Talk:Association football/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Today's Featured Article suggestion

I have suggested this article for use on the Main Page as Today's featured article. Please feel free to add your comments here. Kingjamie 20:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect?

Can the article be unprotected now? Conscious 21:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming

Maybe I'm missing something, but why is the article named in such a US-centric manner? Surely it should be at association football and have this as its primary name in the article lead? Chris Cunningham 09:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No. This has been discussed over and over and over again, and there is consensus to use the term "football (soccer)" when needed to avoid confusion. – Elisson • T • C • 16:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

And the lead contains "association football" in bold text. Conscious 17:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Check the talkpage archives, this has been discussed so thoroughly that any thought or concern you may have is probably already answered there. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 04:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively, arguably thoroughly. However, no concerns you may have were already answered there in any valid way - except by arbitrarily asserting that "soccer" is good and "association football" isn't. The fact that "football" is the common name used by well over a billion people, and that "soccer" is used by about 300 million, almost all of whom don't play or watch it, is ignored. 139.163.138.14 02:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of weather the term soccer is used by 300 million people who neither play nor watch the sport, regardless 300 million + people use the term. The article is named in a way that both American and everyone else can easily understand. - Wmgries

I don't understand this claim of US-centrism at all. If the title were Soccer, it might be argued to be US- and Australia-centric. Calling it Football (soccer) is thoroughly un-American! Also, it's simply untrue to say Americans neither play nor watch the sport. Millions of Americans play or have played soccer -- just not once they're older than 17 or so! And of course millions of Americans have watched soccer -- just not on TV, but rather live at the game in which their own child is playing. —Angr 17:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting stat on the question of Americans playing football: According to FIFA's statistics, 18 million Americans play soccer -- not counting children and "occasional players" -- more than any other country! —Angr 18:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually as far as I know although people have discussed moving this page and votes have been taken on a move to "soccer" and "football" no-one has ever started a vote to move it to "association football" and I think it has positively been avoided so as not to reopen old wounds. However I and a number of other people have always believed that if this page can't live at "football" (and clearly it can't) - then it should live at "association football". Jooler 22:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The article should be at 'Association Football.

• That is the real name of the game
• Soccer is a slang word. A slang word derived from Association.
• Other football articles follow the naming format- 'XXXXXXX football', not 'football (XXXXXX)'--Josquius 19:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the boilerplate stuck on top of this talk page. – Elisson • T • C • 19:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have, I don't agree with it. Such is not the way wikipedia works.--Josquius 22:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, consensus can change. Well, if you really, really, really want to waste your time as well as the time of other football article editors, please go ahead and propose the change (which of course would affect some thousand articles and categories under Category:Football (soccer) that also use the term "football (soccer)" as disambiguation) on the talk page of the Football WikiProject, which is the most proper place to do so, as such a name change affects not only this page. – Elisson • T • C • 22:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

what is the origin of the name "soccer"?

I suggest you read Football (soccer)#Names of the game. Cheers! – Elisson • T • C • 22:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Fascinating. This page is getting hit very hard. I suggest it be locked against edits by new users, at least for a while. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As an added note, I noticed that 240 Million homosexual people play football according to the FIFA survey?!! I checked the article reference and it is actually 240 Million people play. Of course it is possible that all are homosexual, but that is not what the article is saying, nor, I believe, what Wikipedia should be saying either. This is vandalism. Please, just take out the word homosexual to make it true to the reference. Thanks! Great article otherwise. This is my first contribution to wikipedia, so sorry I don't understand the signatures and such.

Ah, that was me who put the above, I signed up for an account to make the above change and it was already made! Great stuff people! Rafta 04:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Every "Today's Featured Article" gets hit with a lot of vandalism. Just revert it and move on. Please read WP:NOPRO for why Today's Featured Article shouldn't be protected (or even semi-protected) except under highly unusual circumstances. —Angr 16:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that you are talking about the spanish word "futbol"

If you are talking about soccer in Spanish, it is actually spelled "futbol"( with an accent over the "u" ). If you use the spelling "football" then it refers the the American sport.

