Why is soccer so popular?

[tim2]

It's simple and cheap to play as a kid (jumpers for goalposts). This has enabled it to take off worldwide. It was one of the earliest (if not the earliest) to become professional and attract large, paying, working class crowds (not long before rugby, but we all know whose fault it was that pro rugby never took off after 1895) in the UK.

it created a world organisation (yes, we know) and a World Cup that really took off after WW2. One country never truly dominated.

Because it's relatively hard to score and relatively easy to defend en masse, games are generally close between teams of the same standard and shock reults are common.

In terms of the top level game, it's become choreographed now to the point where they all pretty much play the same and rely on star players or errors. Even my club, in the National League, play it out from the back and try to play through teams rather than hoof it upfield. They do have a big striker though, as plan B.

Corporations have taken over, and the major club sides are bought by billionaires/trillionaires/countries just to accumulate all the wealth and success in a small subset of clubs. I find it quite dull unless I care about one of the teams.

There's a lot of merit in going to watch lower level non-league if you want it old school.

[The Masked Poster]

36 minutes ago, Copa said:

I think it just got in very early as an organised sport and laid a solid foundation in most places that other sports will not usurp.

This is probably it and it will not be usurped now, you're correct.

The only possible way it might even get close to that happening is if all the other handling codes, (2 Rugbys, NFL, AFL, Gaelic football etc etc) got together and tried to combine their games and produce one worldwide handling game. But seeing as that's clearly nonsense, it won't happen. 

[DI Keith Fowler]

To echo others, it's the unpredictability that makes it so interesting. You can have a team costing half a billion coming up against a team put together on a shoe string budget, have 90% possession, 20 shots on target and lose 0-1 through the oppositions only chance in the game. Other sports don't have this, 99% of the time whoever plays better wins and the score is reflective of the superiority. What this gives is a feeling that every game matters. 

Added to this is the tactical element of the game which is more complex than both codes of rugby as the ball can be passed forwards. Meaning players can take up many more positions on the field than what in rugby is broadly two opposing lines facing each other.

I think we in RL have undersold ourselves by saying the game is simple, I think the attacking and defensive structures are complex and I think we've ceded some kind of intellectual status to union because of a conflation of the public school background of the game and complexity of play.

However in the case of football it is there, there's so many more possible positions, styles of play and structures possible in a game that's more 3d than 2d. 

[glemiln]

For myself, certainly today on telly, football is akin to watching paint dry- when I have a peek to see how a game is progressing!  Perhaps more if England progress to the finals.  Much better to play the game from early days on local fields and streets with coats for posts to school and work teams - on many pitches that quickly turned to mud, as some may attest if played on pitches like appropriately named Fallowfield (Manchester) in the 60’s. Watching local football very occasionally today pitch-side certainly brings out the vernacular and much bigger players.

[iffleyox]

10 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

I think the attacking and defensive structures are complex and I think we've ceded some kind of intellectual status to union because of a conflation of the public school background of the game and complexity of play.

. 

I think there's some truth in that, but at the same time a lot of it is down to the (particular subset of) the British working man's fear of school. Listen to Brian Redhead in The Game That Got Away - how players would blush/laugh it off if you tried to tell them how intellectual the game actually is...

[HawkMan]

12 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

This is probably it and it will not be usurped now, you're correct.

The only possible way it might even get close to that happening is if all the other handling codes, (2 Rugbys, NFL, AFL, Gaelic football etc etc) got together and tried to combine their games and produce one worldwide handling game. But seeing as that's clearly nonsense, it won't happen. 

Conversely,  if you want to play or watch a handling game, you've got a choice, whereas Football has no rival. There isn't a pure kick a round ball on a field game to challenge football. Gaelic is the closest  but that never spread beyond Ireland. 

I wonder what would have happened if Football split into two, with a newer game , with perhaps 9 a side, bigger goals, slightly different rules challenging it, ie like the RU/ RL split. Probably one of these two would be number 1, but maybe not so enormously ahead.

[Tommygilf]

43 minutes ago, Copa said:

I think it just got in very early as an organised sport and laid a solid foundation in most places that other sports will not usurp.

I think that is a symptom rather than a cause though. It got in early and laid a solid foundation because it was simple, straightforward and required absolutely minimal equipment. 

It also spread with British expats in what some would see as the informal empire, rather than the formal British Empire which is a little peculiar. South America, the Iberian Peninsula and Italy are great examples of this as opposed to say Australia, India or South Africa. In that informal community it initially held a certain gentlemanly status, much like Cricket (for whom most football clubs were under the same umbrella as). Cricket generally died out in these countries after WW1 and especially WW2, whereas Football marched on under their own national flavour, rather than as a British import. It also spread through the continental European empires, not as much as in Britain initially, but still more than any other sport. 

