Popularity of Soccer in USA: Harris Poll
Kevin Cabral
yesterday; a cross-section of 1,009 adults were asked between September
9-13 about the sports that they follow and their favorite sport. A
writeup on the poll is available at the following URL:
http://www.soccertimes.com/usteams/1998/oct16.htm
The results with my own analysis following:
Sports followed [unfortunately, I don't have the exact question and thus
the wording and especially the frequency and intensity of following
implied by it]:
NFL Football 66%
Baseball 57% [doubtlessly distorted this season]
College football 49%
College basketball 30%
Golf 27%
Tennis 25%
Auto Racing %22
Track and field %21
Hockey 20%
WNBA and ABL Women's pro basketball, 18%
**---- Soccer, 17% ----**
Women's college basketball,15%
Horse racing, 13%
Bowling, 10%
Favorite sport:
NFL Football 26%
Baseball 18%
College football 9%
Auto racing 7%
Men's college basketball 4%
Golf 4%
Tennis 4%
**------ Soccer 4% ------**
Hockey 3%
Track and field, 3%
Horse racing, 2%
Bowling, 2%
Women's college basketball, 1%
One VERY important sub-note that probably won't be revealed in the press
releases about this: Soccer is now followed by 17 percent of the
nation's adults, compared with 10 percent in 1985 and 13 percent in
1997. That's a 4% increase in one year.
It's interesting that so many people, 17%, were able to say that they
follow soccer even though ESPN and the television media gives soccer
nearly zero coverage of profiles, highlights, interviews, or anything.
Thus the only way to follow it is to actually watch the games, since
coverage in newspapers is also minimal and not really sufficient to
follow a game. I assume that at least a very large percentage of people
who follow a sport catch a game here or there on TV but mostly just
watch the sports highlights shows and checkout the articles in the
newspapers.
An interesting statistic emerges from these polls. It's often thought by
media types that soccer's audience in the US is mostly a small bunch of
hard-core fans who care for no other sports and watch only soccer. Thus
they may reason that soccer coverage on sports television highlight
shows isn't necessary because most soccer fans get their information
elsewhere and despite the equality of TV ratings with hockey - it's only
the fanatics who care about soccer; whereas the general sports fan
population who watches shows like ESPN SportsCenter could care less. The
implicit argument is thus that somehow the ratio between the number of
hard-core fans of soccer to casual followers must be dominated by the
hard-core fanatics.
But the statistics in the Harris Poll don't support that conclusion.
Soccer's ratio of 'fans' (persons who follow soccer) and fanatics (fans
for whom soccer is their favorite sport) is 17% to 4%. Thus just 23.5%
of soccer fans are fanatics for whom soccer is their favorite sport.
This compares with baseball's percentage of 31.6%. And the fanatic/fan
percentage is certainly distorted this year by the home-run chance,
which has prompted millions of Americans to follow the Sosa-McGwire's
breaking of Roger Maris' supposedly unbreakable record for homeruns in a
season.
The most important comparison for most soccer fans is the comparison
with hockey, mainly because though hockey seems to exhibit similar
characteristics of popularity in the US as soccer - it's media coverage
absolutely dwarves hockey. For instance, last night on SportsCenter [for
non-US readers, the most popular show in the US for sports highlights
and information on TV] we got 10 minutes or more of hockey highlights
and 15 seconds of the Fire-Galaxy shootout. No regular time goals, but
no importantly; no near misses, no attractive passing, no anything. By
contrast, ESPN gives us hockey profiles, interviews, features on the
crowd (they went on and on about the spirited Detroit crowd; did they
bother to look at Soldier Field in Chicago's crowd?), and lots of
highlights; even on plays that don't setup goals. By contrast, all the
casual fan gets on soccer is a goal every once and a while. It's no
coincidence that so many think soccer is a bore because they only see
the tail end of a couple goals and conclude that that's all the
important action in a soccer game.
Hockey's percentage of fanatics to fans is 15%. Though the number of
people who follow hockey surpass the number who follow soccer according
to the Harris Poll, soccer has more fans for whom soccer is their
favorite sport. But that's just a difference of 20% to 17% between
people who follow hockey and soccer. And it hardly justifies the
tremendous distortion in hockey vs. soccer coverage.
It's also interesting that though 18% say they follow women's
professional basketball, apparently not enough said it was their
favorite sport to even make the Harris Poll's listing of favorite
sports. If this is the case, then it's further testimony to the power of
the TV media, and especially SportsCenter which shows highlights of WNBA
relentlessly throughout the season at a level of priority and detail far
ahead of MLS and soccer highlights [except when a soccer-friendly anchor
like Bob Ley is in the studio].
One conclusion that seems reasonable from this is once again that soccer
would significantly expand its fanbase if it received media coverage in
line with its number of casual fans. Moreover, more casual fans [and
thus fanatics] would emerge would probably emerge since there are
certainly a fair number of people who might follow soccer if it was
accessible in the media - even though they might only watch the games
rarely.
It's obvious stuff. But apparently not obvious to ESPN. Some of it has
to do with the anti-soccer bias of many of the most influential people
within SportsCenter; some of it may have to do with false perceptions
about soccer fans amongst those influential people [though I have a hard
time believing that Ivy Leaguers like Chris Berman can't understand what
the polls say]. But I think a lot of it also has to do with the
motivation to promote one game versus another. ESPN and ABC have
hundreds of millions of dollars riding on increasing the popularity of
hockey. And they like it's commercial possibilities because of the young
demographic and omnipresence of opportunities to take commercial breaks
throughout the games. By contrast, they are spending a mere $5 million a
year for MLS rights and despite low 'hockey-like' ratings, they're still
making lots of money on the whole deal - though they know they could be
making lots more money if they could accomplish the hockey dream.
- Kevin
Jamie Clark
this year. In past, I ignored the soccer completely except for World Cup
'94 which is just a peek. However this year, combination of wanting to
teach my two daughters to play good soccer plus World Cup 98, I am hooked
on soccer. Started to going DC United games and watched English Premier
League games on TV, bought several books. I find more entertaining to
watch soccer than (American) football.
Many (if not all) of my friends send their kids to soccer teams/clincs. My
former K12 school now have soccer teams (in lower school).
I am sure it is pretty much duplicated almost everywhere and soccer have
advantage of growing number of particpants thus growing base of fans and
growing number of skilled/better players.
Even my wife (who plays tennis and does not keep up with sports in
general) likes to watch soccer better than football.
With Women's World Cup coming next summer with USA team being ranked No #1
in the world, it is going to help expand soccer greatly.
So it seems obviously that soccer have brighter future than some other
sports like hockey.
Jamie
Oliver Tse
(Same old complaints about SportsCenter etc.)
====================
My take:
So what if SportsCenter et. al. don't want to do MLS features?
With so many media outlets, if the 4-letter network doesn't
bother, then someone else will.
The 4-letter outfit now sell mucho futbol to other parties. All
those Euro 2000 qualifiers from smaller countries were resold by
the mouse network. Not to mention that the mouse sold
the Italian Serie A and English FA Cup rights to Rupert's
little outfit in the dungeon next to Beverly Hills High School.
This is what the 4-letter want: maximum profit with ZERO risk.
Besides, MLS probably won't be around come 2010. A
32-team GLOBAL Super League will RULE (bye, bye, world cup).