75.51.222.217 02:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)One that knows Spanish75.51.222.217 02:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Football is used to refer to many sports such Gaelic football, Australian rules football, American football and association football. In this case it refers to association football, also known as soccer --iamajpeg 02:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Playing surface

The intro paragraph includes the following: "The ball game is played on a rectangular grass field, or occasionally an artificial pitch, with a goal at each end." I believe a distinction should be made between the professional game and the amateur, as one of the biggest attractions of the sport is the ease with which it is adapted to the environment. Xiner 02:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Its still played on a rectangular pitch with a goal at least at one end, however, amateur football in this context (by association rules) has two goals, one at either end. Playing with, say, one goal like you do as kids doesn't use Association Rules, and therefore isn't soccer- its just another form of football Jonomacdrones 19:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

First Picture Caption

An excellent article, glad to see it as today's FA. I have a quibble with the caption "The striker (wearing the red shirt)". This seems to use the term "striker" to mean "person shooting at goal" rather than as a specific position. The player in question may well be a striker, but that is not obvious, by any means, from the picture. For a non-fan, this could be confusing. Using "A striker" or merely "An offensive player" might be less able to misinterpret. Boomcoach 13:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

traumas

Should the high chance of traumas in the game be addressed? I have two friends who had been very good soccer players before they got injured. Anyone who watch soccer could notice how often players get traumatized. And it is not just due to foul play, the nature of the game itself makes the players prone to knee injuries, muscle/ligament tears etc. I admit this may be true for many sport activities. We could have a section on traumas in this article with a link to an article on traumas in all sports. What do you think? (Igny 14:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC))

Never ever heard of a "high chance of traumas" for people playing football. – Elisson • T • C • 17:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Robbie Fowler a few years ago suffered medical trauma, Eric Cantona visited medical trauma on a fan when he dropkicked into the crowd (See Here, 2nd Paragraph), and many footballers have claimed to have suffered mental trauma at such times as Hillsborough and other times. I'm sure there're better, more relevant examples, but those are the ones i could think of. Jonomacdrones 19:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do not deny that footballers have suffered traumas. I just never have heard that footballers have a "high chance of traumas" compared to other sports, or activities. – Elisson • T • C • 22:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"Gay Sport"????

Someone should delete this now, unless it is a gay sport. Which is unlikely, you can find it in the beginning of the article.

Thanks for noticing the vandalism! You can revert vandalism yourself, which takes no more time than leaving a note on the talk page asking someone else to do it! :-) —Angr 17:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirect template offensive?

Please tell me what I'm missing here [1] ... Naconkantari 19:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe he takes offence at use of the {{otheruses}} template because it requires the reader to deduce that "for other uses of honey see honey (disambiguation)" doesn't mean "for other uses of honey" but "for other uses of the word honey". See Template talk:Otheruses. Similarly, then, he presumably objects to the "for other uses" bit in {{redirect}} for the same reason. --RobertG ♬ talk 19:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he means it metaphorically, as in the template "offends common sense." I don't know. <shrug> Simões (^talk/_contribs) 22:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Jack Snow? Who's he?

When I clicked on the article, it said "jack snow was here" or something like that. When I refreshed the page, it was normal. What happened?

Someone vandalised the article, and someone else restored it. – Elisson • T • C • 19:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

football?

football?

Football. – Elisson • T • C • 20:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I just love the profundity of debate you get on Wikipedia :) Vilĉjo

"birthplace of football"

Until I deleted it the article said "Indeed, FIFA has acknowledged China as the "birthplace of football".[4]" citing http://www.fifa.com/en/history/history/0,1283,1,00.html - this page makes no such claim. I remember deleting almost the exact same wording about 6 months ago. Jooler 22:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I mistakenly switched the links with the previous sentence, which is why the "birthplace of football link" led to this history one and not the right one. Here is the page that makes the claim: http://www.fifa.com/en/history/centennial/index/0,1282,106995,00.html?articleid=106995

