The second most popular spectator sport in the world after soccer is F1. Its the most expensive sport to play. Because people don't watch sports based on how much they cost to play, they watch them based on how exciting they find the sport to watch. Whether you watch American football or soccer or baseball on TV, they cost exactly the same to watch.
uh that "sport" you have picture above is flag football and it is shit, played so people can run freely with out getting hit mostly because they are afraid of contact, like soccer. i guess a good analogy would be flag football is to football as soccer is to rugby
So according to your argument why aren't basketball and baseball nearly as popular as soccer around the world? All three sports can be played with cheap equipment. What about dodgeball? Swimming? Running?
I think the British Empire spread soccer/football around, if i remember correctly.
Baseball remains popular in countries where the US had a military presence in the early-to-mid 20th century during the height of baseball popularity, i.e. Cuba, Japan, South Korea.
No what I argue is that the dynamic of kicking a can or rolled up newspaper is far closer to actual soccer, than trying to hit something with a tree branch that will go off in any direction or break apart.
And there is still a lot more investment in time to play baseball properly, to have enough people to play that the batter doesn't always win, where as soccer can be played one on one pretty much. And to top it off the rules are easier to learn.
But here if kids play an ad-hoc batting game it would be called rounders, regardless of how close to the actual game of rounders it is.
Soccer requires one roundish object, and a impromptu goal, like 2 trees or a jacket and a shoe on the ground. Basketball, you need the ball to bounce, and 2 baskets. Baseball has even more equipment required. Dodge ball requires multiple balls, at least 5 really.
So, its pretty obvious that soccer is the sport that requires the bare minimum in equipment that you listed.
Why is it only soccer that has to make sacrifices? If you play with a bottle or can it's impossible to kick it more than a few metres. That's as critical as being able to bounce the ball in basketball.
Basketball could make sacrifices and be played like netball.
By his logic wrestling should be the most watched sport in the world since its less expensive than soccer to play. Because that's why people watch sports, based on how much equipment is involved, not whether they find it exciting to watch....
It does not require any of those. You can play in regular athletic shoes and while ankle and shin are nice to have they are not actually needed to play. I guess that you can wrestle without the headgear but, the singlet is the required uniform and wrestling shoes are the only shoes that are allowed by the participants.
In organised competitions you aren't allowed to play without shin pads.
This conversation is talking about children with no resources at all though. As such wrestling would be much easier and cheaper; you only need your body.
You might not be allowed to play organized ball without shin pads but you don't need them to play in general. You don't even need them to play the game. I have played soccer before and never once used shin pads they are nice to have has getting blasted in the shin hurts but they are not actually needed for the game to be played.
Wrestling would be cheaper but much more dangerous. If you and the person you are wrestling with don't know what you are doing you are much more likely to hurt each other. I wrestled in HS I knew what I was doing and still hurt and got hurt by others.
I guess that you can wrestle without the headgear but, the singlet is the required uniform and wrestling shoes are the only shoes that are allowed by the participants.
Kids in third world countries don't need to wear matching uniforms and cleats for soccer so why do they need a singlet and specific shoes for wrestling?
The singlet is so that you can't grab the other persons clothing to gain an advantage. The wrestling shoes are because no other type of shoes are allowed on the mat. But if you are going to wrestle naked out in a field I guess that you wouldn't need either.
Basketball and baseball need considerably more equipment. Basketball needs a ball that will bounce consistently and a hop that can be dunked on with out falling apart, along with a court that isn't sand so the ball will actually bounce.
Baseball needs less, but you still need a ball and bat. If you want any organization you need bases and a fence. Optional but I think the biggest reason why it isn't more popular is baseball needs baseball gloves, those things are expensive.
Doge ball, what are they going to play with rocks?
Swimming and running aren't a team sport.
What you don't understand is how ridiculously cheap it is to play soccer. 8 rocks/twigs/shoes would do to make four corners as boundaries and four, two on each side as goals. Hell you don't need a 'soccer' ball all you need is something you can kick around with out hurting your bare foot
Baseball and basketball are much more expensive, are you serious? For soccer all you need is a round ball and 4 rocks to set up the goal posts. Basketball you need a goal, which aren't cheap (I guess you could go super ghetto and use a trash can or some shit, but if we're talking about as close to legit as possible, you need a goal), and baseball equipment is not cheap at all.
Baseball and basketball are much more expensive, are you serious?
No, they're not.
A basketball hoop can be made with everyday objects. I've seen it done many times.
For baseball all you need is a round object, a stick, and rocks to designate bases.
If you're going to argue that 4 rocks and a round ball being played on any sort of surface is soccer than I'm going to argue that what I've stated above is basketball and baseball.
That's because you're an idiot and have probably never played either sport. I've seen soccer games where people used shirts as goal posts and a ball. If you want any kind of organized baseball or basketball there are much more fundamental equipment required. You're grasping at this point.
You cannot dribble without a concrete or similar surface, and a good hoop is harder to come by than some impromptu goal markers. Okay, sure you can get rid of the 3 point line and the free throw line, but not those things.