EVERY MATCH will available ANYWHERE in the world via the Internet,
for a modest price of US$29.95.
Every other league and club else will simply become
a farm system for the Super Futbol Corporations (no "clubs"
need to apply for entry for this Super League). Not even FIFA
and UEFA can stop the tide: the super corporations will simply tell the
old men to see them in court, when the judges will have already
been paid for.
Get used to "World Championships" being
contested between the likes of "Sky Manchester United" and
"Microsoft Munich" (operated by Microsoft Sports VP
Franz Beckenbauer and Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, no less), being played in 4
quarters of 20 minutes each.
Get used to paying $30 per match for big games over the Internet,
available only via Microsoft Windows Media 2010 software.
Get used to commercials during pay-per-view telecasts.
Murdoch wants this. Malone wants this.
Berlusconi wants this. Kirch wants this. Beckenbauer wants this.
But most importantly, Microsoft wants this and it wants to control
ALL of it (how else do you explain that Microsoft now owns a
stake in Middlesbrough of the English Premier League via
its investment in Comcast?)
Too many people are too addicted and are too willing to pay for this stuff.
The freight train is coming, and it cannot be stopped.
Oliver Tse
soccerTV.com
Itch
showing MLS highlights. Maybe when the quality of play in MLS equals the
quality in NHL, it will get more airtime. and also they probably didnt look
at the chicago crowd because there was no crowd to look at.
tj
Marc Riese
>Get used to "World Championships" being
>contested between the likes of "Sky Manchester United" and
>"Microsoft Munich" (operated by Microsoft Sports VP
>Franz Beckenbauer and Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, no less), being played in 4
>quarters of 20 minutes each.
I'm actually looking foward to Microsoft Munich playing Linux
Leverkusen. Makes for an interesting match, doesn't it?
Marc
Oliver Tse
(Same old complaints about SportsCenter etc.)
====================
My take:
So what if SportsCenter et. al. don't want to do MLS features?
With so many media outlets, if the 4-letter network doesn't
bother, then someone else will.
The 4-letter outfit now sell mucho futbol to other parties. All
those Euro 2000 qualifiers from smaller countries were resold by
the mouse network. Not to mention that the mouse sold
the Italian Serie A and English FA Cup rights to Rupert's
little outfit in the dungeon next to Beverly Hills High School.
This is what the 4-letter outfit wants: maximum profit with ZERO risk.
Besides, MLS probably won't be around come 2010. A
32-team GLOBAL Super League will RULE (bye, bye, world cup).
EVERY MATCH will available ANYWHERE in the world via the Internet,
for a modest price of US$29.95.
Every other league and club else will simply become
a farm system for the Super Futbol Corporations (no "clubs"
need to apply for entry for this Super League). Not even FIFA
and UEFA can stop the tide: the super corporations will simply tell the
old men to see them in court, where the judges will have already
been paid for.
Get used to "World Championships" being
contested between the likes of "Sky Manchester United" and
"Microsoft Munich" (operated by Microsoft Sports VP
Franz Beckenbauer and Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, no less), being played in 4
quarters of 20 minutes each.
Get used to paying $30 per match for big games over the Internet,
Alex Mizuki
>>Get used to "World Championships" being
>>contested between the likes of "Sky Manchester United" and
>>"Microsoft Munich" (operated by Microsoft Sports VP
>I'm actually looking foward to Microsoft Munich playing Linux
>Leverkusen. Makes for an interesting match, doesn't it?
No, it would be a very boring match, MS Munich would simply GPF and BSOD
(Blue screen of Death) its way to 10 own goals, and Leverkusen would win
by just showing up.
A more interesting match would be SunSoft Dortmund v. Linux Leverkusen
Alex Mizuki
Otter
Itch wrote:
> I would have to say that espn is doing a great justice to the sport by not
> showing MLS highlights. Maybe when the quality of play in MLS equals the
> quality in NHL, it will get more airtime. and also they probably didnt look
> at the chicago crowd because there was no crowd to look at.
>
> tj
>
> Kevin Cabral wrote:
>
Stan Collins
Otter wrote:
> No crowd to look at???? There was 33,000 there.
It was an obvious troll.
Stan collins
> Itch wrote:
>
> > I would have to say that espn is doing a great justice to the sport by not
> > showing MLS highlights. Maybe when the quality of play in MLS equals the
> > quality in NHL, it will get more airtime. and also they probably didnt look
> > at the chicago crowd because there was no crowd to look at.
> >
> > tj
> >
> > Kevin Cabral wrote:
> >
ra...@spacestar.net
I once watched and listened to 162 games a year played by Major League
Baseball.......it was my favorite sport and I watched it and listened
every night, for years and years.....but they have pissed me off to the point
I would not watch them if they played in my yard....I'd even call the police
to have them removed.
If football goes the same route it's adios amigo...I WILL live without it. Too
bad there are so many chumps in the world willing to kiss ass to watch
sports.....if everyone thought like me NOBODY would be watching the world
series and perhaps they would fix a FUCKED UP BROKEN GAME and we all could
enjoy it again......
I hope you are wrong Oliver, but if football screws it up they can jam it.
In article <olivert....@shell7.ba.best.com>,
oli...@best.com (Oliver Tse) wrote:
> Get used to commercials during pay-per-view telecasts.
>
> Murdoch wants this. Malone wants this.
> Berlusconi wants this. Kirch wants this. Beckenbauer wants this.
>
> But most importantly, Microsoft wants this and it wants to control
> ALL of it (how else do you explain that Microsoft now owns a
> stake in Middlesbrough of the English Premier League via
> its investment in Comcast?)
>
> Too many people are too addicted and are too willing to pay for this stuff.
> The freight train is coming, and it cannot be stopped.
>
> Oliver Tse
> soccerTV.com
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
kir...@hotmail.com
Itch <tj...@gwu.edu> wrote:
> I would have to say that espn is doing a great justice to the sport by not
> showing MLS highlights. Maybe when the quality of play in MLS equals the
> quality in NHL, it will get more airtime. and also they probably didnt look
> at the chicago crowd because there was no crowd to look at.
*sigh* Ignorance rears its ugly head again. Check out your facts before you
post. It was the largest crowd in MLS playoff history, almost 33,000.
Kirk
--
In memory of the courage and sacrifice of John
Gibson and Jacob Chestnut, two true American
heroes
Stan Collins
Max Attar Feingold wrote:
> On 18 Oct 1998 13:43:04 -0400, ami...@cc.gatech.edu (Alex Mizuki)
> spoke thusly:
>
> >>I'm actually looking foward to Microsoft Munich playing Linux
> >>Leverkusen. Makes for an interesting match, doesn't it?
> >
> >No, it would be a very boring match, MS Munich would simply GPF and BSOD
> >(Blue screen of Death) its way to 10 own goals, and Leverkusen would win
> >by just showing up.
>
> Ahhh, computer jokes.
>
> Of course, the real interesting team to watch would be
> Apple'Slautern, a squad with a great offense (cooperative
> multi-passing) but a tendency for the defenders to lack coordination
> and bump into one another while attempting to occupy the same
> position on the field. They'd also play without a goalie.
Yes, I've seen Intel's commercials "Processing Goalie. . . . Please Wait."