I hope that settles it. Someone should've checked the NEW link before removing my second change. Bssc81 17:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The new link still does not say that FIFA regards China as the birtplace of football, or that FIFA has acknowledged China as the birthplace of football, it only says that "China is regarded as the birthplace of football", by whom, I ask? As long as the article does not specify who, we should not include anything unverifiable, such as stating that it is FIFA that regards China to be the birthplace. – Elisson • T • C • 15:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What more authoritative source of information can there be for football besides FIFA? If you have a problem with the source, take it up with the publishers of that source. Ceros 20:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with people considering China to be the birthplace of football, if you would have read the article, you would have noticed that it cites FIFA saying the "very earliest form of the game for which there is scientific evidence was an exercise of precisely this skilful technique dating back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries B.C. in China." What I have a problem with is people putting words in other's mouths. We shouldn't have the article stating "Indeed, FIFA has acknowledged China as the "birthplace of football".", as FIFA hasn't acknowledged anything like that, at least not in the source that was provided. – Elisson • T • C • 20:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally concur with Elisson and that is precisely the reasons why I removed the text (both recently) and when I did so in the past. The remark in the article is totally unattributed. In any case the remark is uneducated. Games with feet and a ball were played all over the world in ancient times. If China was the birthplace of football then it would have to have originated there (and only there) and have travelled from there to the rest of the worl and AFAIK there is no such trail to follow. Okay the Chinese played a game with the feet and a ball 2 thousands years ago, big deal so did other people, it just happens to be that someone in China wrote about it, that's all. There's no proven historical connection between that game and the modern game of football we all love. This article should not try to mislead the reader by making a false claim that there is such an historical trail and it should certainly not try to do so by falsly attributing an off-hand remark by some unknown person as some kind of official proclamation from the organization. Jooler 22:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

WTF

how the heck do I get to real football, none of this soccer stuff, I want football, How can you call soccer football on a bloody encyclopedia that also has football on it. I realise soccer is also called football and I digress but instead of having a link that states "for other uses of soccer see this shouldn't it say for other uses of foottball see this list here. If I type in football and cannot even get to a football disambig page how lame is that. sincerely Angry real football fan.

If you actually bothered to type in football, you would indeed find a disambiguation page. Have you even tried? Poulsen 09:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should try typing in "american football" as that is the only country where it is actually followed. this is real football, you know, when the ball makes contact with the foot.

Lol,too true.signed-Idon'tgiveone

As much as I don't like american football being called "football" I kinda agree here. Association football should really be the title of this page.Buc 14:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read the note at top of this page. – Elisson • T • C • 15:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I always like it when a confused, insular (presumable) American looks on the interweb and stumbles across the other 6 billion people in the world. Then instantly panics. Lol. And I am being very specific to the 'confused and insular' people. I like Americans in general. - aheyfromhome 14:36 7 January UTC

Codified in England?

Football was not codified in England, except insofar as the domestic game was concerned. Football was codified internationally by the International Football Association Board, which consisted of the FAs of all four of the Home Nations). Hence, it be be only fair to state that it was codified in the United Kingdom. Bastin 14:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The code is so strongly associated (hehe) with formation of The Football Association and vice versa that I don't know how anyone could say it wasn't codified in England. Grant65 | Talk 16:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

FIFA says otherwise. Whatever associations the average person makes between the FA, the Cambridge Rules, and the ultimate codification of the game, the fact remains that the FA codified the rules in England alone, and that the other Home Nations (and, indeed, overseas teams) played by different rules. The game was not properly codified in the United Kingdom until the International Board was established, and not across the rest of the world until FIFA was established and accepted the IFAB as the ultimate arbiter. Even after the IFAB came into existence, there were disagreements over the fundamental rules of the game (some of the early minutes are truly enlightening), hence its raison d'être. Bastin 10:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could agree that 'Football was first codified in England in 1848'? Ewen 11:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The game we are talking about is "association football" - which is so called because it was codified by The Football Association. You are right to say that in other home countries different rules were used. But even in England different rules were used. The Sheffield Football Association had their own rules and some of the other clubs in England played various versions of the Rugby code (the RFU was formed in 1871, 8 years after the FA). However even before 1886 Scotland and the other FAs were all using virtually the same laws based on the FA laws with only extremely minor differences. The IFAB minutes are on the web [2]. At the first meeting the only discussion about "homologating" the rules was about the wearing of projections on the soles of the boots. Also before the establishment of FIFA The FA were seen as the Governing body for the sport across the world, with other national assocations affiliating themselves as members of The FA. One might also note that before the Scottish FA passed a decree in May of 1887 banning it. Several Scottish clubs (including Rangers) were members of the Enlish FA and competed in their competitions under their rules. Jooler 23:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