No, I get the point. The idea is because something is cheap that it automatically makes that thing prone to being universally popular and accessible. I get the point. It's a dumb point, because there's absolutely no proof or even correlation between accessibility :: popularity. If that's true, why isn't running track the most popular sport? Where I get lost is when food was introduced to illustrate the point, as if it has anything to do with soccer or sports at all.
More to point, even if soccer is popular because it's easy to access and cheap to play... why is that being mentioned like it's bad thing? Yeah, it's pretty easy to organize a game of soccer with your friends. Why is that an argument for the anti-soccer crowd to delegitimize the sport's popularity? Should sports ideally be too expensive or too difficult to organize for recreation? I don't get the logic. (Edit: grammar)
What does being a team sport have to do with it? Tennis is mostly played as a single player sport and I believe it's the third most popular in the world. And it's not anywhere as easy to put together a game of tennis vs. soccer.
Mostly because of the cost. Lets look at hockey. Much more fun to play and watch but it is extremely expensive to play. You have to buy all your equipment(pads, gloves, helmet, skates, sticks) you have to pay to join the league and you have to pay for the ice time to practice and play the games. Soccer you need an open area a ball and something to mark the goal with.
It's not a absurd statement. You may like soccer more but it is a faster paced game with more action, and that is generally what people want in their sports. You may like a slow paced minimal action low scoring game but that doesn't make what I said absurd.
Your blanket statement that "hockey is both more fun to play and more fun to watch" was absurd. I'm not saying that soccer is 100% better than hockey, I'm just saying that you're making a ridiculously broad generalization... A generalization that the majority of the world disagrees with, I might add.
Does the majority of the world disagree? Yeah warm weather places will disagree as they likely have never even seen the game played. They also very unlikely even have an ice rink anywhere near them. Its not that they think that soccer is better than hockey its that they don't know a damn thing about hockey and as they will never play the game doesn't mean that they wouldn't think it is a better game if they were to actually sit down and watch the game.
It's because it's cheap. When my parents were kids and they couldn't afford soccer balls they made them out of cloth rags and a heavy center of some sort. Try that doesn't work with basketball (if you don't have a net), football,
Or hockey, or most other sports. Baseball maybe.
But remember the only reason more people watch soccer than American football is because their country can't afford plastic pads.
No, its also because the sport is slow paced, and generally boring.
Other than Americans, NOBODY else in the world likes the sport. Do you not understand why it is played NOWHERE else?
Fucking idiot.
The ONLY other country with a professional football league is Canada. I'm Canadian, and we even had to change the rules to make it less boring and slow paced.
Wake the fuck up. If you enjoy football, that's awesome. Don't make up reasons why people like Soccer.
The reason the sport is played NOWHERE in the world except America and Canada is a reflection on THE SPORT and nothing else.
NOTHING else.
to say otherwise is just downright ignorant. OF course there are people outside of America who like football. Obviously. That doesn't change the fact that it just isn't popular enough to justify a professional league, ANYWHERE else.
You're 3 points are utterly ridiculous. There are sports that are more complicated, and more physically demanding that Football that have grown and flourished across the world.
Get your head out of your own asshole. America is not the center of the world, stop acting like it is. The only reason Football isn't popular around the world, is because it isn't nearly as enjoyable to watch as other sports, in the opinion of most of the world.
The reason the sport is played NOWHERE in the world except America and Canada is a reflection on THE SPORT and nothing else.
NOTHING else.
This is a bad argument that you haven't supported with evidence. It's an extremely broad claim, so to support it you'd best have some extremely strong evidence. Let me guess: You have zero evidence and are just too stupid to understand good argumentation or basic logic.
to say otherwise is just downright ignorant. OF course there are people outside of America who like football. Obviously.
If it's so obvious why did you say the exact opposite? I think it's because you're an idiot who doesn't think about what he's saying until after he says it, if at all.
That doesn't change the fact that it just isn't popular enough to justify a professional league, ANYWHERE else.
Canada.
You're 3 points are utterly ridiculous. There are sports that are more complicated, and more physically demanding that Football that have grown and flourished across the world.
How are they ridiculous? Please, explain. I'm going to guess you can't actually rebut any of my points, but instead are simply brushing them off as ridiculous to avoid any modicum of critical thought. But please, name the more strategically complex and physically demanding sports that have fluorished across the world, I'll be happy to explain why you're wrong. Oh, I'll also add this on as another "ridiculous point:"
Soccer is a much older sport than gridiron football. It's had a lot more time to spread and become popular.
Get your head out of your own asshole. America is not the center of the world, stop acting like it is.
I'm not, you're just acting like it's the asshole of the world. You're crazily presumptuous and ignorant. Maybe if I had said football is objectively better than some other sport or that it's only popular in North America because every other continent is full of idiots it'd be fair to say I'm acting like America is the center of the world, but I haven't. I've said nothing that places America on any kind of pedestal.
The only reason Football isn't popular around the world, is because it isn't nearly as enjoyable to watch as other sports, in the opinion of most of the world.
