The numbers are in on the World Cup, and it appears 400 billion Americans are watching on ESPN, another 800 trillion are watching on Univision, and another 120 gazillion are watching online. (Edited to make it clear that this is a comic exaggeration. More realistic numbers here.)
Might be a rounding error in those numbers, but it's clear that the World Cup has accomplished its quadrennial feat of capturing the USA's attention.
That's followed every four years by the pundits in a rush to tell us (A) this was a fluke occurrence by a sport that doesn't interest us or (B) we've hit the tipping point that will help soccer "make it" in this country.
Neither A nor B has it quite right.
The "A" arguments usually come from pundits in denial about the complexity of the sports world. The most egregious entry this year comes from Associated Press columnist, Tim Dahlberg. The arguments are straight out of 1993, save for the random introduction of U.S. league names such as the WUSA (the defunct women's league) and "the MSL," which we'll take to mean Major League Soccer rather than the long-defunct indoor soccer league.
(Quick aside: If Americans really needed more goals to get interested in soccer, we'd all be watching the MISL instead of the World Cup. The MISL is still around after several reconstitutions.)
The AP has a difficult task in sports, trying to cover a diversifying sports scene in an era that doesn't lend itself to doubling its staff. Trying to please everyone isn't easy. Telling people what sports they should not be following can't be helpful.
The "B" argument usually comes not from die-hard soccer fans but from the newly converted. They're earnest and sincere, but their grasp of history isn't necessarily much better than the soccer-bashers.
Soccer has indeed "made it" in the USA, at least as much as it's going to make it for the moment. But the tipping point wasn't a World Cup, David Beckham's first MLS game or anything so dramatic. It happened in the early 1990s with the arrival of the Internet and the rapid expansion of cable and satellite channels.
That's not as exciting as Landon Donovan's goal that wiped out 90 minutes of frustration against Algeria. But it's impossible to overstate how much has changed.
Following professional soccer from within the USA in the early 1990s meant tinkering with a shortwave radio to find the BBC or waiting for the next issue of Soccer America to give a bunch of scores. The Internet made it possible for fans to get together and share scores soon after the fact.
Today, a soccer fan can watch the game virtually every minute of a weekend, from the early morning Premier League broadcasts on ESPN and Fox Soccer Channel through the other European leagues on GolTV to the night's Major League Soccer fare. Night owls can even stay up to catch broadcasts from Australia. Online, fans can get real-time information about everything just shy of Tim Howard's restaurant choice for the evening.
All of this has happened without the involvement of American newspapers, wire services or even the big-time sports blogs. Therefore, it's a bit of a surprise to them that any of it happened.
But it did. Within the 300-million-strong United States is a soccer nation of tens of millions. With each World Cup, each U.S. win over a major soccer power and each MLS expansion, that nation grows a bit more.
Follow Beau Dure on Twitter: www.twitter.com/duresport
Well said.
I started to be interested in soccer in 1990 when the US was back on the world stage. In the past 20 years I saw a huge change that I frankly did not expect.
Soccer haters think we are after them to convert them to our sport, some may but most do not care if any more join them or not. When we win the cup and we will, it may lead to a huge increase of fans across the country, but regardless the slow build up is actually accelerating.
Wow, no one realized I was exaggerating? Even with the "rounding error" reference in the next paragraph?
OK, I may see if I can edit.
You can not use the past to predict the future with regards to the success of soccer in America, it is very misleading.
http://vasoccernews.blogspot.com
This time regarding soccer.
The celebrations as the US advances through the tournament were near hysterical.
I tried, though. When the World Cup was held in America, I told myself the least I could do is give it a chance and watch the finals. Let's see the excitement the two best teams in the world have to offer. (At least they are truly "World Champions", unlike the NFL, NBA, MLB, & NHL champs.)
1994: Brazil v. Italy
45 minute first period = 0-0 tie
45 minute second period = 0-0 tie
15 minute 1st extra-time = 0-0 tie
15 minute 2nd extra-time = 0-0 tie
So they crowned the champion of the world by lining up five penalty kicks each, which Brazil wins 3-2.
Are you freakin' kidding me?!? I just watched two hours of 22 men chasing around a ball, unable to use the most important appendages they have, to a 0-0 tie, only to have the world champion decided by five guys each kicking at goal from 11 meters away? Really? This would be like deciding a double-overtime Game 7 in the NBA finals by giving each starter one technical free throw each... except that they would have scored in the preceding 58 minutes.