When the Irish FA was founded in 1880 it explicitly used the Scottish FA's rules. jnestorius^(talk) 10:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I can´t imagine an article about football without an image of Pelé. The star is not deserved until someone upload it and place here. Cheers. Films addicted 17:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Films_addicted

I agree that Pelé was brilliant, but so were Ferenc Puskas, Diego Maradona, Garrincha, Johan Cruijff and several more. There is no player who is far better than everyone else so think we should leave the article as it is. (Chorleypie 13:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC))

First edit of 2007

User:Gwernol's vandalism revert is the first edit of 2007 --Donald Goldberg 00:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Children

Hi, My question is why is it that children walking with the players —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.139.19.189 (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Ummm... I take it you refer to the players walking out with a couple of children at the beginning of some matches. The children are mascots. Its a treat for kids to lead the players out. Sometimes they are disabled children, sometimes just supporters, sometimes their parents have paid ridiculous amounts of money to the football club. Its just a popular thing to do among established clubs. - aheyfromhome 14:29 7 January 2007

Maybe he saw Claude Makalele? 8-) Ewen 15:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection requested

Getting tired of this being contantly in my top five on my watchlist. Chris Cunningham 11:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Small comment boxes, sprotect revert

Small comment boxes are a workaround for huge TOCs. The correct solution should be to archive old talk in a timely manner. As-is, the small boxes push the archive boxes down the page and interfere with edit links. I'd like to change this back.

Also, the article was recently reverted to an edit before it was sprotected. Was this deliberate? It doesn't appear to be an rvv and doesn't have an edit summary. Chris Cunningham 12:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought small boxes was a workaround to not have two screens of boxes at the top. The problem with section edit links was IIRC solved by having a right aligned table around them which you earlier removed.

My revert was not meant to remove {{sprotected}}, which I failed to see... I've reverted what I intended to revert now. – Elisson • T • C • 13:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Metric vs. Imperial

This article says that although the Laws are in metric, Imperial units are popularly used. This is firsthand knowledge, so don't consider it fact, but as an American soccer player I can tell you that we use the metric system almost exclusively, except for the 16.5 meter box, which we call "the eighteen" (as in 18 yards). According to my team's German exchange student, penalty kicks are called "11-meter kicks" in Germany, not "12-yard kicks." Therefore, my hypothesis is that traditional units are often used in Britain (especially by the older generations) but not in the United States because soccer took hold here long after soccer became defined in metric. Regardless, more research is required before we can make a conclusion. SteveSims 19:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Who calls a penalty kick anything other than a penalty kick? cuandach 04:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In Germany, only the TV reporter would use the official term "Strafstoß" (= penalty kick). People usually call a penalty an "11 meter" ("Elfmeter" in German). 84.133.22.61 22:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not the "18 yard box", it's the PENALTY AREA Phobal 06:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You never hear that it's a "11 meter kick", but the penalty kick if from 11 meters ;) and ofc its the penalty area, never ever heard someone say "18 yard box" :D Chandlertalk 01:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In Romania, the same term applies , a "11 meter shot" being the commonly used phrasing, even for reporters. "Penalty shot" is also used, but more rarely. Honestly, although I lack facts, I doubt anyone on the continent uses Imperial units in sports ( the vast majority of football-watching but culture-lacking people wouldn't even know what a yard IS ) . It's just not done, and I've watched matches in a few countries while on vacation, and never heart anything Imperial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.155.218 (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Team Sports Infobox

The infobox

was once on this page and I note that several editors have put it back only to have it continually removed. Can someone please explain to me why this is the case. Every single other code of football (and almost all other team sports) have this very useful nav box at the bottom of the page. Is is because soccer wikipedians so insecure of other football codes ? The other articles don't seem to share the sentiment. If someone can't give me a reason for its exclusion then I will keep adding it. --Spewmaster 00:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason for exclusion has been given in the edit summary several times. There is no need for a team sport navbox on the page when we have a category to do the job for us. – Elisson • T • C • 17:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

(lack of) popularity of Soccer in the US

Should the article mention the unpopularity of the game in the US. I think it's necessary because with Bekham in the US, the media makes it look like the greatest sport in the country, even though it's probably the most unpopular sport in the US.