Stan collins
Chuck Pearson
[stuff about why whine if MLS doesn't get air time on SportsCenter - i
kinda agree, but that's kind of immaterial tothe topic at hand anyway]
: Besides, MLS probably won't be around come 2010. A
: 32-team GLOBAL Super League will RULE (bye, bye, world cup).
: EVERY MATCH will available ANYWHERE in the world via the Internet,
: for a modest price of US$29.95.
: Every other league and club else will simply become
: a farm system for the Super Futbol Corporations (no "clubs"
: need to apply for entry for this Super League). Not even FIFA
: and UEFA can stop the tide: the super corporations will simply tell the
: old men to see them in court, where the judges will have already
: been paid for.
i've thought about this a great deal, and it comes down to one thing:
bullocks.
not to say that i don't think the SuperLeague! is coming. it is, and no
amount of resistance can stop it.
but i don't think that it will necessarily render club and international
football as we know it meaningless. in fact, some clubs might actually
thrive under such a setup.
i'm really starting to think about what's coming [to use the yankee
metaphor, sorry folks] as a NFL-USFL type battle on a global scale. the
NFL owns gridiron football in the USA, and the USFL comes along fifteen
years ago or so with a pretty hefty TV contract, big-name young players
and defectors from the NFL, and a strong desire to break the NFL's monopoly.
the USFL lasted three years.
now, the SuperLeague! folks have deeper pockets than the USFL folks, might
actually get some clubs to defect [imagine what might have happened if
the dallas cowboys and pittsburgh steelers had jumped to the USFL?], and
have generally way more momentum globally than the USFL ever had in the
USA. [if UEFA wasn't so damn stingy with its dough, we might not be in
this mess. might, that is.]
but you're certainly not going to get every big-time player to abandon the
FIFA structure and the hopes and dreams that surround the european cups
and the european championship and the world cup for the sake of a startup
venture that, when you look at it honestly, looks good on paper but might
not last for the long haul. not even by dangling eight- and nine-figure
contracts in front of their faces. witness frank lebouf's comments
yesterday about this whole mess.
in the worst case scenario for FIFA, i see a devalued world cup and a
weakened league structure globally, but still an awfully lucrative
operation when it all boils down. and FIFA might be awakened by all
this, be more responsive to clubs, nations, and [most importantly] fans,
and end the better for it. and that's the worst case scenario.
best case? USFL revisited. FIFA has the monopoly, and the courts
recognize it, but the nod given to the SuperLeague folks will only be token.
frankly, i lean towards the best case. 8-)
chuck
--
follow your dreams. you can reach your goals. [thanx to eric cartman.]
i'm living proof. beefcake. BEEFCAKE! <cpea...@freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Alex Mizuki
>Of course, the real interesting team to watch would be
>Apple'Slautern, a squad with a great offense (cooperative
>multi-passing) but a tendency for the defenders to lack coordination
>and bump into one another while attempting to occupy the same
>position on the field. They'd also play without a goalie.
Well Apple'Slautern brought back their old coach, so they're destined
to be relegated to the third division. Actually, I find them to be
a technically poor team -- I'm not impressed by their multi-passing
nor their ability to thread their passes. And as you mention, their
defence is abysmal. They're almost as bad as MS Munich's team in 95.
I guess I'm just spoiled, watching Sunsoft Dortmund so much.
Alex Mizuki
Stan Collins
Alex Mizuki wrote:
> maf6@*ilovespam*cornell.edu (Max Attar Feingold) writes:
>
> >Of course, the real interesting team to watch would be
> >Apple'Slautern, a squad with a great offense (cooperative
> >multi-passing) but a tendency for the defenders to lack coordination
> >and bump into one another while attempting to occupy the same
> >position on the field. They'd also play without a goalie.
> Well Apple'Slautern brought back their old coach, so they're destined
> to be relegated to the third division.
Are you kidding? That man's a genius. Only thing that ever kept them
competitive. He's such a stern taskmaster (or "Jobs master?") that it
allows them to do more with less. they can't ever sdign any new players,
they're just forced to rely on what they can produce themselves or what
players MS Munich is willing to toss them 6 months after their prime.
Given that, they did quite well under their original boss. It's when
they hired that fool away from Pepsi Volgograd that they started to
really tank.
> Actually, I find them to be
> a technically poor team -- I'm not impressed by their multi-passing
> nor their ability to thread their passes. And as you mention, their
> defence is abysmal. They're almost as bad as MS Munich's team in 95.
Unfortunately, it's not about what they *can* do so much as what they
actually do.
Stan collins
Max Attar Feingold
spoke thusly:
>>I'm actually looking foward to Microsoft Munich playing Linux
>>Leverkusen. Makes for an interesting match, doesn't it?
>
>No, it would be a very boring match, MS Munich would simply GPF and BSOD
>(Blue screen of Death) its way to 10 own goals, and Leverkusen would win
>by just showing up.
Ahhh, computer jokes.
Of course, the real interesting team to watch would be
Apple'Slautern, a squad with a great offense (cooperative
multi-passing) but a tendency for the defenders to lack coordination
and bump into one another while attempting to occupy the same
position on the field. They'd also play without a goalie.
>A more interesting match would be SunSoft Dortmund v. Linux Leverkusen
Nah, that would always end 0-0; they'd just park the bus and play
catenaccio all the way.
Max Attar Feingold
maf6-at-cornell.edu
http://www.csuglab.cornell.edu/Info/People/mfeingol/
"The Mac is a synergistic device"
- a Mac advocate on Usenet
Max Attar Feingold
spoke thusly:
>Well Apple'Slautern brought back their old coach, so they're destined
>to be relegated to the third division. Actually, I find them to be
>a technically poor team -- I'm not impressed by their multi-passing
>nor their ability to thread their passes.
They may be a poor team now, but just wait until neXt season.
>I guess I'm just spoiled, watching Sunsoft Dortmund so much.
I'm not a big fan. Except for Andy "Javaman" Moller, they don't
really have anyone to write home about.
Huw Morris
> Besides, MLS probably won't be around come 2010. A
> 32-team GLOBAL Super League will RULE (bye, bye, world cup).
> EVERY MATCH will available ANYWHERE in the world via the Internet,
> for a modest price of US$29.95.
Do you *really* believe that, Oliver?
Huw
Marc Riese
>On 18 Oct 1998 22:08:31 -0400, ami...@cc.gatech.edu (Alex Mizuki)
>spoke thusly:
>
>>Well Apple'Slautern brought back their old coach, so they're destined
>>to be relegated to the third division. Actually, I find them to be
>>a technically poor team -- I'm not impressed by their multi-passing
>>nor their ability to thread their passes.
>
>They may be a poor team now, but just wait until neXt season.
You should also keep an eye on Hertha BeOS Berlin, they are really
trying to make it to the very top this time. However, sceptics say that
the team is not yet compatible with all of the stadia, so this might
affect their away record.
Marc
Will
>*sigh* Ignorance rears its ugly head again. Check out your facts before
>you post. It was the largest crowd in MLS playoff history, almost 33,000.
Really? I thought DC sold out RFK for Cup '97? Was that a true
sell-out, or just a sell-out of the MLS capacity seating?
-Will
pulgao
Note the use of the word "playoff" in Kirk's post (as opposed to
"final"). And in answer to your question, yes, MLS Cup 97 was a true
sellout. There was talk of adding additional seating -- I don't recall
offhand if this was done.