Generally speaking, some form of football already existed in most places too, so a lot of what the earliest evangelists of Sheffield Rules were doing was codifying what was already there. 

Every other sport needs something more, be it personal equipment, pitch requirements, the ball itself, referees even? 

[The Masked Poster]

Just now, HawkMan said:

Conversely,  if you want to play or watch a handling game, you've got a choice, whereas Football has no rival. There isn't a pure kick a round ball on a field game to challenge football. Gaelic is the closest  but that never spread beyond Ireland. 

I wonder what would have happened if Football split into two, with a newer game , with perhaps 9 a side, bigger goals, slightly different rules challenging it, ie like the RU/ RL split. Probably one of these two would be number 1, but maybe not so enormously ahead.

Interesting thought. But don't forget, until the Sheffield Rules (I believe) were introduced there was a difference in the rules depending on where you played the game. So that possibility you mentioned existed but never happened. 

[HawkMan]

20 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

To echo others, it's the unpredictability that makes it so interesting. You can have a team costing half a billion coming up against a team put together on a shoe string budget, have 90% possession, 20 shots on target and lose 0-1 through the oppositions only chance in the game. Other sports don't have this, 99% of the time whoever plays better wins and the score is reflective of the superiority. What this gives is a feeling that every game matters. 

 

I think I'm right in saying Leicester City won the Premier league with an average percentage of possession in their 38 games at 35%.

[Young Blood]

Look at 5 biggest leagues

Seria A Juventus won 10 times in a row only ended 2 years ago 

La Liga 2 teams have won 15/17 to titles 

PSG won Ligue 1 8/11 times 

Bundesliga is a so one sided Bayern Munich have won 10 times in a row 

While most competive league Epl Man City won 4 from 5 and favourites in to win it this season. 

How is it fun when 75% of the league has 0 chance ever of winning unless they get bought by rich owners. 

 

 

 

[gingerjon]

14 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Cricket generally died out in these countries after WW1 and especially WW2, whereas Football marched on under their own national flavour, rather than as a British import. It also spread through the continental European empires, not as much as in Britain initially, but still more than any other sport. 

Why are Milan called Milan in Italian rather Milano?

Because they were established as a cricket club by English ex-pats.

[HawkMan]

7 minutes ago, Young Blood said:

Look at 5 biggest leagues

Seria A Juventus won 10 times in a row only ended 2 years ago 

La Liga 2 teams have won 15/17 to titles 

PSG won Ligue 1 8/11 times 

Bundesliga is a so one sided Bayern Munich have won 10 times in a row 

While most competive league Epl Man City won 4 from 5 and favourites in to win it this season. 

How is it fun when 75% of the league has 0 chance ever of winning unless they get bought by rich owners. 

 

 

 

Because football has something else that is mirrored in all continents,  an intercontinental club tournament,  ie the champions league. Africa, Asia, The Americas, they all have a Champions League.  In other words there's plenty to aim for other than the title. That keeps fans fully engaged. Also healthy p+r , at the season finale, the final round of matches usually most have something riding on them. Final day of the last Premier league season,  the title was up for grabs, also top four CL places, two undecided,  four teams thereabouts going for a Europa League place, two going for European Conference league place, and a relegation issue undecided.

Edited November 28, 2022 by HawkMan

[Tommygilf]

Just now, gingerjon said:

Why are Milan called Milan in Italian rather Milano?

Because they were established as a cricket club by English ex-pats.

Exactly. Why indeed does association football have 11 players on each team?

Incidentally Internazionale was the English's fault too because whilst they could tolerate having Italians on their team, Swiss people were too far.

[Young Blood]

Soccer biggest impediment it's so predictable same 3-4 teams are only going to win the league ever. What fun is it your team isn't the elite?

Look at NFL Bengals has the worst record in NFL two years later they made the SuperBowl. 

In NRL only 1 team hasn't made a Grand Final last 12 years. 

[gingerjon]

Just now, Young Blood said:

What fun is it your team isn't the elite?

I went to a ridiculously fun game in the Sussex County Women & Girls Football League Division One yesterday.

Good Bovril and good chips. Sometimes that's all you really need.

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, Young Blood said:

Soccer biggest impediment it's so predictable same 3-4 teams are only going to win the league ever. What fun is it your team isn't the elite?

Look at NFL Bengals has the worst record in NFL two years later they made the SuperBowl. 

In NRL only 1 team hasn't made a Grand Final last 12 years. 

If it was all about winning everything all the time or having a great on field spectacle, football would have died out.

It hasn't, because it doesn't rely just on those things.

[Bostik Bailey]

1 hour ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

To elaborate. 

Simplicity. It is a very easy game to understand compared to most other sports. As has been pointed out, there are maybe only 3-4 critical rules to the game functioning. Anyone can understand a game of football whereas a lot of people will be turned away from rugby due to the complexity of it. You can't just sit down having never watched a game of rugby and immediately know what's going on. 

To enjoy the game you don't need to follow the game to the letter of the law when playing either. You can take a small part of the game and just play that; stick your mate in goal and just take random shots at him. With RL, you could just kick goals over a post fair enough, but kicking the ball, going and retrieving it, kicking a goal etc etc would get very boring. You could run with the ball and see if you get past your mate in defence and score a try but it really seems that taking just a small part of RL and playing it feels like just doing a training drill over and over whereas taking shots at your mate and trying to score more and more elaborate goals and your mate trying to make extravagant saves would be a lot more fun. 

Accessibility. There are so many different ways to play the game. You can have any number of players to play a form of football including just playing on your own if you can't find anyone to play with.

You don't need all the correct equipment to play the game. You don't need goalposts or a ball even, all you need is a couple of markers of some description, whether that be a couple of stones or a couple of twigs, or holes in the ground or even just kick the ball against a wall with a couple of chalked lines or even just find a couple of trees close together to kick through. I remember once seeing a show in Africa (I think it was) and kids were just playing with a blown up carrier bag as a ball but it worked for them. 

The amount of football teams also makes it a heck of a lot more accessible. I think I saw a stat recently that said in England (I think it was just England) there is over 700 football clubs and 1,000 teams. The local non-league team to me is just a walk away and costs just a few quid to get in. They are a 10th tier team and even at that level regularly get 300 people in attendance. There is a local amateur RL team close by as well but I do live in the heartland of course so a good lot of people in Britain will be nowhere near a rugby team. 

Just some of the reasons football is so popular. 

Marvelous isn't it, small boys on the park jumpers for goalposts, rush goalie, time for tea -next goal wins,

Edited November 28, 2022 by Bostik Bailey

[HawkMan]

10 minutes ago, Young Blood said:

Soccer biggest impediment it's so predictable same 3-4 teams are only going to win the league ever. What fun is it your team isn't the elite?

Look at NFL Bengals has the worst record in NFL two years later they made the SuperBowl. 

In NRL only 1 team hasn't made a Grand Final last 12 years. 

I refer you to my earlier answer,pasted below;

Because football has something else that is mirrored in all continents,  an intercontinental club tournament,  ie the champions league. Africa, Asia, The Americas, they all have a Champions League.  In other words there's plenty to aim for other than the title. That keeps fans fully engaged. Also healthy p+r , at the season finale, the final round of matches usually most have something riding on them. Final day of the last Premier league season,  the title was up for grabs, also top four CL places, two undecided,  four teams thereabouts going for a Europa League place, two going for European Conference league place, and a relegation issue undecided.

[The Hallucinating Goose]

39 minutes ago, Young Blood said:

Look at 5 biggest leagues

Seria A Juventus won 10 times in a row only ended 2 years ago 

La Liga 2 teams have won 15/17 to titles 

PSG won Ligue 1 8/11 times 

Bundesliga is a so one sided Bayern Munich have won 10 times in a row 

While most competive league Epl Man City won 4 from 5 and favourites in to win it this season. 

How is it fun when 75% of the league has 0 chance ever of winning unless they get bought by rich owners. 

 

 

 

Because there's other competitions to win which are not the league. In England a team can win up to 4 competitions (I'm not including the Community Shield). The league, a European championship (3 different ones) and two knockout cups. Smaller teams quite often win the cups or at least reach the final. A lot of teams go into a season not focussing on winning the league and focus instead on a cup competition. 

[Tommygilf]

In year 12, in what I considered to be a rather dashing electric blue suit, I sat in an A Level RS class having not studied the subject at GCSE and argued that an example we were given of a football fan's behaviour (or at least sports fan) was a form of religion or religious activity. Retrospectively it was a bit bold, but because I'm bloody minded and frankly I like to think I'm right, it is an opinion I stand by.

The example was of a man, who goes every week to the same ground to watch his team against anyone, with thousands of other people who all do the same thing. He wears clothes that signify his loyalty and belonging to that group, he owns other memorabilia that he treasures above most items he owns, he will devote masses of time and effort into his team. He even has tattoos on his body to represent his team. He sings team songs and has posters of the players and club. He goes to the pub to socialise with other people like him and talk about their shared team and its prospects, what it needs to do better or change. He places an immense amount of self worth and meaning into the fortunes of his team, and save for his loved ones, nothing in his life gives him greater feelings of ecstasy or despair. His life is built around the next game and he talks to people who aren't supporters of his team about how great his team are and why they should support them.

To 16/17 year old religiously ambivalent me, that was a slam dunk for a modern religious experience. Now I know that isn't every football fan, but it is a hell of a lot of people who are like that about their football team. It explains a lot of why despite the major flaws in many mature football leagues right now, it is still massively popular.

[The Masked Poster]

I believe that originally the football clubs in Brazil started out as rugby clubs,?

There's a pun about own goals in there somewhere. 

[The Hallucinating Goose]

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

In year 12, in what I considered to be a rather dashing electric blue suit, I sat in an A Level RS class having not studied the subject at GCSE and argued that an example we were given of a football fan's behaviour (or at least sports fan) was a form of religion or religious activity. Retrospectively it was a bit bold, but because I'm bloody minded and frankly I like to think I'm right, it is an opinion I stand by.

The example was of a man, who goes every week to the same ground to watch his team against anyone, with thousands of other people who all do the same thing. He wears clothes that signify his loyalty and belonging to that group, he owns other memorabilia that he treasures above most items he owns, he will devote masses of time and effort into his team. He even has tattoos on his body to represent his team. He sings team songs and has posters of the players and club. He goes to the pub to socialise with other people like him and talk about their shared team and its prospects, what it needs to do better or change. He places an immense amount of self worth and meaning into the fortunes of his team, and save for his loved ones, nothing in his life gives him greater feelings of ecstasy or despair. His life is built around the next game and he talks to people who aren't supporters of his team about how great his team are and why they should support them.

To 16/17 year old religiously ambivalent me, that was a slam dunk for a modern religious experience. Now I know that isn't every football fan, but it is a hell of a lot of people who are like that about their football team. It explains a lot of why despite the major flaws in many mature football leagues right now, it is still massively popular.

A huge part of peoples' devotion to a sports team is wanting to feel a part of something. Humans are naturally social creatures and it gives people great comfort and joy to surround themselves with other joyous people who they can massively relate to. 

It's similar to how some people can just not hold a civilised debate with others; they have a viewpoint and it makes them happy when they find other people with the same viewpoint so they will only seek out information that supports that view and get very uncomfortable when someone tries to challenge it. 

Going back to the sport, the fact you know your team isn't going to win the league, or even the game you're attending, doesn't bother you because you are going for the whole fan experience and routine that you are so familiar with. It is doing something familiar and comfortable that's makes you happy, not the actual event (in this case a football match) itself necessarily. 

[meast]

1 hour ago, Young Blood said:

Look at 5 biggest leagues

Seria A Juventus won 10 times in a row only ended 2 years ago 

La Liga 2 teams have won 15/17 to titles 

PSG won Ligue 1 8/11 times 

Bundesliga is a so one sided Bayern Munich have won 10 times in a row 

While most competive league Epl Man City won 4 from 5 and favourites in to win it this season. 

How is it fun when 75% of the league has 0 chance ever of winning unless they get bought by rich owners. 

 

 

 

There's more to football than the greedy conglomerate and nation state owned top level.

Football is enjoyable at lower levels and live, watching the top teams and the top levels on TV is dull as anything as there's too much (money) at stake for teams to lose.

At a lower level, teams just play to try and win, it's a far better and enjoyable experience.

Edited November 28, 2022 by meast

[JohnM]

28 minutes ago, meast said:

There's more to football than the greedy conglomerate and nation state owned top level.

Football is enjoyable at lower levels and live, watching the top teams and the top levels on TV is dull as anything as there's too much (money) at stake for teams to lose.

At a lower level, teams just play to try and win, it's a far better and enjoyable experience.

That, though, is the inverted snobbery that has made English rugby league what it is today, in my view.

 

[ivans82]

Like some on here i find football tedious , it doesn`t hold my attention . Also i must admit being a Rugby League fan , i turned a lot of the World Cup games off because they were too onesided our game is brutal when one side is too dominant .........What i find baffling is Football is a billion pound business , but it hasn`t moved yet on temporary substitutions for head injuries  , and in the World Cup itself Teams spend 4 years building up to the competition , qualifying , and then when it gets to the knock out stages and final , it is quite happy for those games to be be decided by a glorified coin toss (i.e. a penalty shoot out) .