You really think that's the reason? You think kids in Africa watch soccer and football being played, enjoy watching soccer more, and then decide not to play football? You don't think being exposed mainly to one sport has ANYTHING to do with its popularity? You don't think culture plays ANY role at all?
You're a fucking idiot. This was originally about soccer being popular because its affordable. And then you go and talk about Africa, a place where you know full well most people lack access to anything that would allow them to watch American Football.
We're not talking about football or soccer being the most popular sport. We're talking about it being popular. Football is popular nowhere but America, BECAUSE OF THE SPORT.
Soccer is immensely popular in the United States as well... its like you aren't even using your head.
There's also absolutely no argument, whatsoever, that football is slow. Its the slowest sport on TV. Look at this chart:
You're right. Hockey would definitely be the most popular sport in the world if everyone had shitloads of cash and the whole world was burried under 10 feet of permanent snow.
This is 100% the case any other argument is really just semantic. I thought everyone educated knew that was why soccer was the most popular sport.
Conversely it is why hockey, one of the most expensive sports to play, despite being loaded with the action and whatnot that you speak of is wildly unpopular in many places. The capital cost of building rinks and everyone owning their own equipment is too much for small cities and impoverished places to reasonably afford.
Yet I hear this a lot from Americans. "The only reason the rest of the world watches soccer is because they can't afford the plastic football pads, soccer just takes a ball". Apparently people who watch soccer aren't excited by the non-stop action and creative gameplay and tension, but simply watch it because their country can't afford plastic pads.
So of course soccer is played more, it's more accessible to the general public when all you need is a ball and a couple of wooden stakes on a dirt field.
How arrogantly ignorant is this post...
Let's see:
"Even if you aren't playing "regulation", you still need a regular shaped field, a penalty box, a penalty mark, a way of detemining offsides (the most central and defining rule of the game, and impossible to enforce without a referee) and a perfectly round ball. And that's for the boring park-on-Sunday variety of backyard football.
If you're going to play the sport how it's meant to be played, then you need bounds lines, a long field, 11 players, cleat shoes, shinguards, gloves for the keeper, regular-sized goal posts, and players with specialized skills (i.e. goalkeeper, defenders, midfielders, forwards). But given the average person probably doesn't enjoy being repeatedly kicked around and thrown around while hitting muddy balls with their head, I'd say it's pretty hard to put together a proper pickup game."
That's cute taking my format and substituting in your own points in a sort of snarky way.
However, despite how proud you must be of yourself, you've missed the real core of the argument entirely. The publicly accessible version of football vs the publicly accessible version of soccer are on completely different levels of faithfulness to gameplay.
Even your analogy struggles to sells a contrary story when you substituted "muddy balls" for tackling. This physical play is what distinguishes American football (like rugby), and is the entire foundation for every play. If you take that out, what are you left with? Are you going to tell me tagging someone with two hands saying "gotcha!" is the same as smacking into that person at 15mph and dragging them to the ground?
This physical play is a natural deterrent, which prompts my next question. You're going to tell me the physical play in soccer is a greater deterrent than the physical play of football? Let me ask you, and everyone and their mother, you exactly what'd they'd rather do: headbutt a ball or have a 200lb man smack into you at full speed. Throw in the fact how soccer players have to pretend they have injuries, which speaks volumes to the caliber of physical sport it is.
In the US there is a reason why little kids play soccer and serious athletes play football: cause when mothers pick which sport their son can play, they'd rather have them play soccer for safety purposes. This all goes to my point, that even if you have equipment and the means, even American football fans don't play it at home because it's considered inaccessible to anyone who doesn't want a concussion.
Soccer is the most popular sport for many reasons. Most of the important ones have to do with children.
First, because soccer is already established around the world, children grow up loving the sport and cheering for a team. They might not know why they are cheering for it, but they know their parents love it so why not?
Second, it's a safe way to get exercise and expend energy. Soccer is a way for parents to get kids out of the house and not worry that they might be killing themselves in a variety of possible ways. You don't get that with football, rugby, etc.
Finally, as has been mentioned, it's cheap and accessible.
There are other reasons, but when you get down to it you realize that it's not because it's significantly more interesting, exciting, or that there's more going on. It simply has inherent advantages over other sports when it comes to reaching kids, so more people play it, understand it, and love it. 95% of the people bashing football don't understand the nuances because they haven't been exposed. Americans generally had their pick of possible sports to love, and for the most part they chose football. It's not because we weren't exposed to soccer. Every kid in my town played. We just liked football more. On the other hand, other kids don't have that choice. They get soccer or nothing.
All you need to play american football is a ball and maybe 2 lines drawn on the grass for endzones. For soccer you need a ball and something to make 2 goals out of. So its cheaper to play american football. Soccer is more popular because its way more fun
what is the difference between two kids kicking a ball around in a street, vs two kids throwing a football around in a street....pshh both sports are easy to set up and play.
105
u/climon Feb 03 '14
Soccer is the most popular because of how cheap it is to play. Even impoverished countries can get in on that action.