-- Steve Lopez
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/chesskamikazes
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Hangar/5176/index.html
http://www.chessbaseusa.com/NY1924/ny1924.htm
http://www.chessbaseusa.com/T-NOTES/etn.htm
http://www.chessbase.com/tnotes/index_tn.htm
http://www.smartchess.com/SmartChessOnline/default.htm
Stan Collins
Will wrote:
> <kir...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >*sigh* Ignorance rears its ugly head again. Check out your facts before
> >you post. It was the largest crowd in MLS playoff history, almost 33,000.
>
> Really? I thought DC sold out RFK for Cup '97? Was that a true
> sell-out, or just a sell-out of the MLS capacity seating?
They did. It was the largest crowd in playoff *non-cup* history.
Stan collins
kir...@hotmail.com
w...@schultz.io.com (Will) wrote:
> <kir...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >*sigh* Ignorance rears its ugly head again. Check out your facts before
> >you post. It was the largest crowd in MLS playoff history, almost 33,000.
>
> Really? I thought DC sold out RFK for Cup '97? Was that a true
> sell-out, or just a sell-out of the MLS capacity seating?
Sorry, what I meant was non-MLS Cup playoff match history. In any case,
33,000 is certainly a substantial crowd.
ES Grey
>
> w...@schultz.io.com (Will) wrote:
> > >
> >Really? I thought DC sold out RFK for Cup '97? Was that a true
> >sell-out, or just a sell-out of the MLS capacity seating?
>
> "final"). And in answer to your question, yes, MLS Cup 97 was a true
> sellout. There was talk of adding additional seating -- I don't recall
> offhand if this was done.
Yeah, remember the GIANT black wall on the (TV) right, behind the goal?
They have bleachers they put up there for special occasions... usually
USA games, which were filled at MLS Cup 97.
ES Grey
--
"Where there is no vision, the people perish."
--Proverbs 29:18
_________________________________________________________
ES Grey, self proclaimed elitist and unpopulist.
Dungeons of Destiny: Ultima V maps and stuff...
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Labyrinth/5022/
pulgao
>Yeah, remember the GIANT black wall on the (TV) right, behind the goal?
>They have bleachers they put up there for special occasions... usually
>USA games, which were filled at MLS Cup 97.
I couldn't remember if the extra seating was for the MLS Cup, the U.S.
national qualifier that was played at RFK about the same time, or
both.
barry hamill
>
> I'm actually looking foward to Microsoft Munich playing Linux
> Leverkusen. Makes for an interesting match, doesn't it?
Headline: "MS Munich crashes at Linux Leverkusen"
--
barry hamill
bha...@nospam.mbcm.org
barry hamill
> Of course, the real interesting team to watch would be
> Apple'Slautern, a squad with a great offense (cooperative
> multi-passing) but a tendency for the defenders to lack coordination
> and bump into one another while attempting to occupy the same
> position on the field. They'd also play without a goalie.
And after losing, they'd sue the winners for copying their style of
play.
--
barry hamill
bha...@nospam.mbcm.org
John Baughman
was there I can proudly add that it was damn loud, too. Singing
and cheering from beginning to end, plus a couple of smoke bombs
and the usual samba band that played every home game. As diehard
a fan as I am, I never thought I'd be in the midst of such a
soccer crowd in this country. Two more Fire games to go . . .
John
kir...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <70fc5l$3cn$1...@hiram.io.com>,
> w...@schultz.io.com (Will) wrote:
> > <kir...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >*sigh* Ignorance rears its ugly head again. Check out your facts before
> > >you post. It was the largest crowd in MLS playoff history, almost 33,000.
> >
> > Really? I thought DC sold out RFK for Cup '97? Was that a true
> > sell-out, or just a sell-out of the MLS capacity seating?
>
Jim Riley
wrote:
>but you're certainly not going to get every big-time player to abandon the
>FIFA structure and the hopes and dreams that surround the european cups
>and the european championship and the world cup for the sake of a startup
>venture that, when you look at it honestly, looks good on paper but might
>not last for the long haul. not even by dangling eight- and nine-figure
>contracts in front of their faces. witness frank lebouf's comments
>yesterday about this whole mess.
So you sign lesser known players. What happens when FIFA demands that
Romania not play someone in World Cup because he signed with a non-FIFA
brand club? Do you claim that he was not restricted from practicing his
craft because a FIFA brand club had indeed offered him half as much to
play for them? If neither of the clubs operates in Romania, is a
Romanian court going to be sympathetic? Or what if it is a US player?
Can any blacklist be maintained?
So FIFA/UEFA figures out a way to accomodate the ESL and everyone wins.
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
>The yearly Harris Survey on sports preferences in the USA was released
>yesterday; a cross-section of 1,009 adults were asked between September
>9-13 about the sports that they follow and their favorite sport. A
>writeup on the poll is available at the following URL:
>
>http://www.soccertimes.com/usteams/1998/oct16.htm
I added in the NBA ratings.
>Sports followed [unfortunately, I don't have the exact question and thus
>the wording and especially the frequency and intensity of following
>implied by it]:
It must be pretty vague, considering that the sports listed have a total
of 434% (4+ sports followed on average), yet 1/3 didn't follow the NFL.
This leads me to suspect that there were some people checking off 10 or
more sports - especially if they also included people who follow no
sports.
>NFL Football 66%
>Baseball 57% [doubtlessly distorted this season]
>College football 49%
NBA basketball 44%
>College basketball 30%
>Golf 27%
>Tennis 25%
>Auto Racing %22
>Track and field %21
This is pretty surprising, considering how little coverage it receives
in the US outside of the Olympics.
>Hockey 20%
>WNBA and ABL Women's pro basketball, 18%
>**---- Soccer, 17% ----**
>Women's college basketball,15%
>Horse racing, 13%
>Bowling, 10%
>
>Favorite sport:
>
>NFL Football 26%
>Baseball 18%
NBA Basketball 13%.
>College football 9%
>Auto racing 7%
>Men's college basketball 4%
>Golf 4%
>Tennis 4%
>**------ Soccer 4% ------**
>Hockey 3%
>Track and field, 3%
>Horse racing, 2%
>Bowling, 2%
>Women's college basketball, 1%
>One VERY important sub-note that probably won't be revealed in the press
>releases about this: Soccer is now followed by 17 percent of the
>nation's adults, compared with 10 percent in 1985 and 13 percent in
>1997. That's a 4% increase in one year.
Within the range of noise. What soccer event happened in 1998 that
didn't happen in 1997?
>It's interesting that so many people, 17%, were able to say that they
>follow soccer even though ESPN and the television media gives soccer
>nearly zero coverage of profiles, highlights, interviews, or anything.
The survey didn't attempt to break down what type of soccer or hockey
that people follow.
It may be that for hockey followers it overwhelmingly mean the NHL.
College hockey is very localized. The Olympics every 4 years.
In the case of soccer followers, it could be divided between World Cup,
MLS, and non-US soccer.
>The most important comparison for most soccer fans is the comparison
>with hockey, mainly because though hockey seems to exhibit similar
>characteristics of popularity in the US as soccer - it's media coverage
>absolutely dwarves hockey. For instance, last night on SportsCenter [for
>non-US readers, the most popular show in the US for sports highlights
On cable TV. 1/3 of households don't have cable.