I appreciate defense and athleticism, but why not have an unending series of extra-times? Let's see those defenses keep holding out rather than award the quadrennial world championship to the team with the worse goaltender.
Maybe you should actually watch the American team, just so you could have some idea what you're talking about.
The weenie European attitude that apparently is good enough to win the World Cup this year?
I guess I should be surprised. It's very "American" to reject a successful approach simply because it's "European". For the provincially minded Yank, an American-derived failure is preferable to a European-derived success
45 minute first period = 0-0 tie
45 minute second period = 0-0 tie
15 minute 1st extra-time = 0-0 tie
15 minute 2nd extra-time = 0-0 tie***
The fact you view soccer in the typical four-period US style is where your problems begin
And you take one game and judge the entire sport by it.
Let me use another example, using your model.
The 2005 Champions League final.
45 minute first period = 3-0 to AC Milan
45 minute second period = 0-3 to Liverpool
15 minute 1st extra-time = 3-3 tie
15 minute 2nd extra-time = 3-3 tie
Liverpool won 3-2 on penalty kicks
That's just a European competition and it pisses all over the Superbowl, World Series, Stanley Cup and NBA finals.
***
Like I said, it would be like the NBA settling Game 7 after 2OT by shooting five free throws each.
It would be like the NFL settling the Super Bowl after 2OT by lining up the place kickers to each kick five 11-yard field goals (with no other players but a holder and one defensive lineman who's not allowed to cross the line of scrimmage.)
It would be like MLB settling Game 7 of the World Series after the 11th inning by having a five-pitch home run derby.
Seriously, futbol fans, y'all accept this? "Ah, well, these lads have been running and kicking their arses off for two hours. Let's just give it to the team whose goalie zigs when he should've zagged one more time than the opposing goalie, eh?"
Never mind. If y'all can accept vuvuzelas, hooligans, and a sport that doesn't allow the use of the appendages that most make us human, it's not too much to accept two players out of 22 determining the final champion in a close match, is it?
Look, culture is a dynamic beast, and just like music and fashion it is constantly evolving. This doesn't mean *any* sport will "stick", or even that they'll ever match cultural giants like Football and Basketball. But let's not forget that we are a melting pot of many different cultures, and a great many of us have ties to other cultures where soccer is worshipped - italian, spanish, portuguese, german, brazilian... which create a solid (if embrionic) soccer fan base. And you factor in the massive powerhouse that soccer is world wide - it is by far the most popular sport on the planet - and the massive advertizing dolars flowing into pushing the sport in the US, soccer is looking very promising for us - especially with US players like Donovan scoring exciting last-minute goals and rallying our youth during late-night shows. Have you seen the MLS stadiums that have been built over the last few years and which are planned for the next coming years?
Soccer *is* undergoing a massive expansion in the US, and I agree that the real tipping point is not ahead of us, but behind us.
Do you really use such specific numbers when exagerating to make a point? You might say "ten times the world population has watched the game" or even "the viewer base has reached infinity for the first time" - not "40 billion" and "120 bilion". At the least you'd probably round it to "50 billion" and "100 billion" for the same reason you'd round "3:56pm" to "4:00pm" - because the only relevant information here is the order of magnitude of the number itself.
And face it, if you wanted to be hyperbolic and exaggerate, you'd probably maintain that tone throughout the entire article - not write a sarcastic first paragraph and a good, serious rest of the article. That'd be like making a movie that starts out a comedy the first 5 minutes and ends a dry documentary for the last 55 minutes.
Not only is it clear the author was *not* trying to be hyperbolic, I don't think he ever cared to look up the actual ratings either - he just figured he'd pull a fake number out his a** and treat them as statistics.
In any case, see below for some actual numbers.
And Association Football will never go Metric, despite what the Laws book says. They're just numerical conversions from the old yardage standards, e.g. a goal will always be 8 yards wide, even if the specs call for 7.32 meters.
If you prefer hard numbers, the NYT's Richard Sandomir had a good roundup about 10 days ago, combining ESPN and Univision (but not online) figures: 19.4 million viewers for USA-Ghana, average for all games close to 5 million. Roundup here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/sports/soccer/29sandomir.html
Assuming a few people have watched other games but couldn't make it to a TV for USA-Ghana, we can conclude that tens of millions have watched games.
40 billion would point to some interplanetary interest in the World Cup. Not impossible, but very difficult to measure.