and it wasn't the World Cup?

[cartman]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Dang....so no Direct-TV-like satellite packages are available??? I didn't realize the rest of the world was that backward... ;)

Hey SkyDog,

Well, they do have satellite TV, and they do have sports packages, but the sports are soccer, F1, rugby, cricket, and bicycle racing. You'd figure that since Rupert Murdoch owns broadcasting all over the world, they'd port Sunday Ticket and College Gameplan over here. Guess there just aren't enough 'Mericans over here demanding it.

Oh well, I'm back in the US at the end of this year, and will be in Houston, home of the 2004 Super Bowl. That'll be a nice homecoming... :D

[cartman]

Can't stop, DOLA time...

As for the comments about no one liking to watch soccer, and the US fans follow Europe more closely, I think it has to do with the quality of the competion. US Soccer is to Euro soccer as Div II college football is to the NFL. But US Soccer is steadily improving, and if given enough time, the level of talent and quality of play will grow to rival the European Leagues.

[PilotMan]

Great comment cartman, I think you are right on. Since I was a little kid, and the US mens National team was a joke, soccer has slowly been on the rise. I would say that from my generation to my sons, soccer has boomed in the US. In another generation where will it be.

The US does not like to lose at anything and will do what it needs to, to get on par internationally. The MLS will continue to churn and draw interest. Europe has already turned their heads in our direction by scouting our young talent.

In fact, I would go so far to say that some in Europe are concerned that US soccer will become so powerful, that the sport gets an Americanized feel to it. And that frankly scares the crap out of them.

[stkelly52]

Originally posted by cartman
Hey SkyDog,

Well, they do have satellite TV, and they do have sports packages, but the sports are soccer, F1, rugby, cricket, and bicycle racing. You'd figure that since Rupert Murdoch owns broadcasting all over the world, they'd port Sunday Ticket and College Gameplan over here. Guess there just aren't enough 'Mericans over here demanding it.

Oh well, I'm back in the US at the end of this year, and will be in Houston, home of the 2004 Super Bowl. That'll be a nice homecoming... :D

An i thought that I had it bad. We have ESPN International, who only shows one game per week, but at least it is something. I am looking forward to being able to watch sports again this fall once I move back to the US.

[stkelly52]

I think that a major problem for soccer in the US will be getting television coverage. If soccer is going to succeed in the US, it needs to be on TV, but unlike any other sport in the US, Soccer has no breaks for commercials. Without television, how are the networks going to get money to air the games. Networks are not interested in charity, and they will not air something unless the advertisers are willing to pay them. No commercial breaks means no advertisers.
The only alternative that I can think of is to show it on pay-per-view, and look how that concept has killed boxing.

[Bee]

Soccer is available on PPV.

[MIJB#19]

Amazing...
Freddy Adu can stop playing soccer before ever playing an official match for a first team!

To be honest, my first thought was such things only happen in the USA.:)

[ISiddiqui]

No commercial breaks means no advertisers.

Ever seen soccer games on ESPN or ABC? You have advertizing right above the score graphic, usually on constantly for 20 minutes. So yes, there are advertisers for soccer in the US.

Soccer is going to become popular in the US in the next 30 years, IMO. Why? Because the US Men's National Team is only getting better and better. As soon as Americans realize that this World Cup wasn't a fluke, and we are good, people are going to be jumping on board. Americans love to watch winners. I mean who the Hell ever thought that Americans would get hyped over a woman's soccer team?! Yet when they won the Woman's World Cup, they were all over the place! It was utterly amazing. Imagine if the Men get to the finals in the next 20-30 years.

[oykib]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
Soccer is going to become popular in the US in the next 30 years, IMO. Why? Because the US Men's National Team is only getting better and better. As soon as Americans realize that this World Cup wasn't a fluke, and we are good, people are going to be jumping on board. Americans love to watch winners. I mean who the Hell ever thought that Americans would get hyped over a woman's soccer team?! Yet when they won the Woman's World Cup, they were all over the place! It was utterly amazing. Imagine if the Men get to the finals in the next 20-30 years.

