Soccer. Why America hates it and why Americans should embrace it.

Here's the post you've all been waiting for. My take on soccer. Okay, so probably only a few of you have been waiting for it. The rest of you are probably saying something like: "Soccer sucks and Haaafs sucks for liking it." That's fair. Everyone has a right to their own opinion. Unless you hate soccer. Then your opinion sucks. But if that were true, then most of America would suck. Well... Let's face it, most people do suck. And I'm a full believer in that they suck because they hate soccer.

The other group of you reading this are probably saying something like: "It's football not soccer, you ignorant American." Look, I grew up calling it soccer. Just like I drive a car that has gas in it. It has a hood and a trunk. Petrol, boot, bonnet, flat? It all hurts my head it's so British. Basically what I'm saying is, I speak Americanese. It's some sort of mix between English and words some people made up a couple hundred years ago. But I'm seriously digressing... (This is how my brain works. Some kind of weird ADD or something.)

At any rate, soccer. Why the hatred in the US? Well, here's what most haters would say... They would say that it's too low scoring, too slow paced, and the players are a bunch of floppers. To be fair, the 3rd part is right on the ball (heh). But let's address the first two.

Too low scoring. This excuse comes from the people who want to see homeruns blasted out of the stadium every at bat in baseball. They want to see a 7 foot tall monster jump and dunk the ball as hard as possible, preferably while running a couple people over. These people cheer at a huge check in hockey, even when the result is a breakaway for the other team. These people do not appreciate sport. They just want to see huge people do ridiculous things. In my opinion, these people should just stick to watching professional wrestling. A real athlete requires not only strength, but also finesse. Who's a better baseball player? Ichiro Suzuki or Adam Dunn? If you said Adam Dunn, stop reading now. My words are way too truthful and right for you to be reading them with your stupid opinions overshadowing them. Seriously, I'll wait for you to leave. Alt+F4 if you need some help (and are using a Windows machine).




But honestly, being low scoring is a good thing! When it's down to the final couple minutes, there's nothing better than seeing a team down by 1 goal, trying their hardest to tie it up. Or a tie game, where one team HAS to win to move on in a tournament. Did you watch when Landon Donovan scored the game winner for USA in the World Cup Group Stage? If not, you missed one of the most exciting moments in sports history!

Here's the goal
Here's the reaction by fans all over the world

How exciting is it when a basketball team is up by 20 with a few minutes left? Or when a football team is up by 17 with 2 minutes left? Sure, that's not always the case with those sports. Buzzer-beaters are great in basketball. But exciting end-game scenarios with those sports are pretty rare. Most games in soccer are within reach when the second half goes into extra time.

And how about slow-paced. I guess I can sort of see how soccer can be slow paced at times. Finesse isn't something you just do instantaneously. You have to wait for the right opportunity. Just like how Ichiro waits for his pitch. Oh, speaking of baseball, if you say soccer is slow paced and watch baseball games everyday, you can leave, too. Your argument is immediately invalid. The same thing for football. Sure, there's more action when a play is happening. But then it stops and everyone stands around for a minute or longer if a commercial break is needed. Honestly, the only major sport I would consider faster paced than soccer is hockey. It's basically soccer on ice. Everything should be faster on ice. Oh, and NASCAR is faster. But yeah. Cars. Also, "sport".

And then we get to the flopping. Yes, soccer players flop. But try to name a physical sport where flopping doesn't occur... Guess what? You can't. Basketball? Ever seen a guy try to draw a charge? "Oh, I got nudged so hard that I fell backwards straight onto my back! I was so stunned that my legs could not work!" Hockey? Please. Again, drawing fouls. Tripping means you have to flop around and fly into the boards. Hit from behind? Throw your face into the boards to draw a boarding penalty. High sticking? Throw your head back violently, then fall to the ice, grabbing your face and look for blood. Football? Less noticeable. Occasionally you'll find someone fall on purpose trying to draw pass interference. But what happens a lot are fake injuries, especially in college. If a team is faster, especially if your team is on defense, don't be afraid to stay on the ground after the play is over. You'll get an injury timeout and your defense can rest. (This "strategy" has been used against the Saints a few times.) Your penalty? Well, the injured player has to sit out a play. All that means is that your star players can't be faking injuries. But your dime-back? Sure, why not. He's barely even on the team anyways. He might as well do something useful. The only thing soccer players are guilty of is being bad actors. That has always bothered me. Did your foot get stepped on? Fall down and grab your knee. Did someone bump you off the ball? Fall down and grab your knee. Did someone say inappropriate things about your family? Headbutt them and watch as they fall down and grab their knee. Did someone kick you in the groin? Fall down and cry, because that probably hurt a lot. Just like most sports, it's just done to draw fouls. The most dangerous position in soccer is a set-piece. Just like in basketball, the most dangerous position is, umm... having the ball in your hands. Just like how in hockey, the most dangerous position is being on the power play. (Unless you're the Boston Bruins.)

So say what you want about soccer. But it's really just like any other sport. You want to know the real reason America hates soccer? ESPN. ESPN refuses to show many soccer games. Sure, they show a few MLS games. But let's face it, MLS sucks. I want to see more Premier League, more Champions League, more La Liga, More Serie A. A lot of people get excited about the World Cup. You want to know why? Because for some reason, ESPN loves the World Cup. They will talk about it for hours and show every game they can. I'm glad they do, but they're missing out on some exciting European soccer games. People are pretty dumb. ESPN is a huge source for Americans who love sports. People will like and watch whatever ESPN says they should like and watch. Heck, even Texas Hold'em got big because of ESPN. They are solely responsible for the huge poker craze over the last decade. So get a clue, ESPN. Play more soccer games. And not that crappy MLS. The real leagues. Then Americans will start embracing soccer. It will take some time, but do what you do with all of the "American sports". Shove it down everyone's throats and they will learn to love it like the rest of the world.