>throughout the games. By contrast, they are spending a mere $5 million a
>year for MLS rights and despite low 'hockey-like' ratings, they're still
>making lots of money on the whole deal - though they know they could be
>making lots more money if they could accomplish the hockey dream.
Can they effectively cross-promote their NFL coverage during soccer
matches?
--
Jim Riley
Chuck Pearson
: So you sign lesser known players. What happens when FIFA demands that
: Romania not play someone in World Cup because he signed with a non-FIFA
: brand club? Do you claim that he was not restricted from practicing his
: craft because a FIFA brand club had indeed offered him half as much to
: play for them? If neither of the clubs operates in Romania, is a
: Romanian court going to be sympathetic? Or what if it is a US player?
: Can any blacklist be maintained?
the solution is thus [in one possible scenario]:
any player who has designs on playing in a FIFA-sanctioned international
competition cannot be signed to a non-FIFA club at any time within a
one-year window leading up to the event.
lay down the law early on, so there is no ambiguity, and make it crystal
clear to each-country's FA so that there can be no argument. this way,
you don't automatically penalize a player for life for signing for a
non-FIFA [SuperLeague] club, but at the same time you give them a strong
incentive to stay within the FIFA system at least some, if not all, of
the time.
i think this also could stand up to a legal challenge, if one was issued.
you can play in the other guy's sandbox all you want, just don't play in
ours while you're playing in his.
barry hamill
>
> In article <3628B29A...@cornell.edu> Kevin Cabral wrote:
>
> >It's interesting that so many people, 17%, were able to say that they
> >follow soccer even though ESPN and the television media gives soccer
> >nearly zero coverage of profiles, highlights, interviews, or anything.
>
> The survey didn't attempt to break down what type of soccer or hockey
> that people follow.
>
> It may be that for hockey followers it overwhelmingly mean the NHL.
> College hockey is very localized. The Olympics every 4 years.
>
> In the case of soccer followers, it could be divided between World Cup,
> MLS, and non-US soccer.
>
You are clearly able to see the trees, now look for the forest. The
important fact embodied in these numbers is that soccer (at whatever
level) is followed (whatever that means) by 1/4 of the people who follow
(whatever...) pro football (etc...), 1/3 of baseball, etc. - yet in no
way does soccer receive 1/4 of the media attention of pro football.
The survey is further proof that the mass media are out of touch, that
they can't (or refuse to) see the growing interest in the sport. If
that 17% is divided between the World Cup, MLS, and non-US soccer, then
those three areas of the sport should be getting air time and column
inches proportionate to that level of interest.
--
barry hamill
bha...@nospam.mbcm.org
esse
Alex Mizuki wrote:
> maf6@*ilovespam*cornell.edu (Max Attar Feingold) writes:
>
> >Of course, the real interesting team to watch would be
> >Apple'Slautern, a squad with a great offense (cooperative
> >multi-passing) but a tendency for the defenders to lack coordination
> >and bump into one another while attempting to occupy the same
> >position on the field. They'd also play without a goalie.
>
> Well Apple'Slautern brought back their old coach, so they're destined
> to be relegated to the third division. Actually, I find them to be
> a technically poor team -- I'm not impressed by their multi-passing
> nor their ability to thread their passes. And as you mention, their
> defence is abysmal. They're almost as bad as MS Munich's team in 95.
>
> I guess I'm just spoiled, watching Sunsoft Dortmund so much.
>
Hmm, but wouldn't it be cool if you can emulate Sun Dortmund on
Apple'slautern's home ground ? I for one wouldn't mind to have PowerPC's
executing speed.
>
> Alex Mizuki
Jim Riley
>important fact embodied in these numbers is that soccer (at whatever
>level) is followed (whatever that means) by 1/4 of the people who follow
"followed" is the key word here. What exactly does it mean to follow a
sport, and does a relative lack of coverage prevent someone from
following a sport?
Can someone be said to follow golf, if they tune in for one of the
majors, glance at the headline this week's tournament in the newspaper,
and if Tiger Woods is leading a tournament read the story. Would
increasing the coverage - including course layouts, hole-by-hole, having
a tour correspondent, increase followership or readership at all?
>(whatever...) pro football (etc...), 1/3 of baseball, etc. - yet in no
>way does soccer receive 1/4 of the media attention of pro football.
>The survey is further proof that the mass media are out of touch, that
>they can't (or refuse to) see the growing interest in the sport.
There are sports such as auto racing that get relatively little mass
media coverage - but have their own specialized media.
> If
>that 17% is divided between the World Cup, MLS, and non-US soccer, then
>those three areas of the sport should be getting air time and column
>inches proportionate to that level of interest.
Shouldn't track and field catch up to soccer first in terms of media
coverage, since it has greater followership?
--
Jim Riley
pulgao
>There are sports such as auto racing that get relatively little mass
>media coverage - but have their own specialized media.
You MUST be joking. Out here in rural Maryland, EVERYTHING is geared
toward NASCAR. It gets MAJOR newspaper coverage (Earhardt stubbing his
toe during time trials is front page news). There are numerous TV and
radio shows about NASCAR, magazines, fanzines. The local NASCAR
memorabilia store is about four times as big as the local soccer store
(and that doesn't count all the additional crap you can buy at the
mall and department stores). Our local K-Mart NEVER carried the MLS
All-Star ballots (like they were supposed to), but you can buy a
t-shirt (or some other bit of memorabilia) for almost every driver in
NASCAR there.
Auto racing is OK, but it always amuses me when a bunch of fat,
beer-swilling rednecks (i.e. many of the people in my community) call
soccer "boring" while watching a bunch of garishly-painted cars make
left turns for four hours straight.
-- Steve Lopez
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/chesskamikazes
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Hangar/5176/index.html
http://www.chessbaseusa.com/
http://www.chessbase.com/tnotes/index_tn.htm
http://www.smartchess.com/SmartChessOnline/default.htm
Huw Morris
> So you sign lesser known players. What happens when FIFA demands that
> Romania not play someone in World Cup because he signed with a non-FIFA
> brand club? Do you claim that he was not restricted from practicing his
> craft because a FIFA brand club had indeed offered him half as much to
> play for them? If neither of the clubs operates in Romania, is a
> Romanian court going to be sympathetic? Or what if it is a US player?
> Can any blacklist be maintained?
Legally, it would be indefensible for FIFA to ban players from the world
cup just because they played for non-FIFA affiliated teams. All FIFA has
to do is insist that players in the world cup are at least registered
with FIFA. Then it's up to the clubs as to whether they allow their
players to register with a rival as well.
Huw
barry hamill
>
> In article <363088...@nospam.mbcm.org> barry hamill wrote:
>
> >important fact embodied in these numbers is that soccer (at whatever
> >level) is followed (whatever that means) by 1/4 of the people who follow
>
> "followed" is the key word here. What exactly does it mean to follow a
> sport, and does a relative lack of coverage prevent someone from
> following a sport?
>
very carefully in a way we're not aware of). In such cases, pollees are
likely to use their own colloquial understanding of the word, which I'd
wager means "watch the sport on TV, read about it in the paper, go to an
occassional game" for 90% of the respondents.