There are a few problems with your reasoning. First of all, good teams don't always do well in the world cup. All it will take is the team going out in the group phase once in the next twelve years to set back all the progress that's been made.

The other thing is, Women's soccer isn't on the radar anywhere in the world. The U.S. included. The most ridiculous prestigious sports award in the last decade was the SI Sportsman of the Year that was given to the U.S. soccer team. Nobody except me was watching any of the matches on ESPN2. It was just a fad media blitz.

Tell me... How is that women's pro soccer league doing?:rolleyes:

[QuikSand]

Okay, so the theory is that soccer will really grow in the US once our national team becomes a world-class competitor.

Is there any modern precedent for this? Are there other sports where the US population gets really interested in the various goings on of our national teams in any other sports?

Outside the Olympics, do Americans give a hoot about our U.S. basketball team, our baseball team, our cycling team, or any other national team? It doesn't seem to me that we really do.

We prefer the NBC/Olympics style of handling this sort fo event. Ten minutes before the event starts, we get the human interest story - "Well, over the last ten years, U.S. platform diving has taken a big leap forward, as young stars like John Doe and Clyde Asshat emerged onto the scene. Now, the Americans brashly think they can challenge th mighty Chinese, who have won this event in the last three Olympics. Keep a special eye on Floyd Dipthong, who will probably try out his special dive, the 4.2 difficulty Triple Lindy, for these games." Great, now we're ready to watch, after ignoring the sport completely for the last four years.


I got pretty interested in the last World Cup, and the US team's showing enhanced that. That said, it's awfully difficult to try to follow the US National team unless you're a die hard devotee o the sport. Who were these guys playing last week for the "national team"? By all accounts, they were a bunch of fill-ins from the two MLS clubs that didn't have a game that weekend. Great - I'm supposed to get excited about this? And what was this match for again?

The structure of soccer/futbol is just so foreign to Americans, that it faces hurdles not well undertood by the many who have been claiming for a generation that it was "justa few years away" from its big breakout. One example - I honestly believe that Americans simply demand a true and visible game clock... we demand drama, and international soccer, with the "hidden" extra time and mysteriously impending conclusion to a game, just misses the point completely. The fact that the world soccer community doesn't understand that (how this omits a substantial element of the sport) shows the cultural gap between us and them. Will that gap ever close? Beats me.

[MIJB#19]

with the "hidden" extra timeBad tv coverage.

By all accounts, they were a bunch of fill-ins from the two MLS clubs that didn't have a game that weekend. Great - I'm supposed to get excited about this? And what was this match for again?That sounds like the US football association doesn't take it's own team serious.
When the national team plays, the coach has the rights to select the best players with a US passport.
The MLS should have no games scheduled during official FIFA international games weeks. If the US football association decided to play a friendly out of these data, the association doesn't take itself serious.

Besides, friendlies are not so popular in other countries as well...
Over here in the NLs, nobody wants to see a friendly against Norway, Denmark, you name it...
The only interesting friendlies are those against rivals Belgium and Germany, recent opponents in real competitions (Portugal and Ireland knocked "us" out for the World Cup) or Brazil.

As far as I understand, Mexico, maybe Canada and the recent rival Germany could adress some interest in a US friendly if the media actually puts it on the front page.
Go to a random American webpage with sports news, it shows 5 categories: NFL - NBA - NHL - MLB - other sports.
Some have Golf, some have College Football, some have World Soccer.
How can one watch something that isn't broadcasted?

Also, I've seen some 'sissy' comments towards soccer players at this board and, although these people are not the big group of followers, if people who no zero about the sport call the players sissies, were does that judgement come from?

I think 'the rest of the world' is happy that soccer is not big in the USA. I think the anger for American companies and media destroying the game with in-game commercial breaks, time-outs and what not, can not be underestimated...