Bowling? Golf? Cheerleading? What constitutes a "sport" anyways?

People argue about this all the time. What's a sport? In high school, kids always made fun of cheerleading. The cheerleaders would all say how it's a sport... The guys would laugh hysterically... In my opinion, cheerleading was only a sport when they were in competitions. Jumping around and chanting "Go School!" didn't really seem like a sport. But if they were doing complex maneuvers and competing against other teams, I could see counting that as a sport. But that's just my opinion. Is it really a sport?

And don't get me started on ESPN. I could write an entire article on how I love and hate ESPN. But some of the things they show on there shouldn't be considered sports. Cheerleading, Poker, Bowling, Fishing, Golf, that weird "sport" where people saw wood... Then it gets even worse with the National Spelling Bee, Scrabble championships, and even Chess sometimes. I've even seen paintball matches. We're getting closer and closer to needing ESPN The Ocho.

But what is a sport? Well, dictionary.com defines it as:

"1. an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc."

 

Now, according to this, physical prowess isn't necessary for something to be a sport. It just has to be an athletic activity that requires skill and is competitive. But wait, they then go on to say racing, bowling, hunting, and fishing are all sports. Those are athletic? I don't feel like you need to be athletic to do any of those. And that's saying a lot from me. I love bowling. It's always been a borderline sport to me... But I bowled a lot, got pretty good at it, and generally had fun doing it. I didn't really care if people called it a sport. That definition didn't really seem to make sense, given the examples they had...

Let's try wikipedia...

"A sport is an organized, competitive, entertaining, and skillful activity requiring commitment, strategy, and fair play, in which a winner can be defined by objective means. Generally speaking, a sport is a game based in physical athleticism. Activities such as board games and card games are sometimes classified as "mind sports," but strictly speaking "sport" by itself refers to some physical activity. Non-competitive activities may also qualify, for example though jogging or playing catch are usually classified as forms of recreation, they may also be informally called "sports" due to their similarity to competitive games."

 

Now that sounds like a good definition. "Physical athleticism". On a side note: who the hell calls jogging (or yogging. I think the 'j' might be silent.) a sport?

 

At any rate, Wikipedia knows all. And if they say a sport needs physical athleticism, so be it. Goodbye poker. You are not a sport. Neither is chess... Except for chess boxing. Now THAT'S a sport. One that I actually want to try one of these days.

 

Cheerleading's out if the winner has to be determined by objective means. Same with figure skating, gymnastics, diving, and most "extreme sports". So the things that women are good at and men who want to pretend they are still kids are good at aren't sports. Good to know. Wikipedia tries to turn this around and say that even though they are judged sports, the criteria is so precise that they are still sports. Stop contradicting yourself, Wikipedia. It's as if more than 1 person wrote the article. I'm sticking with your original definition. You were just trying to be nice to people who compete in those events.

 

But wait, physical athleticism? What about bowling, fishing, etc... You need to physically be able to do something well in order to do those things, and they have a scoring system where a winner is determined by objective means... It sounds like these are now sports.

 

My conclusion: Sports have to have something physical and have an objective way of scoring. No cheerleading, figure skating, poker, or anything like that. However, golf, bowling, darts, billiards, polo, fishing, hunting, and the like are all sports. Fat people everywhere rejoice. You can be athletes, too.(And not just offensive linemen in football.)

Cheating. It's all fun and games until you get caught... And for many, it's still fun and games afterward.

Cheating in sports is pretty much mandatory these days. And why not cheat? Most fans either forget that a player or team cheated... Or they forgive them.

Look at the New England Patriots. They blatantly cheated. (How do I reeeeach these kiiiiiids...) I guarantee you that 15 years down the road, very few people will even remember that they did. They were not stripped of their Super Bowl titles. In fact, minor fines and a lost draft pick were the only punishment. But how much of a punishment is a fine anyways? Sure, technically the league fined them the highest amount they could. But in reality, that's nothing. The team makes millions and millions of dollars a year. That fine is chump change to them. And what about all of the new bandwagon fans that are now buying tickets, jerseys, hats, and other memorabilia. And as for the draft pick? Does it really hurt a team that is cheating? Any pro can do the job if you know what play has just been called. The Patriots just laughed, shrugged it all off, and continued as if nothing happened.

Then there are the individual cheaters. Now, there is a slight hitch to being a cheater as an individual. It is NOT okay to cheat by yourself....... unless you confess. Then it's cool. "Sorry. I took HGH. It was a mistake." That's okay, Jason Giambi, after a suspension, come back and everyone will welcome you with open arms. Applause all around! Look how brave he was to admit he cheated! Please, continue playing! Even though you are still huge from all of the time you took the banned substance! That's okay!

The major problem with this is that there is very little punishment. With this comes accusations. How many people are 100% sure Ken Griffey Jr didn't take steroids? I'm guessing not many. Or what about Albert Pujols? Most people would believe that neither of them ever took a banned substance, but how many are 100% sure? I know neither of them have been accused. But because the punishment is so small and so many people before them have taken these substances, you can't help but wonder.

In my opinion, the punishment should be MUCH stricter, especially in baseball. 1st time offense? 162 game suspension. If you are caught even once, you are no longer eligible for the Hall of Fame. 2nd time? Banned for life. Also, any team you were on that won the World Series with you on their roster forfeits that season. Large fines will also be given. Not only would the suspension be without pay, but they would have to pay the league an amount equal to half of their salary, which would be donated to a charity of their choice. These guys are getting off WAY too easy. Lay down the law, commissioners! It's your job! And it's the only way to make sports fair again!