> Can someone be said to follow golf, if they tune in for one of the
> majors, glance at the headline this week's tournament in the newspaper,
> and if Tiger Woods is leading a tournament read the story. Would
> increasing the coverage - including course layouts, hole-by-hole, having
> a tour correspondent, increase followership or readership at all?
this would not say they "follow" a sport- that's not (in a common sense
of the term) enough attention paid to the sport to say they "follow"
it. Increased coverage is not likely to increase interest in these
people at all.
However, when a sport gets as little media attention as soccer does in
the US, and 1 out of 6 people still say they are able to "follow" the
sport, then increased coverage would increase followership, because the
difficulty in following the sport must be stopping some from doing so.
Or put more plainly: if you want to follow football, baseball,
basketball, hockey, or golf in the US, it's easy. There is plenty of
coverage. Following soccer is more difficult; if you already do so, you
must be a dedicated fan, and among those who don't, some percentage must
have been put off by the difficulty factor.
>
> Shouldn't track and field catch up to soccer first in terms of media
> coverage, since it has greater followership?
>
No, T&F should get about 1/3 the play of football, etc. etc. etc., but
I'll let the T&F fans fight that battle.
--
barry hamill
bha...@nospam.mbcm.org
Jim Riley
>jim...@pipeline.com (Jim Riley) wrote:
>
>>There are sports such as auto racing that get relatively little mass
>>media coverage - but have their own specialized media.
>You MUST be joking. Out here in rural Maryland, EVERYTHING is geared
>toward NASCAR. It gets MAJOR newspaper coverage (Earhardt stubbing his
>toe during time trials is front page news). There are numerous TV and
>radio shows about NASCAR, magazines, fanzines. The local NASCAR
>memorabilia store is about four times as big as the local soccer store
You mention specialized media dedicated to Nascar, but how much coverage
does Nascar get in a New York or Chicago or Los Angeles newspaper, or on
the local sports broadcasts in those cities? Is it discussed regularly
on the radio call-in programs?
I see the mass media concentrating on the Big 3 sports (4 in some
places), with added coverage for major events such as Wimbledon, the
Olympics, the Masters, Kentucky Derby, etc. (i.e. these are events that
a major metropolitan newspaper would send a correspondent to cover).
How is your experience in the rural South applicable to the US as a
whole?
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
>Jim Riley wrote:
>>
>> In article <363088...@nospam.mbcm.org> barry hamill wrote:
>>
>> >important fact embodied in these numbers is that soccer (at whatever
>> >level) is followed (whatever that means) by 1/4 of the people who follow
>>
>> "followed" is the key word here. What exactly does it mean to follow a
>> sport, and does a relative lack of coverage prevent someone from
>> following a sport?
>>
>Indeed, "follow" is a pretty open term (unless the pollsters defined it
>very carefully in a way we're not aware of). In such cases, pollees are
>likely to use their own colloquial understanding of the word, which I'd
>wager means "watch the sport on TV, read about it in the paper, go to an
>occassional game" for 90% of the respondents.
21% of the people say they "follow" Track and Field. When do they watch
it on TV outside the Olympics? Their newspaper will probably carry wire
service reports from the World Championship. When do the go to an
occasional meet?
>> Can someone be said to follow golf, if they tune in for one of the
>> majors, glance at the headline this week's tournament in the newspaper,
>> and if Tiger Woods is leading a tournament read the story. Would
>> increasing the coverage - including course layouts, hole-by-hole, having
>> a tour correspondent, increase followership or readership at all?
>"if they tune in... glance at the headline" - no, most people who do
>this would not say they "follow" a sport- that's not (in a common sense
>of the term) enough attention paid to the sport to say they "follow"
>it. Increased coverage is not likely to increase interest in these
>people at all.
How do the 21% of the people who say they "follow" Track and Field do
it? This is only slightly less than the 27% who follow golf.
>However, when a sport gets as little media attention as soccer does in
>the US, and 1 out of 6 people still say they are able to "follow" the
>sport, then increased coverage would increase followership, because the
>difficulty in following the sport must be stopping some from doing so.
Let's modify your paragraph a bit:
However, when a sport gets as little media attention as *track and
field* does in the US, and 1 out of *5* people still say they are able
to "follow" the sport, then increased coverage would increase
followership, because the difficulty in following the sport must be
stopping some from doing so.
Are either of these claims really supportable?
>Or put more plainly: if you want to follow football, baseball,
>basketball, hockey, or golf in the US, it's easy. There is plenty of
>coverage. Following soccer is more difficult; if you already do so, you
>must be a dedicated fan, and among those who don't, some percentage must
>have been put off by the difficulty factor.
If you are going to use this argument, then you are going to have to
apply it consistently to all sports.
--
Jim Riley
Stan Collins
Jim Riley wrote:
> In article <363782...@nospam.mbcm.org> barry hamill wrote:
> >Jim Riley wrote:
> >> In article <363088...@nospam.mbcm.org> barry hamill wrote:
>
> >Indeed, "follow" is a pretty open term (unless the pollsters defined it
> >very carefully in a way we're not aware of). In such cases, pollees are
> >likely to use their own colloquial understanding of the word, which I'd
> >wager means "watch the sport on TV, read about it in the paper, go to an
> >occassional game" for 90% of the respondents.
>
> 21% of the people say they "follow" Track and Field. When do they watch
> it on TV outside the Olympics? Their newspaper will probably carry wire
> service reports from the World Championship. When do the go to an
> occasional meet?
A goos point, but how else other than the above would a person be likely to
define it, if left to their own devices. I suppose we must assume that Harris
defined it themselves, though I'm at a loss as to how they could have defined it
that 21% of Americans would answer that they followed track.
> >> Can someone be said to follow golf, if they tune in for one of the
> >> majors, glance at the headline this week's tournament in the newspaper,
> >> and if Tiger Woods is leading a tournament read the story. Would
> >> increasing the coverage - including course layouts, hole-by-hole, having
> >> a tour correspondent, increase followership or readership at all?
> >"if they tune in... glance at the headline" - no, most people who do
> >this would not say they "follow" a sport- that's not (in a common sense
> >of the term) enough attention paid to the sport to say they "follow"
> >it. Increased coverage is not likely to increase interest in these
> >people at all.
> How do the 21% of the people who say they "follow" Track and Field do
> it? This is only slightly less than the 27% who follow golf.
See, the above statement makes a lot of instuitive sense. The track and field
point is a good counterexample, but I'm not sure of any alternate theory that
explains it, either. Maybe it's just an outlier.
> >However, when a sport gets as little media attention as soccer does in
> >the US, and 1 out of 6 people still say they are able to "follow" the
> >sport, then increased coverage would increase followership, because the
> >difficulty in following the sport must be stopping some from doing so.
> Let's modify your paragraph a bit:
> However, when a sport gets as little media attention as *track and
> field* does in the US, and 1 out of *5* people still say they are able
> to "follow" the sport, then increased coverage would increase
> followership, because the difficulty in following the sport must be
> stopping some from doing so.
> Are either of these claims really supportable?
No. It's almost ludicrous not to belive them, though. Surely there must be
some population that doesn't follow soccer because it's too much of a bother.
And surely it's of registerable size, though it'd be tough to claim it was huge
or anything.