[QuikSand]

A few quick responses:

-It will take some time before Americans are likely to get very interested in a "friendly" of anything... it's just not part of what we do. Send in a bunch of second stringers to play against someone else's second stringers, in a contest that has no consequence...and you want me to watch this? No thanks.

-Complaining that the sport isn't popular because it isn't covered or broadcast is circular reasoning. Th networks are in this to make money - if people were out there thirsting for the chance to watch soccer, be assured there would be someone making money giving it to them.

-Similarly, the argument that the US team isn't taking its friendly too seriously has a "chicken-and-egg" component, too. Our fans and supporters don't take it seriously, so why should the US side? And vice versa. Why dump a week's worth of supposedly successful MLS games, just to host a meaningless match of our national team that nobody is going to care about until the next World Cup?


I don't think these are necessarily right, but they are certainly representative of many Americans' thinking about this sport.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by MIJB#19
Bad tv coverage.

What I mean by this is in the international matches I have watched, the only people who know the actual time remaining in the match are the officials. And when the game ends, it just suddenly ends... nobody knows exactly when that will be. We may know that there is "about three minutes" of injury time... but that's it.

Look at most American sports (baseball being the obvious exception) - we love our timekeeping. We love buzzer-beaters in basketball, the two-minute drill in football, the careful management of time outs in countless sports, the "saved by the bell" in boxing, the penalty timer in hockey and other sports... marking time is an essential component in nearly every prominent American sport. Time - specifically measured time - adds an element of urgency to sports, and it brings the audience into that.

Your team is down by one point, with the basketball... it just isn't the same if the only guy in the arena who knows how long there really is to play is an official with a hand-held timepiece. "about a minute" simply isn't good enough... we want to know whether it's 7.3 seconds or only 3.7 seconds... it matters.


Again, I know that you can make the arguemnt that American sports get bogged down with time outs and time management - and there's some truth to that. But the simple fact is that most American sports, and ALL of them that run on a timer, are intrinsically tied to a public and precise accounting of that time, which factors into the game itself and how engrossed we get.

Soccer, by failing to do this, simply clings to a cultural difference which reinforces how far apart this game is from the ones that we already know and love.

[stkelly52]

Originally posted by MIJB#19
Also, I've seen some 'sissy' comments towards soccer players at this board and, although these people are not the big group of followers, if people who no zero about the sport call the players sissies, were does that judgement come from?

I think that the reason that people think that soccer players are sissies is because in most every game players fall to the ground and act like they are writhing in agony every time that they are bumped by thier opponent. In America these kind of people are called sissies. Now I know that it is a stratagy, and it is part of the game but it still makes them look like wimps.

Compare that to other US sports. Football is all about putting on the big hit. In Hockey, everyone loves to see someone checked into the boards. Even in baseball you have can some serious collisions at home plate which make for the one of the most exciting plays in the game. Basketball doesn't have the same kind of contact, but at least (for the most part) players don't take a dive to try to get a call, and those who do are called sissies.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by stkelly52
Basketball doesn't have the same kind of contact, but at least (for the most part) players don't take a dive to try to get a call, and those who do are called sissies.

So you obviously don't know the NBA exists. Those guys go down more than their groupies.

oykib
The other thing is, Women's soccer isn't on the radar anywhere in the world. The U.S. included. The most ridiculous prestigious sports award in the last decade was the SI Sportsman of the Year that was given to the U.S. soccer team. Nobody except me was watching any of the matches on ESPN2. It was just a fad media blitz.

Tell me... How is that women's pro soccer league doing?

So you're saying that soccer isn't going to take over b/c women's soccer was just a fad a and the women's league sucks? So with that logic, the NBA also has to suck, b/c the women's league is atrocious. Strangely, I've seen more women's pro games on TV than I have WNBA in the past 2 years... odd.

[GoldenEagle]

Originally posted by stkelly52
I think that the reason that people think that soccer players are sissies is because in most every game players fall to the ground and act like they are writhing in agony every time that they are bumped by thier opponent. In America these kind of people are called sissies. Now I know that it is a stratagy, and it is part of the game but it still makes them look like wimps.

Compare that to other US sports. Football is all about putting on the big hit. In Hockey, everyone loves to see someone checked into the boards. Even in baseball you have can some serious collisions at home plate which make for the one of the most exciting plays in the game. Basketball doesn't have the same kind of contact, but at least (for the most part) players don't take a dive to try to get a call, and those who do are called sissies.

Get a clue. Soccer is just as much of a contact as football or hockey. Tell me, have you ever had the back of your league hacked by the power of someone elses leg? A leg brigns much more force than an American football tackle or a hockey check.

Diving is done around the world, but answet this. If you watched the last World Cup and watched the USA team, did you see anyone take a dive? No. It is not taught at the American youth level of soccer and never will be.

So get your head out of your ass and learn something about the game before making irrational statements.

[stkelly52]

Originally posted by GoldenEagle
Get a clue. Soccer is just as much of a contact as football or hockey. Tell me, have you ever had the back of your league hacked by the power of someone elses leg? A leg brigns much more force than an American football tackle or a hockey check.

Diving is done around the world, but answet this. If you watched the last World Cup and watched the USA team, did you see anyone take a dive? No. It is not taught at the American youth level of soccer and never will be.

So get your head out of your ass and learn something about the game before making irrational statements.

I was not saying that soccer players are sissies. I was merely explaining why Americans tend to look at soccer players as sissies.

[oykib]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
So you obviously don't know the NBA exists. Those guys go down more than their groupies.



So you're saying that soccer isn't going to take over b/c women's soccer was just a fad a and the women's league sucks? So with that logic, the NBA also has to suck, b/c the women's league is atrocious. Strangely, I've seen more women's pro games on TV than I have WNBA in the past 2 years... odd.

Actually, I was responding to a post tht said that one of the pieces of evidence of soccer's growing popularity was the Women's World Cup. I was pointing out how much of a joke that was.

But people trot it out as a point everytime this subject is discussed. Basically, I said that the success of the National team does give a bump in popularity to the sport. But it'll take a collosal hit if the team does badly, like in the World CUp before last. The '98 Cup squandered all the good will fostered by the good showing in '94.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by GoldenEagle
Get a clue. Soccer is just as much of a contact as football <hockey reference omitted for focus>

Really? You believe that?

[Bee]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Really? You believe that?

I think he was referring to Madden 2003.

[stkelly52]

Originally posted by GoldenEagle
Get a clue. Soccer is just as much of a contact as football or hockey....
So get your head out of your ass and learn something about the game before making irrational statements.

Just reread your post and some how I missed this. I just have to wonder where your head is. This has to be one of the single most ignorant statments that I have ever read on this board. To compare soccers kicking with football or hockey's hits is flat out plain stupid. Do soccer players kick hard, no question it would break my leg. But if a pro LB tackled me it would break a lot more than my leg.

In addition, my point was all about perceptions. Soccer is not concered to be a contact sport by the American public. Does contact happen? yes. Does it compare to football? What a joke!

[wbatl1]

I play soccer, and am a physical defensemen and therefore bring some physicalality onto myself. I also played football for two years in junior high, and can promise that the hits I recieve in soccer are almost equal to or equal to the football hits in many cases. The only case football has is that you get hit every play, but you also get breaks to gather yourself.

WB

By the way, I have broken an ankle and torn my ACL playing soccer, the most I ever got from football was a bruise.

[condors]

soccer will become popular when people start betting on it

sad as it is many people see betting on sports as a way to get rich quick the amount of people betting on sporting events is amazing

when soccer pools become popular so will soccer itself

i for one believe the game stands on its own ground but not enough people will care about it anytime soon in this country although its on the rise, its not a sure thing it will continue

[ISiddiqui]

Is there any modern precedent for this? Are there other sports where the US population gets really interested in the various goings on of our national teams in any other sports?

I would say the explosion in interest in hockey in the United States followed the 1980 Olympics. It took a few years for it to take off, but that tourney created tons of new fans.

