Why do Americans hate football(soccer) so much?

[Desgardes]

I don't think Americans actually hate football, it just will never be played here because no television station is going to want to sacrifice an entire block for a full soccer match when they could sell that advertising time.

 

[Kryzantine]

I don't like watching live games. You have to be concentrated entirely on the game because something big MIGHT happen the next few seconds, but it usually doesn't. And then don't get me started on 0-0 ties.

To Americans, there are 3 things an ideal sport should have: speed, grace and violence. Hockey contains all 3 very easily (and it's my favorite sport, BTW, but that might be my Latvian blood intervening), while American Football comes close (yes, there is grace in there, see Larry Fitzgerald in the 08-09 NFL playoffs). Basketball and Baseball both contain the former 2, with very small amounts of violence in them. But futbol really only has grace going for it. Players might be quick, but the field is simply too large for long distance speed to be a factor, and it's a very non-violent sport. Fighting in soccer might get you suspended for a year or two, while fighting in hockey gets you a 5 minute major (in a 60 minute game; players are usually so gassed from the fight their coaches bench them for more time after the penalty is served).

Yeah, we love a bit of violence in our games. Just that tad bit, though. Enough to give the game some teeth.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I think you're asking the wrong people, this is a forum for gamers.

On the contrary there seems to be six pages of replies telling us otherwise. If nothing else I if you really wanted to keep it as a gaming post you could compare FIFA 2010 World Cup South Africa to NHL 10 or Madden 10.

No, because they suck.

 

[asinann]

They don't.
I've met a lot of americans on these forums who were pretty passionate about soccer.
But, hell, even if you're right, most Europeans dislike American football also, so the door swings both ways.

No, we just call it rugby and play it without padding. Also, this isn't a USA and Europe thing, this is a USA and rest of the world thing.

For the record, I'm not particularly interested in fottball of any flavour. But I'm gay.

They also play it without anyone strong of fast enough to play American Football.

It also doesn't help that there is more acting and delaying through injury in a single game of soccer than in the last decade of American Football. We might stop the clock for a bit, but at least the only people we have in the game that fall over and act like they're hurt whenever someone looks at them cross-eyed are the kickers, and we usually get them from soccer teams.

Football (soccer)is the non-contact variant of the game. You can't have a go at people for complainig about injuries in it, it isn't the point.

As for not having anyone strong or fast enough....

Hahahahhahahhahahhahahahhahahahahhaha

I will take that comment with me to the pub for my welsh friend to take home with him. Very, very funny, thank you.

They actually did studies. They took a pro rugby player and a HIGH SCHOOL corner back and measured speed and hitting power. The rugby player ran a 4.8 sec 40 yd dash while the football player ran it in 4.3 sec. The rugby player hit with 1800lbs of force while the football player hit with 4800 lbs of force. This is a professional rugby player vs a 17 year old KID. And not one of the large ones, high school corners generally run in the 160lb range. Pro corners run in the 220 range and are faster and stronger than the high school player. Without those pads American football would be lethal.

 

[Jewrean]

I'm not from your country but I brought this up a little while ago stating that America hates Soccer (and yes I refuse to call it football... there's already 4 codes of Football in my country...). Then someone told me it is gaining popularity.

EDIT: One of the unique codes of football in my country:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-PFRrJQtew

 

[Tranka Verrane]

They actually did studies. They took a pro rugby player and a HIGH SCHOOL corner back and measured speed and hitting power. The rugby player ran a 4.8 sec 40 yd dash while the football player ran it in 4.3 sec. The rugby player hit with 1800lbs of force while the football player hit with 4800 lbs of force. This is a professional rugby player vs a 17 year old KID. And not one of the large ones, high school corners generally run in the 160lb range. Pro corners run in the 220 range and are faster and stronger than the high school player. Without those pads American football would be lethal.

So comparing two people is indicative of a trend? Puh-lease. Also that is not a fair test; Get the two players to run for an hour and compare average speed. Of course the American Football player is better at blindly slamming into people and running in short bursts than the Rugby is. It's what he's been trained to do. It doesn't prove him be better, any more than the 100 metre runner is a better athlete than the marathon runner.

I would maintain, however, that a rugby team would play American football far better than an American football team could play rugby, or Australian rules football, or any of the other variants.

Like baseball, American football is a game that survives and thrives because of US TV's demand for games where you can take an ad break every two minutes. If it wasn't for that you'd be playing the same games as the rest of the world.

 

[Calbeck]

Hate, or boredom?

 

[triggrhappy94]

Lets compare and contrast Futbol de Americana and football.