The most unpopular? Hardly. Soccer in the United States says "The English and Spanish-language telecasts of the 2006 FIFA World Cup Championship Final combined to attract an estimated 16.9 million American viewers, comparable to the average viewership of the 2005 World Series of Major League Baseball, according to The New York Times." Grant | Talk 03:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's not nearly as popular as football or even basketball and baseball, but it certainly is above curling and bowling.SteveSims 19:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

But now David Beckham is playing in Major league soccer... so it will make it a bit more popular.But it will will never be as popular here as in other countries.

Not likely. It is considered too wimpy a sport. 70.53.110.234 20:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Americans making fun of Europeans term "football" in their countries as the most popular sport in Europe and "American football" most popular sport in America....The term "the other football" in that it is a underdog and bad British influance on Americans. It's coined due to the Major League Soccer's bottom feeder statis in professional sports and rapid growth of soccer fields in US. In some aspects...it's getting even with BBC for putting American football under Other sports catagory and very bad reception from Londoners of the upcoming NFL game in London.... Renegadeviking

Beckham who? ;-) Grant | Talk 07:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

British hate NFL...they're just filling the seats because they're faking loyality. They want to compare it to rugby so they can say rugby is better. Seriously, British are suppose to hate NFL. [3] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Renegadeviking (talk • contribs) 02:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

It's completely irrelevent anything constructive, but how the flip do you fake loyalty?? And why?? I'm so confused I can't decide whether its an oxymoron, ironic or whatever else. Lol. Anyway, I reckon that most people who go to see it are either a) going because of the novelty which is a fair enough reason, or b) because they're American expats or Germans and they want to see an NFL game so close to them (i.e. in Europe). Now how did I end up talking about this on the football discussion page...hmmm - Aheyfromhome 18:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Im from the U.S of A and im going to have to agree that a mention should be thrown in and the fact that soocer is very unpopular is kinda mixed. people play it but really dont set out on a regular bassis to play it. it seems to me to be on the monet game to play or a game t schol to paly. i think in the us girls seem to paly it mores (Esskater11 01:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC))

The USA is only one country and I fail to see why it is even an issue over footballs popularity in that country. If we do it for one country, then we have to do it with every country. And it makes no difference the number of people who play football in America or David Beckham moving there. Why is it more important whether or not football is popular in America than say Russia or Bhutan or Brazil or Turkmenisatan? Most people know the four main sports in America, basketball, baseball, American football and ice hockey, and that football is a minority sport there. But again, it is one country and discussion of that should be on articles specific to sport in that country♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 01:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Aheyfromhome knows British hate pro gridiron, and he knows I am right. Everybody can see I'm right. Popularity of British Gridiron League shows this clearly.Renegadeviking

The British do not 'hate' Gridiron, we just have no interest in it, much like the Americans with Football (soccer). gazh 19:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, to state that the entire British nation hates American football is untrue. Most people in the UK will have absolutely no opinion at all on American Football simply because they never see it either live or on TV. And of those who do see the sport, there is definitely a market in the UK for the sport as it is featured every week on Channel Five. I don't know anyone who hates it, I know people who just don't particularly like it. But hate it? The only thing you might hear is in a similar way to some Americans who mock football, some Brits (and it is only a small minority) mock American football. But the vast majority of people in the UK simply know nothing about the sport.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Why should the United States get a special section? Is it more important than other countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modelun88 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's face it, if "soccer" didn't take off in the 1970's with the arrival of Pelé, it never will...nor should it. Someone stated above that the US is the only country in which it's not popular. True enough, but we have baseball, football, and basketball as the major team sports, plus on different levels of popularity hockey, tennis, golf, soccer played in school, boxing up until the early '80's, handball until the early '60's, bowling which comes and goes, and so many more. True, baseball is really popular in Latin America and Japan, basketball is catching on in many places (especially in Eastern Europe), but ultimately the countries that revere "football" have pretty much that sport, along with car racing, biking, and various Olympic sports (which I personally love, both summer and winter). As far as the alleged popularity of soccer here in the States, take away the kids playing it and the recent latino community watching and playing it, you have no audience whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.101.156 (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's quite worrying so many people don't know the difference between unpopular and not popular. Marky-Son 21:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I said it's not national pasttime. The little league soccer thing is huge especially since girls can't play gridiron (WAFL not included)! That's obvious. Soccer is one of those sports that you only score 3 times whereas NFL you score 25 times as points. People can only watch 2 sports at a time which is either NHL and NFL or NFL and MLB or NASCAR and MLB or NASCAR and NFL or NBA and NFL or NBA and MLB or NHL and NBA or...well you get the point! Renegadeviking July 24, 2007