[cartman]

Originally posted by wbatl1
By the way, I have broken an ankle and torn my ACL playing soccer, the most I ever got from football was a bruise.

I second that! During high school I played football, baseball, basketball, soccer, track, and cross-country, and the only time I got any serious injuries was playing soccer. I dislocated both ankles and cracked my shinbone, even though I was wearing shinguards!

Only bumps and bruises in all of the other sports. I still play today, at least when I can, and it's the only activity that causes me to be glad I have health insurance! :D

[Calis]

This is kinda a odd/pointless argument. I'll admit I have little experience playing soccer, but I'll also say from that time I learned to cringe more about a hit in soccer than I ever did in football.

Obviously football is the more contact-oriented sport, I mean that's just how it's played. I do however believe I'd much rather take a hard hit in football over a hard hit in soccer.

[GoldenEagle]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Really? You believe that?

Yes, I do. In part because some of the reasons listed above. But here is another one. In footbal, you know your going to get hit. In soccer, most of the time, it is impposible to know when your going to get youe feet taking out from under you.

If you watch a football game, and you see a player get tackled by getting his feet taken out from him, he usually lays there for a few seconds. Same concept in soccer except you do not know when your going to get hit.

[GoldenEagle]

Originally posted by stkelly52
Just reread your post and some how I missed this. I just have to wonder where your head is. This has to be one of the single most ignorant statments that I have ever read on this board. To compare soccers kicking with football or hockey's hits is flat out plain stupid. Do soccer players kick hard, no question it would break my leg. But if a pro LB tackled me it would break a lot more than my leg.

In addition, my point was all about perceptions. Soccer is not concered to be a contact sport by the American public. Does contact happen? yes. Does it compare to football? What a joke!

The most ignorant posts on this board? You must not read much.

Again, you still have this biased view toward soccer. That is ok. How many people get tackled by an all pro linebacker? Not very many. Those who are tackled are better equiped muscle wise to take the hit. But I still see your point.

Let me ask you this. Do you think a leg swinging fast or a football
or hockey player charging at you full speed then lowering their body to hit you? I think the soccer leg brings more velocity. It is also centered on one part of your body. When you get hit in football, your whole body can absorb the hit.

Another big difference is padding. Example. I am a goalkeeper. One time, there was a breakaway and I got the ball and the striker couldnt stop his momentum. We crashed like a train wreck. Same as football right? But with no helment, no shoulder pads, no hip pads...nothing. We both stayed down for about 15 minutes and had to be carried off the field. I didnt remember a thing. I had no clue the kid got sent off until my other players told me.

[Daimyo]

I don't think there are many of us here that could survive a hit by Warren Sapp running at full speed coming from our blind side. Forget broken bones, I think I'd be in a coma!

A foot may have more velocity, but that's only part of the equation and I've never seen a foot with near the mass of Warren Sapp's whole body.

[MIJB#19]

Well, there are certain soccer players with the same reputation of Warren Sapp.
For example, some Dutch and Italian soccer fans still blame Jürgen Kohler for destroying Marco van Basten's career with his tackles on the man in stead of on the ball (for those who don't know, Van Basten was the #1 soccer player from about 1985 to 1993.)

However, I don't think football and soccer can be compared well as contact sports.
In football getting hit is a big part of the game, that's why players wear their uniforms loaded with protection.
In soccer, protection is given for about 2% of the body. Nasty elbows and two-legged-tackles-from-behind can be career destroyers.

Then again, 10 years ago I only knew football as a brutal game that had too many rules to understand a single play. Then I wached a game with some enthausiastic reports explaining every single play and I got interested in football.

QS, I see your point in the time showing culture, although in my experience 30 seconds is about the maximum good referees would overdo to the given injury time. On the other hand, the people watching soccer matches 'overhere' don't like this 'hidden' time feature at all.
Watching a football game's last 2 minutes, it can be over in 2 minutes real time, but it can also last for another 10 minutes.
Personally I find the soccer endinds more nerve cracking, though I enjoy the last 2 minutes in football more.
Not for nothing I've seen more football matches in stadiums then soccer matches (5 vs. 0).

Originally posted by QuikSand
Similarly, the argument that the US team isn't taking its friendly too seriously has a "chicken-and-egg" component, too. Our fans and supporters don't take it seriously, so why should the US side? And vice versa. Why dump a week's worth of supposedly successful MLS games, just to host a meaningless match of our national team that nobody is going to care about until the next World Cup?My point is that the US soccer association should not schedule a match on a date were 90% of the normal squad is not available. I think you are not taking your own team serious if you do that.
I mean, if I'd put this into the Dutch situation, nobody would be interested in a international friendly against any team with the top players not playing.
Besides, the MLS should be scheduled accordinly to the FIFA rules, having open weekends when national teams are scheduled to play.

Originally posted by QuikSand
It will take some time before Americans are likely to get very interested in a "friendly" of anything... it's just not part of what we do. Send in a bunch of second stringers to play against someone else's second stringers, in a contest that has no consequence...and you want me to watch this? No thanks.As I tried to explain, people in the rest of the world aren't interested in those games either.
That's why I tried to explain that the soccer association makes a big mistake scheduling a match knowing the best players would not be available.

Originally posted by QuikSand
Complaining that the sport isn't popular because it isn't covered or broadcast is circular reasoning. Th networks are in this to make money - if people were out there thirsting for the chance to watch soccer, be assured there would be someone making money giving it to them.Not going to argue the wrong or right here.
What I've seen in the NLs is darts getting popular in the past 5 years. Why? There is this big Dutch darts player winning an important tournament. Then the tv stations realise people were watching this on the BBC and they think they can et money out of this. Currently, there are two commercial tv stations broadcasting as much darts as possible because people started watching darts because there is this Dutch guy winning tournament after tournament.
For example speed skating. As soon as "we" cannot compete with the rest of the world anymore (though the opposite seems to take place right now), skating will vanish from the tv.

Wow... that was a lot of typing...

[QuikSand]

On the matter of "Soccer is just as much of a contact as football" - I think you are misreading my comments.

I'm not denying that soccer players are prone to injuries, nor am I arguing that soccer is a game that is without contact. I understand that the players are on the pitch without protective gear (for the most part), and that when they do collide, they get a variety of injuries. I don't think there's anything to deny there - you can easily make the case that "soccer is a sport that involves physical contact, and can cause injury." Fine.

That's not the same thing, however, as being "as much of a contact [sport] as football." Football is about being tackled - that's the essential element in the game, that's when the play is over. Blocking, pushing, and throwing people to the ground is fundamental to every single play in football -- every single one. It's not a tactic, it's not a decision, it's not something you do so that other things work out right - it's what you do. Your objective on offense is to move as far as possible until you are violently thown to the ground. On defense, your objective is to violently thrown them to the ground as soon as possible.

While soccer certainly involves contact (a point which has been made quite clearly by those trying to defend the nonsense quoted above), it's simply not the same thing. Sure, players hit one another, and sure those hits can be forceful and violent. But it's not at the root of the game, period.

The only way you find a game that is clearly more of a contact sport than American football is to enter into the realm of the pure contact sports - boxing, wrestling, and the like.

[Bee]

Originally posted by QuikSand

The only way you find a game that is clearly more of a contact sport than American football is to enter into the realm of the pure contact sports - boxing, wrestling, and the like.

And Whack-a-mole.

[stkelly52]

The whole point of the contact sport rant was to explain that soccer players are percieved as sissies by Americans. Another reason why some americans see Soccer as a sissy sport is how slow the players move. Soccer players whill do some sprinting, but for most of the game many people see then a jsut jogging around without must effort. Now I know that this is unfair because players need to conserve thier energy since there are no subs and there are no time outs. But it does lead to this perception (but only among those who have never played the game).