> >Or put more plainly: if you want to follow football, baseball,
> >basketball, hockey, or golf in the US, it's easy. There is plenty of
> >coverage. Following soccer is more difficult; if you already do so, you
> >must be a dedicated fan, and among those who don't, some percentage must
> >have been put off by the difficulty factor.
> If you are going to use this argument, then you are going to have to
> apply it consistently to all sports.
But it seems like you hinge too much on one counter example, when the general
framework seems to work for everyone else. He could just modify his argument by
saying "track and field notwithstanding . . ."--
Stan collins
"Three guys playing Horse. It's Fan-tastic!"
-Samuel L. Jackson
blueboat
<scol...@trinity.edu> said:
<snip>
>A goos point
Jeff Agoos?
I love these sorts of slips. The other day I heard someone say
germalist when they meant journalist. It seemed quite apt.
cheers,
bluearmy
------------
baa, baa!
barry hamill
>
> 21% of the people say they "follow" Track and Field. When do they watch
> it on TV outside the Olympics? Their newspaper will probably carry wire
> service reports from the World Championship. When do the go to an
> occasional meet?
>
>
> How do the 21% of the people who say they "follow" Track and Field do
> it? This is only slightly less than the 27% who follow golf.
>
There are people who know me fairly well, and have no idea how much
time/energy I spend in following soccer (one of them is my supervisor).
They don't follow soccer, and so would have no idea how I follow the
sport. They probably don't notice when a game is on TV, or on cable,
they don't notice the scores in the sports section, they have no idea
what Soccer America or World Soccer are, or R.S.S. for that matter. So,
since I know zip/zilch/diddly/squat about T&F, I have no idea how its
fans "follow" it- but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that those who
are interested find a way to "follow" the sport that you and I are
completely oblivious to.
I do know that whenever I go to the sports magazines section of my local
newsdealer, there are a lot of magazines called "Runner's World" and the
like, their covers featuring smiling athletes I've never heard of who
are treated as household words. I recently found out a surprising
number of people I know have run 10K runs, half-marathons, and even
marathons; since the Harris poll didn't separate "running" from more
formal "track meet" events, perhaps people who are interested in those
events lumped themselves into that category.
> If you are going to use this argument, then you are going to have to
> apply it consistently to all sports.
>
Glad to. "Followers" of a sport define "following" that sport however
they please. Absent a rigorous and consistent definition of the term by
the pollster, they will respond based on their definition of the term,
not mine, and not yours. Let's cross-post to R.S.T.A.F, and see what
they say.
--
barry hamill
bha...@nospam.mbcm.org
Chris Francisco
On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, barry hamill wrote:
[snip]
> I do know that whenever I go to the sports magazines section of my local
> newsdealer, there are a lot of magazines called "Runner's World" and the
> like, their covers featuring smiling athletes I've never heard of who
> are treated as household words. I recently found out a surprising
> number of people I know have run 10K runs, half-marathons, and even
> marathons; since the Harris poll didn't separate "running" from more
> formal "track meet" events, perhaps people who are interested in those
> events lumped themselves into that category.
I imagine this is the case. I'm a distance runner, racing at several
distances, and I follow road racing through Runner's World, occasional TV
coverage (mostly highlight shows and marathons), and the WWW. Sometimes I
read rec.running as well. There are a ton of people getting into road
racing now, from serious runners to people looking for a nice social
atmosphere to test their progress. I think road racers tend, as I do, to
follow road racing and not so much T&F, but they may say that they follow
T&F for lack of a better term.
Chris
Stan Collins
Chris Francisco wrote:
> [snip]
As a former Atlantan, I suspect that thousands of people "follow" running by
getting into the Peachtree Road Race, and they might well count that as T&F.
Ditto Boston and New York marathons.
steep...@my-dejanews.com
ra...@spacestar.net wrote:
> Too addicted, nah.......
>
> I once watched and listened to 162 games a year played by Major League
> Baseball.......it was my favorite sport and I watched it and listened
> every night, for years and years.....but they have pissed me off to the point
> I would not watch them if they played in my yard....I'd even call the police
> to have them removed.
>
> If football goes the same route it's adios amigo...I WILL live without it. Too
> bad there are so many chumps in the world willing to kiss ass to watch
> sports.....if everyone thought like me NOBODY would be watching the world
> series and perhaps they would fix a FUCKED UP BROKEN GAME and we all could
> enjoy it again......
>
> I hope you are wrong Oliver, but if football screws it up they can jam it.
>
> In article <olivert....@shell7.ba.best.com>,
> oli...@best.com (Oliver Tse) wrote:
>
> > Get used to commercials during pay-per-view telecasts.
> >
> > Murdoch wants this. Malone wants this.
> > Berlusconi wants this. Kirch wants this. Beckenbauer wants this.
> >
> > But most importantly, Microsoft wants this and it wants to control
> > ALL of it (how else do you explain that Microsoft now owns a
> > stake in Middlesbrough of the English Premier League via
> > its investment in Comcast?)
> >
> > Too many people are too addicted and are too willing to pay for this stuff.
> > The freight train is coming, and it cannot be stopped.
> >
> > Oliver Tse
> > soccerTV.com
> >
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
be enough "adult children of soccer moms" to build a critical mass fan base.
There is also the phenomena of ethnic leagues, i.e. the Abraham Lincoln League
in L.A. I can imagine, in North America, a league built of ethnic teams or
teams built on foriegn locality. The Celts. Club Afrique. Brooklyn Locomotiv.
Or even a team built on the concept of "American-ness", D.C. United.
pulgao
>How is your experience in the rural South applicable to the US as a
>whole?
I don't know that I'd call the DC-Baltimore area (75 miles away) "the
rural south". The TV and print news outlets beat the shit out of
NASCAR. Jeff Gordon getting a hangnail receives more news coverage
than MLS in everything but the Washington Post.
And NASCAR is making huge inroads in the North. Keep your eyes open,
my friend -- the oval-driving rednecks are invading.
pulgao
> Is there a moniker for adult who were once AYSO kids? Eventually there will
>be enough "adult children of soccer moms" to build a critical mass fan base.
Well, one day you'll see soccer-threatened idiots like Keith Olbermann
railing (from their wheelchairs) about "soccer grandmoms".
cid...@my-dejanews.com
Kevin Cabral <km...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> The yearly Harris Survey on sports preferences in the USA was released
> yesterday; a cross-section of 1,009 adults were asked between September
> 9-13 about the sports that they follow and their favorite sport. A
> writeup on the poll is available at the following URL:
>
> http://www.soccertimes.com/usteams/1998/oct16.htm
>
>
> Sports followed [unfortunately, I don't have the exact question and thus
> the wording and especially the frequency and intensity of following
> implied by it]:
>
So you Yanks are finally waking up to the only game in the world! Take it from
one who resides in the home of FOOTBALL, why they hell you call it soccer god
only knows, that it will become your religion.
> NFL Football 66%
> Baseball 57% [doubtlessly distorted this season]
> College football 49%
> College basketball 30%
> Golf 27%
> Tennis 25%
> Auto Racing %22
> Track and field %21
> Hockey 20%
> WNBA and ABL Women's pro basketball, 18%
> **---- Soccer, 17% ----**
> Women's college basketball,15%
> Horse racing, 13%
> Bowling, 10%
>
> Favorite sport:
>
> NFL Football 26%
> Baseball 18%
> College football 9%
> Auto racing 7%
> Men's college basketball 4%
> Golf 4%
> Tennis 4%
> **------ Soccer 4% ------**
> Hockey 3%
> Track and field, 3%
> Horse racing, 2%
> Bowling, 2%
> Women's college basketball, 1%
>
> One VERY important sub-note that probably won't be revealed in the press
> releases about this: Soccer is now followed by 17 percent of the
> nation's adults, compared with 10 percent in 1985 and 13 percent in
> 1997. That's a 4% increase in one year.