I don't know why Football (soccer) never took off in the early days of the US. I mean, baseball, hockey and American Football were both variations of games played in England - so why didn't football catch on? Surely they must have played it? Also, I cannot understand why basketball is so popular - a fairly recently created game that is very boring to watch. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 15:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC).

I think one of the problems are the league system in America. I can just say how it is here (Sweden), when I played football as a junior in a team, that team had a senior team that was in... division 2 or something like that, and all teams can move, or be relegated. It's all this "professional" stuff, when you dont give the same chance to everyone. For example this year a what would be maybe called "farm team" (Brommapojkarna) with one of the best youth academy in Sweden. Went to the highest division of Swedish football. Something that isnt possible in USA (right?). Chandlertalk 01:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The real reason why soccer is not popular in the US is that advertisers have to wait until half-time to screen commercials, making it financially unattractive. As the Bedford Reader puts it:

The reason stems partly from the basic nature of commercial television which exists not to inform and entertain but to sell. During most major sporting events on television- football, baseball, basketball, producers can take advantage of natural interruptions in the action to broadcast sales pitches; or if the natural breaks occur too infrequently, the producers can contrive time-outs for the sole purpose of airing lucrative commercials. But soccer is played in two soled halves of forty-five minutes each: not even injury to a player is cause for a time-out. How, then, to insert the requisite number of commercial breaks without resorting to false fouls or other questionable tactic? After CBS aired a soccer match in 1967, players reported, according to Stanley Frank, that before the game the referee had instructed them "to stay down every nine minutes." The resulting hue and cry rose all the way to the House Communications Subcommittee. From that day to this, no one has been able to figure out how to screen advertising jingles during a televised soccer game. The result is that commercial television has treated soccer almost as if didn't exist.

ENARZ 19:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I gather, ( I cannot cite sources at the time ) they earn loads of money off the advertisment banners placed alongside the field. In my country, there are 4 tv channels (unpaid for, that earn money just through commercials) that only air football , and regular channels do that every weekend too, and I'm not counting important matches , just regular, friendly, or even foreign ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.155.218 (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice no mention was made of the NHL? Three 20 minute periods? It is though a weak argument though as there are advert breaks in every commercial TV station no matter what the country, the United States is no different in that regard to other contries, all of whom manage to obtain lucrative advertising for football matches. Sky Sports in the UK for instance make full use of advert breaks, such as when the teams come out onto the pitch before the match, they immediately go to an ad break. Big matches attract huge advertising. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous entry: Soccer is currently tied for first in youth participation with basketball. Almost half of all youth athletes in the US play soccer in any given year. The interest level in soccer in the US varies widely by region (see, e.g., gotsoccer.com to see club and tournament locations). I'm 41 and I have been playing for 35 years. I grew up in a university town where exposure to an international group and decent coaching was available back then. Now, decent coaching is increasingly available and the level of soccer in the US is growing. The U20 US national team beat Brazil this year. Also, this business about not being able to show commercials until half time is rubbish. US TV stations use tape delay in telecasting "live" sports all the time. I think one of the main challenges is that many people in the US, including coached players, don't really understand the sport very well. It's not very fun to watch sports you don't understand unless there's a lot of action. Many people in the US love basketball for just that reason: they don't understand it but the action is constant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.215.127 (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)