[wbatl1]

Originally posted by stkelly52
Another reason why some americans see Soccer as a sissy sport is how slow the players move. Soccer players whill do some sprinting, but for most of the game many people see then a jsut jogging around without must effort. Now I know that this is unfair because players need to conserve thier energy since there are no subs and there are no time outs. But it does lead to this perception (but only among those who have never played the game).

I dont know if this is legitamate reasoning. Are all baseball players sissies in the American eye, even though they sprint maybe 5 times a game.

[GoldenEagle]

Originally posted by QuikSand
On the matter of "Soccer is just as much of a contact as football" - I think you are misreading my comments.

I'm not denying that soccer players are prone to injuries, nor am I arguing that soccer is a game that is without contact. I understand that the players are on the pitch without protective gear (for the most part), and that when they do collide, they get a variety of injuries. I don't think there's anything to deny there - you can easily make the case that "soccer is a sport that involves physical contact, and can cause injury." Fine.

That's not the same thing, however, as being "as much of a contact [sport] as football." Football is about being tackled - that's the essential element in the game, that's when the play is over. Blocking, pushing, and throwing people to the ground is fundamental to every single play in football -- every single one. It's not a tactic, it's not a decision, it's not something you do so that other things work out right - it's what you do. Your objective on offense is to move as far as possible until you are violently thown to the ground. On defense, your objective is to violently thrown them to the ground as soon as possible.

While soccer certainly involves contact (a point which has been made quite clearly by those trying to defend the nonsense quoted above), it's simply not the same thing. Sure, players hit one another, and sure those hits can be forceful and violent. But it's not at the root of the game, period.

The only way you find a game that is clearly more of a contact sport than American football is to enter into the realm of the pure contact sports - boxing, wrestling, and the like.

I will give you that there is more contact in football on a regular basis than there is in soccer. But more doesn’t mean better, if that makes sense. I think you have to come with criteria to determine if soccer or football is more of a contact sport. To me, contact is defined as a blow to the body. The more severe the contact, the worse off. It is not the quantity of the contact, but the quality. In football, players wear protective padding and are taught to absorb their blows. Most of the time, the entire body takes the hit, not just a leg or shoulder. They know the hit is coming, and can prepare themselves for it. This is my stand argument: Soccer is more of a contact sport because the contact is more severe and damaging.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by stkelly52
The whole point of the contact sport rant was to explain that soccer players are percieved as sissies by Americans. Another reason why some americans see Soccer as a sissy sport is how slow the players move. Soccer players whill do some sprinting, but for most of the game many people see then a jsut jogging around without must effort. Now I know that this is unfair because players need to conserve thier energy since there are no subs and there are no time outs. But it does lead to this perception (but only among those who have never played the game).

My lack of enjoyment of the game has nothing to do with perceiving the players as sissies. It's just boring. I actually watched a good portion of a couple of MLS games when they were on the DirecTV free preview and nothing else was on. There were hardly any shots on goal, let alone goals. I can handle a 1-0 game, but when the goalkeepers are involved in only 5-7 legitimate scoring opportunities for 90 minutes, that's just boring. Shots that go wide of the widest goal in the history of sports just do not keep me on the edge of my seat.

However, I recognize that soccer players have to be tremendous athletes. Running (or hell, in my condition, even jogging) up and down a field that big for 90 minutes has got to be tough. It's just that ultimately, there's hardly ever a good reason for the hard work they do - they rarely get good chances to score, so what's the point?

[daedalus]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
My lack of enjoyment of the game has nothing to do with perceiving the players as sissies. It's just boring. I actually watched a good portion of a couple of MLS games when they were on the DirecTV free preview and nothing else was on. There were hardly any shots on goal, let alone goals. I can handle a 1-0 game, but when the goalkeepers are involved in only 5-7 legitimate scoring opportunities for 90 minutes, that's just boring. Shots that go wide of the widest goal in the history of sports just do not keep me on the edge of my seat.