>
> It's interesting that so many people, 17%, were able to say that they
> follow soccer even though ESPN and the television media gives soccer
> nearly zero coverage of profiles, highlights, interviews, or anything.
> Thus the only way to follow it is to actually watch the games, since
> coverage in newspapers is also minimal and not really sufficient to
> follow a game. I assume that at least a very large percentage of people
> who follow a sport catch a game here or there on TV but mostly just
> watch the sports highlights shows and checkout the articles in the
> newspapers.
>
> An interesting statistic emerges from these polls. It's often thought by
> media types that soccer's audience in the US is mostly a small bunch of
> hard-core fans who care for no other sports and watch only soccer. Thus
> they may reason that soccer coverage on sports television highlight
> shows isn't necessary because most soccer fans get their information
> elsewhere and despite the equality of TV ratings with hockey - it's only
> the fanatics who care about soccer; whereas the general sports fan
> population who watches shows like ESPN SportsCenter could care less. The
> implicit argument is thus that somehow the ratio between the number of
> hard-core fans of soccer to casual followers must be dominated by the
> hard-core fanatics.
>
> But the statistics in the Harris Poll don't support that conclusion.
> Soccer's ratio of 'fans' (persons who follow soccer) and fanatics (fans
> for whom soccer is their favorite sport) is 17% to 4%. Thus just 23.5%
> of soccer fans are fanatics for whom soccer is their favorite sport.
> This compares with baseball's percentage of 31.6%. And the fanatic/fan
> percentage is certainly distorted this year by the home-run chance,
> which has prompted millions of Americans to follow the Sosa-McGwire's
> breaking of Roger Maris' supposedly unbreakable record for homeruns in a
> season.
>
> The most important comparison for most soccer fans is the comparison
> with hockey, mainly because though hockey seems to exhibit similar
> characteristics of popularity in the US as soccer - it's media coverage
> absolutely dwarves hockey. For instance, last night on SportsCenter [for
> non-US readers, the most popular show in the US for sports highlights
> and information on TV] we got 10 minutes or more of hockey highlights
> and 15 seconds of the Fire-Galaxy shootout. No regular time goals, but
> no importantly; no near misses, no attractive passing, no anything. By
> contrast, ESPN gives us hockey profiles, interviews, features on the
> crowd (they went on and on about the spirited Detroit crowd; did they
> bother to look at Soldier Field in Chicago's crowd?), and lots of
> highlights; even on plays that don't setup goals. By contrast, all the
> casual fan gets on soccer is a goal every once and a while. It's no
> coincidence that so many think soccer is a bore because they only see
> the tail end of a couple goals and conclude that that's all the
> important action in a soccer game.
>
> Hockey's percentage of fanatics to fans is 15%. Though the number of
> people who follow hockey surpass the number who follow soccer according
> to the Harris Poll, soccer has more fans for whom soccer is their
> favorite sport. But that's just a difference of 20% to 17% between
> people who follow hockey and soccer. And it hardly justifies the
> tremendous distortion in hockey vs. soccer coverage.
>
> It's also interesting that though 18% say they follow women's
> professional basketball, apparently not enough said it was their
> favorite sport to even make the Harris Poll's listing of favorite
> sports. If this is the case, then it's further testimony to the power of
> the TV media, and especially SportsCenter which shows highlights of WNBA
> relentlessly throughout the season at a level of priority and detail far
> ahead of MLS and soccer highlights [except when a soccer-friendly anchor
> like Bob Ley is in the studio].
>
> One conclusion that seems reasonable from this is once again that soccer
> would significantly expand its fanbase if it received media coverage in
> line with its number of casual fans. Moreover, more casual fans [and
> thus fanatics] would emerge would probably emerge since there are
> certainly a fair number of people who might follow soccer if it was
> accessible in the media - even though they might only watch the games
> rarely.
>
> It's obvious stuff. But apparently not obvious to ESPN. Some of it has
> to do with the anti-soccer bias of many of the most influential people
> within SportsCenter; some of it may have to do with false perceptions
> about soccer fans amongst those influential people [though I have a hard
> time believing that Ivy Leaguers like Chris Berman can't understand what
> the polls say]. But I think a lot of it also has to do with the
> motivation to promote one game versus another. ESPN and ABC have
> hundreds of millions of dollars riding on increasing the popularity of
> hockey. And they like it's commercial possibilities because of the young
> demographic and omnipresence of opportunities to take commercial breaks
> throughout the games. By contrast, they are spending a mere $5 million a
> year for MLS rights and despite low 'hockey-like' ratings, they're still
> making lots of money on the whole deal - though they know they could be
> making lots more money if they could accomplish the hockey dream.
>
> - Kevin
Chris Ahlstrom
guzzling gas on this incredibly wasteful sport. I can see the
drivers and pit crew having fun, but, apart from the occasional
crash or explosion, I don't see what the fun is in watching a
decal-laden vehicle go in a big circle. Conspicuous consumption,
maybe?
Chris
Chris Ahlstrom
the baseball treatment. David Stern's growing stress whiskers!
I love basketball, but I'm going to boycott any season that might
occur this year.
Keith Olbermann isn't an idiot. He's just a pompous swaggering
asshole.
Chris
pulgao
>Keith Olbermann isn't an idiot. He's just a pompous swaggering
>asshole.
Right! *That's* what I meant to say! ;-)
pb...@my-dejanews.com
TO PLAY BUT IN A GAME YOU REALLY DON'T REALIZE HOW MUCH OF A WORKOUT YOU
ACTUALLY GET. IT A FUN AND COMPETAIVE SPORT THAT SHOULD BE HIGHER RANKED WITH
OTHER SPORTS AND SHOULD BE BROADCASTED ON REGULAR T.V. CHANNELS. THANKS
JESSICA
Jim Riley
>jim...@pipeline.com (Jim Riley) wrote:
>
>>How is your experience in the rural South applicable to the US as a
>>whole?
>
>I don't know that I'd call the DC-Baltimore area (75 miles away) "the
>rural south". The TV and print news outlets beat the shit out of
>NASCAR. Jeff Gordon getting a hangnail receives more news coverage
>than MLS in everything but the Washington Post.
You said that you were from rural Maryland. Doesn't that mean Eastern
Shore or west of Hagerstown? You do pick a banjo, don't you?
>And NASCAR is making huge inroads in the North. Keep your eyes open,
>my friend -- the oval-driving rednecks are invading.
You're right. There is a new track up North near Dallas.
Just as I said that auto racing doesn't get much coverage in the
mainstream press - they hit the first page of the _Houston Chronicles_
Sport's section. But that was someone setting a national drag record
(320 MPH?) at a nearby track. That article was by a local writer.
Continuing on to the inside, the Nascar coverage was simply picked right
off AP. In reality, just like coverage given to Soccer.
--
Jim Riley