Why hasn't the World Cup caught on in the United States? I've really gotten into it this year - there's a lot of excitement around the office, and it's hard not to get caught up in World Cup fever. My local pub has been PACKED all day for the 10am games.
Note: I'm going to refer to it as "soccer" in this post, simply because I'm also talking about NFL football and I don't feel like trying to clarify which I'm talking about each time.
I've read some articles that Americans can't get into soccer because of the low scores. Take, for example, what I read in The Week:
So many matches seem to end 0–0 or 1–1 that "in truth, soccer could be played without using a ball at all and few would notice the difference." For the chain-smoking "nihilists" who occupy Europe, the dearth of goals makes soccer a perfect "metaphor for the meaninglessness of life." But here in America, we "still believe the world makes sense" and that the expenditure of effort results — or should result —in achievement.
Anyone who has actually watched the matches knows that a low score doesn't take away from the excitement. In fact, the low score perhaps make it more exciting, as each play and scoring attempt matters that more. Anyone who watched England's loss on Saturday knows that a game can be exciting even when both teams remain scoreless for 120 minutes of play. The Germany / Argentina match was similarly exciting, with each team scoring just once. Both Germany and Portugal advanced on penalty kicks.
So why, then, hasn't the World Cup caught on, and why isn't America better at soccer? Personally, I think it's a case of economics.
Most of us have played soccer growing up. I stopped in seventh grade, when I had to choose between soccer and football. (Those of you who know me know that I was obviously better suited for that kind of football!). Here's my theory: Because soccer isn't as important culturally, we need an incentive to stick with it. Many of our most successful athletes come from underprivileged situations. For many, sports are the only avenue to a college education. And for a select few, the opportunity to be a professional athlete translates to a life-changing economic opportunity.
The problem is that, even with the MLS formed after the World Cup in 1994, the economic incentive is not there for the typical American soccer player. Freddy Adu, for example, was the highest paid MLS player in 2004, with total compensation of $500,000 and a base salary of $300,000. By contrast, the minimum salary for a rookie in the NBA was nearly $400,000 in 2005-06. Five years of being on an NBA roster guarantees you nearly $1M a year. Similarly, the minimum salary for an NFL rookie is $225,000.
On one hand, these pay scales aren't terribly surprising. The NFL and NBA are both much more popular, and thus profitable, than the MLS. I think a large part of that, though, is the advertising equation.
The Super Bowl attracts one of the largest television audiences each year. Companies spend ridiculous sums of money for a mere 30 seconds of airtime, and these commercials have become an event apart from the game itself.
Yes, the US television audience for the World Cup is relatively modest by comparison, especially considering it takes over a month instead of a single Sunday. Unlike an NFL or NBA game, however, a World Cup match doesn't have stoppage in play. This translates to less advertising time and makes it less likely that a major network will pay hefty sums to carry MLS games. (Question: I've never seen an MLS game. Are there commercial breaks in an MLS game?). With a smaller audience, less Americans see soccer games and actually know how exciting the games can be. The smaller audience feeds the lack of advertising, which feeds the lack of substantial salary as an incentive for our best athletes to turn towards soccer.
I really think soccer is fighting an uphill battle for mass acceptance in the United States because of these economics - but I'm rooting for it!
Tags: World Cup, Soccer, World Cup 2006, Football, Sports