To be honest, this was my view as well. I've started being able to tolerate soccer more (spent some time building up my tolerance for iocaine powd . . . er, soccer) out of curiosity from playing CM. The part that's made me like it is the passing. The fact that you seem to HAVE to pass (at least it seems to my untrained eyes) in order to get very far makes me watch it. (Much as the lack of it in the NBA continue to turn me away from it.) I love the fact that you have to anticipate and pass to the space your teammate is suppose to be. To be honest, I still can't watch a whole lot of MLS. There seems to be a lot of individual play involved. I don't know if it's the level of play (somebody mentioned a rough equivalent to D2 or D3?) or if it's just an American thing. But I taped and watch a few Real Madrid games and they were a blast to watch, just for the passing. ZZ makes me think of Magic Johnson.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone to like soccer. To each, their own. Just trying to share what I like as someone who pretty much shares/-ed your view.

there's hardly ever a good reason for the hard work they do - they rarely get good chances to score, so what's the point?

Story of my life, man. Story of my life. :D

[daedalus]

Originally posted by GoldenEagle
I will give you that there is more contact in football on a regular basis than there is in soccer. But more doesn’t mean better, if that makes sense. I think you have to come with criteria to determine if soccer or football is more of a contact sport. To me, contact is defined as a blow to the body. The more severe the contact, the worse off. It is not the quantity of the contact, but the quality. In football, players wear protective padding and are taught to absorb their blows. Most of the time, the entire body takes the hit, not just a leg or shoulder. They know the hit is coming, and can prepare themselves for it. This is my stand argument: Soccer is more of a contact sport because the contact is more severe and damaging.

I think what they're referring to is more that football is a sport where the contact is MEANT to happen and, thus, encouraged, where soccer is a sport where soccer HAPPENS. That doesn't mean the contact is nonexistent or is of "lesser quality". It just wasn't something that's meant to be a part of the game.

[MIJB#19]

Originally posted by daedalus
But I taped and watch a few Real Madrid games and they were a blast to watch, just for the passing. ZZ makes me think of Magic Johnson.ZZ almost makes Figo, Ronaldo, Raul and Roberto Carlos look like average Joe's, huh?

Real Madrid uses the philosophy "score more goals then the opponent".
If you watched the latest UEFA Champions' League final, you could see how Juventus and Milan AC both use the other philosophy "let the opponent not score more goals".

The first philosophy is the one I like and which used to te most used ph. in the 1970's.
But this is the 21st century, most teams use the second philosophy.

In the end, the best players always play on teams with the the first philosophy, but those teams are getting scarce.
In the European top it's just Real Madrid, Barcelona (are they still top?) and Manchester United.
Arsenal is somewhere in the middle I think, so is Valencia and is Deportivo.
Bayern Munchen and especially the Italian giants (Juve', Milan AC, Inter', Lazio, Roma) all use the second philosophy.)

Look at national teams and you see even Brazil adopted the second philosophy!
At the moment even The Netherlands/Holland/Oranje is addopting the second philosophy, which to me is the start of the end of attractive, offensive and fun-to-watch (in my opinion) soccer.

[GrantDawg]

You know MIJB#19, every time I see where you are from on first blush it always seems to say "located south of the Waffle House."

Anyway, back to the thread topic.....right after I have some hashbrowns, scattered, smother, covered and chunked.

[MIJB#19]

OT ALERT ON

Originally posted by GrantDawg
You know MIJB#19, every time I see where you are from on first blush it always seems to say "located south of the Waffle House."Waffle?
As in Belgian delicatesse?

OT Alert OFF

Nothing to add so far to this thread...

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by MIJB#19
OT ALERT ON

Waffle?
As in Belgian delicatesse?

OT Alert OFF

Nothing to add so far to this thread...

Nothing belgian about these Waffles. Now were is that toothless wattress with my check....

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by GrantDawg
You know MIJB#19, every time I see where you are from on first blush it always seems to say "located south of the Waffle House."


That could very well be anywhere along I-81/I-77/I-85 :D