Compare:
Both involve the fans getting drunk and starting fights.
Fans get super into the sport

Contrast:
Football: Over-reacting to an injury is a legit strategy.
refferies don't always have to justify a call untill after the game/cup
someone maybe scores every once and a while
FdA: Violence is incouraged.
refferies always have to justify calls and have hand signals
people score 7 points at a time

 

[SecretSmoke]

I like soccer. I'm not great at it, but I do a lot better than I do in footbal. (can't catch the damn thing, it's not even *round* lmao)

 

[Megacherv]

Because as a game (and a culture) it's rather shite?

 

[Chester41585]

I don't mind football. I honestly prefer it over Handegg. It's easier to understand and the game moves faster.

 

[Composer]

im pretty sure watching all sports is boring

 

[Tranka Verrane]

They actually did studies. They took a pro rugby player and a HIGH SCHOOL corner back and measured speed and hitting power. The rugby player ran a 4.8 sec 40 yd dash while the football player ran it in 4.3 sec. The rugby player hit with 1800lbs of force while the football player hit with 4800 lbs of force. This is a professional rugby player vs a 17 year old KID. And not one of the large ones, high school corners generally run in the 160lb range. Pro corners run in the 220 range and are faster and stronger than the high school player. Without those pads American football would be lethal.

So comparing two people is indicative of a trend? Puh-lease. Also that is not a fair test; Get the two players to run for an hour and compare average speed. Of course the American Football player is better at blindly slamming into people and running in short bursts than the Rugby is. It's what he's been trained to do. It doesn't prove him be better, any more than the 100 metre runner is a better athlete than the marathon runner.

I would maintain, however, that a rugby team would play American football far better than an American football team could play rugby, or Australian rules football, or any of the other variants.

Like baseball, American football is a game that survives and thrives because of US TV's demand for games where you can take an ad break every two minutes. If it wasn't for that you'd be playing the same games as the rest of the world.

hey dont lump baseball in together with numb nuts over here.

and im fairly confident that if the ads were taken out, football would be just as popular just as baseball.
you see, men have this thing about sports and competing. its because we're men. men play things like football and baseball and basketball. rugby is manly too, but the average rugby player would be destroyed by the average football player that is shaped like michael strahan

I'm sure it would, now. You've been indoctrinated into them. But there's a clear reason they haven't caught on in the rest of the world. Seriously, given the massive influx of US culture everywhere, that is a far better question to be asking yourself.

Why does soccer not do well in the US? Because you would have to go up to an hour without ads or you might miss something. A whole hour! NBC execs would faint.

Don't get me wrong. As I stated a while back I'm not trumpeting for soccer. I think it's a dull game that is so boring that people take to beating each other up in the stands to relieve the tedium. Even cricket isn't that dull. Just don't get all hoity-toity thinking that American football is the bees knees in any objective sense. It's just what you were brought up with.

 

[Xojins]

It's not that we hate it, it's just that we find it uninteresting and get annoyed when people call it the "greatest sport in the world" and scoff at us for not caring about soccer.

 

[asinann]

They actually did studies. They took a pro rugby player and a HIGH SCHOOL corner back and measured speed and hitting power. The rugby player ran a 4.8 sec 40 yd dash while the football player ran it in 4.3 sec. The rugby player hit with 1800lbs of force while the football player hit with 4800 lbs of force. This is a professional rugby player vs a 17 year old KID. And not one of the large ones, high school corners generally run in the 160lb range. Pro corners run in the 220 range and are faster and stronger than the high school player. Without those pads American football would be lethal.

So comparing two people is indicative of a trend? Puh-lease. Also that is not a fair test; Get the two players to run for an hour and compare average speed. Of course the American Football player is better at blindly slamming into people and running in short bursts than the Rugby is. It's what he's been trained to do. It doesn't prove him be better, any more than the 100 metre runner is a better athlete than the marathon runner.

I would maintain, however, that a rugby team would play American football far better than an American football team could play rugby, or Australian rules football, or any of the other variants.

Like baseball, American football is a game that survives and thrives because of US TV's demand for games where you can take an ad break every two minutes. If it wasn't for that you'd be playing the same games as the rest of the world.

Been done, with various levels of amateurs. The rugby players have lost every single American football game, and then split the rugby games about 50/50. Rugby players lost the US football games due to a lack of size and speed. Try to get that 250lb rugby player by the 350lb lineman that has better footwork and equal speed to the rugby player. And as for the distance running, most coaches force the kids to run an hour a day at least to get them in shape to be playing. They won't run a marathon, but they won't be winded by running for an hour straight either (which no sport actually does other than running, even in the ones that in theory don't stop, the players will slack for a little bit to rest up so they can come through with a burst when they need it.)

 

[FinalHeart95]

It's hell of a lot better than american football. There are literally ads before and after ONE PLAY, and that just annoys me. The constant stop-and-start nature of it annoys me too, that's why I'm not a big baseball fan either.

To be honest, the only two sports I really like are soccer/football and hockey. I'm an American too.