It might be necessary for U.S. soccer fans to realize that soccer may never take the hallowed place in American sports that American football, baseball, and basketball possess. Many soccer fans in the U.S. believe that the U.S. will have to win the World Cup before soccer becomes major sport here. There is merit to that argument - having been a dominant player in global politics for at least sixty years, U.S. culture has also spread around the world increasing the popularity of American football, baseball, and basketball. When competing against the world in these sports, the U.S. tends to win, or at least have a very respectable showing. It may be that Americans have come to expect the winning and, when cast in the unfamiliar role of underdog, become uncomfortable when the U.S. is beaten by Ghana or the Czech Republic or possibly a country that U.S. fans may not be able to identify.
There is a case for that. But Americans can, in fact, deal with losing. Our club or university teams do it all the time. Here in the District, the Redskins and Nationals have fans and they don't win a damn thing. Actually, if you look at the district, the more successful teams are my beloved D.C. United (trading on past glories at this point, but still, lots of trophies for less than two decades) and the Capitals (hockey, for those of you unaware). These teams have fair followings. Certainly, there are people who watch the playoff games and finals and claim to be "huge fans," even if that fandom meant noticing the Caps score on the ESPN ticker or in the Post. But D.C. United does not sell out RFK, even for big games, like the Redskins did and continue to do at a much larger stadium. If you need illustration of the difference between baseball and soccer, the Nationals took the city to the cleaners and continue to do so over their stadium, whereas successive mayors have paid lip-service to a new home for D.C. United, but haven't been willing to waste political capital or one red cent on the project. I have digressed considerably, but I think my point is clear, we can handle our teams losing. Sure, a national team is somewhat different, but people didn't stop watching baseball when the U.S. lost the first baseball World Classic (or whatever that monstrosity was called), nor basketball when the U.S. "Dream Teams" finally stopped walking through their Olympic opponents.
Winning the World Cup would certainly help. Probably a lot. But U.S. soccer would have to make a sustained effort to maintain that interest and it is by no means guaranteed that they could maintain even that boost in interest. It certainly wouldn't silence the much defamed "Euro-snobs." (Lacking an Oxford definition, the term is used here to describe U.S. nationals or resident aliens who routinely mock the U.S. Soccer program, have never been to an MLS game, but feel confident to mock the league and generally argue that any "difference" in the American game from the European game is a "failure." The owner of this blog plainly prefers his Spurs to the Black-and-Red and prefers his Swedish ethnicity to his American nationality. The big difference is that he goes to D.C. United and U.S. MNT games because he enjoys the sport and enjoys watching it played more than he likes to tout the superiority of his national and club teams.) Euro-snobs claim that their love is of soccer, but really, it's more of an identity. It's about having arcane knowledge that few Americans possess, feeling cultured and unique for having an interest outside mainstream, and probably no small part is being able to bash U.S. culture which has been so unabashedly dominant globally (I'm no culture warrior; I would probably be stoned to death for my political views in the heart of the Mid-West, but having dealt with no small number of these fans, these are my views). U.S. Soccer would still be different, the best American players would still be playing for mid-level teams in Europe's top leagues or in mid-level European leagues. A U.S. victory would be easy to shrug aside; hell Uruguay has a couple World Cup trophies. As for the public at large, sure there would be an interest. But getting into soccer for one tournament is very different than following a club team through their season and tournaments. And the domestic game would still be the MLS.
Many proponents of the World Cup argument point to the huge boost that hockey got in the U.S. after the 1980 Winter Olympics. And rightly so. The NHL shot itself in the foot with its labor issues and subsequent strike, but the NHL remains one of the best, if not the best, professional hockey league in the world. That, however, is where it differs from soccer. Soccer is a far more popular sport globally. It has established leagues already in place awash with loads of talent and even more money. England, Spain, and Italy spend millions upon millions of Euros or pounds on their footballers. The top teams in Germany and France spend comparable amounts as well. Right now, the top-flight Mexican clubs far out-spend the MLS for their talent. The failure of the NASL (the old one) has justifiably spooked the MLS into controlling finances more rigorously. It might be holding the U.S. league back, but there's a pretty good argument that it's holding the league together. Regardless, it is difficult to believe that the MLS teams even without a salary cap could attract the big talent that Europe attracts - particularly right now. Many, many UEFA teams are posting monumental losses - while filling their stadiums every game and selling millions of ridiculously-priced jerseys worldwide. Even with a windfall attendance coming from a World Cup victory, it seems implausible that the MLS could sell every seat in the house. Qwest, okay. BMO and Crew stadiums, maybe but they're tiny. Not RFK, not Pizza Hut Park. The MLS would be even less able to support such spending, not to mention the inflation in salaries that would accompany adding another entire big-spending league. Plus, the U.S. is in CONCACAF; the CONCACAF Champions' League does not have the luster of the UEFA Champions' League. Certainly, tournaments could be developed or maybe the World Club Championship would actually matter, but the success of those tournaments are by no means guaranteed. The lack of regional rivals will be an impediment to the MLS ever reaching the quality of European leagues (Mexico currently has superior club teams, but it is tough to argue that U.S. teams could ever rival the big European teams without first surpassing UNAM, Guadalajara or Club America).
Of course, most reasonable proponents of the theory would say that it's not a "magic bullet." If the U.S. somehow manages to win the World Cup this summer, no one is really thinking that Messi or Ronaldo would be booking tickets to the U.S. to find a contract. Winning the World Cup would probably fall under the "necessary-but-insufficient" category for it's proponents.
I'm actually more optimistic. I argue that soccer in the U.S. is on the right track. More Americans follow the game locally and globally than ever before. Last summer, visiting European teams drew sell-out crowds at some of the largest stadiums in the U.S. The U.S. is becoming a regional power in CONCACAF; which means that the U.S. will generally qualify for the World Cup finals, which is new. The MLS is getting better. The MLS has been a starting point for many national team members, it attracts national team players (not many, but an increasing number) from other CONCACAF countries. The expansion, so far, seems good and having local professional soccer may encourage greater numbers of young Americans to get involved in the youth program. Speaking of expansion, okay many of the Seattle fans are douchebags, but sorry Barra Brava and Screaming Eagles, they're out-stripping us. I personally doubt it will last at its current levels and D.C. fan groups are far better organized and creative and rely less upon the largess of team owners, but Seattle sets the bar for attendance and I expect their fans will become better organized as their team ages. The fact that an MLS got a reception like that speaks strongly to the increasing popularity of the sport in the U.S. The fact that U.S. Soccer couldn't draw half the Sounders' number to a U.S. MNT Gold Cup game should be somewhat worrying though. I don't believe that the U.S. needs to win the World Cup. Getting close is enough. Right now, surviving the group phase is an acceptable goal. Moving forward in the knock-out phases should be the expectations for the future. But winning the World Cup? Only seven teams have done it and there are a dozens of countries where soccer is far and away the national pastime and far more popular than it is here and have never won it. If the U.S. has to wait to win the World Cup before soccer is accepted as a major sport in the U.S., well to paraphrase Mal Reynolds, "that may be a long wait for a train that don't come."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment