I don't mean to disrespect the members of Sam's Army who are passionate about the team, and the members of our national team who played their hearts out the last few weeks. But I feel a bit bad when we beat Spain, where everyone cares about Soccer, and it seems that most Americans aren't just indifferent to the sport, but they actually hate it and don't even think of Soccer as a sport (which is annoying, infuriating, and deserving of another post).

Have a listen to what some of those international fans have to say about US soccer -- and the US and Americans in general -- and you won't feel so bad about making them choke on the US' boots.

Nice post but one major nit to pick. Luis Fabiano is NOT the Kobe Bryant of anything - club, country, or sport! And I'm not even a Kobe fan.

I'd love the US to do well--I think we out performed in the World Cup in 2002. My boss and a number of colleagues at the time were German, and watching the US/Germany quarter-final was awesome, though more for the other Americans than the Germans. They knew after a close game with us that there was no way they'd beat Brazil, and some of them had doubts about even getting past S. Korea.

Much as I'd love us to be regularly competitive in the WC, I don't think it will ever happen. I love soccer, but true to my American roots, I'm also a big football fan, and hockey, basketball and baseball somewhat closely (I'll own being something of a bandwagon fan in baseball and basketball--it's hard not to get into both in Boston).

And standing these sports next to soccer, it's hard for me to see how all four of those sports aren't simply more interesting, both at the level of a single game, and as someone who follows a team, than soccer.

Some truly amazing feats of athleticism occur on the pitch, but I think you can find their equal on a court, on the ice, and on the football field.

Additionally, the depth of long-term strategy and in-game tactics in football dwarf any of those in soccer; both basketball and hockey--similar to soccer in that flow is important and the same set of players are on the field for offense and defense--offer a greater number of interesting moments in any given game and baseball, well baseball's arguable on a game-to-game basis, but the fact that there are enough events (i.e. 162 games/season, 52ish outs/game, several pitches/out) means that real statistics can be brought to bear, which enables an entire level of sports geekery that adds something to the life of baseball fans.

Anyway, given that, I think the tale of an American soccer fan is always going to be a bit of a tragic one.

I once went to an over-crowded bar in Buenos Aires with my friends to watch the much-hyped "superclasico" between Argentina's two most popular teams, River Plate and the Boca Juniors. Lots of "passion" (yelling) in the bar. Crowd seemed about evenly split between fans of both teams. One team scored a goal, the other team scored a goal and, eventually, after a whole lot of running around, the game ended. Tied.

I don't see the appeal. And I doubt that soccer will ever join the ranks of football, baseball and basketball. We like to see some scoring. And we like for there to be a winner (and a loser) at the end of a game. And we're just accustomed to a different pace in our sports.

Hockey is about as close as we come to the constant, back and forth motion of a soccer game. But at least there are sticks and skates and some violence to keep hockey interesting. Soccer players, on the other hand, seem to be encouraged to be whiny bitches, dramatically rolling around on the grass in faux-agony when someone kicks their ankle. Please.

Nope, I do not see soccer taking hold in the US and I, for one, don't mind a bit.

Once Fox Soccer Channel started broadcasting English Premier League games, I was hooked. I watch almost every game. The last World Cup, I did watch every game. I have traveled to England to catch a few games in each of the last three seasons. In college, I lived across the square from Fenway Park and never visited it. (Baseball must be the world's greatest spectator sport because 15 of the 18 players are spectators most of the time.)

If you think that basketball and hockey "offer a greater number of interesting moments in any given game", I think you're watching for the wrong things. And football is simply too slow; 10-15 seconds of activity every minute or so tends to put me to sleep.

But, to tell you the truth, I'll be just as happy if things stay as they are. It's very nice being able to get tickets on short notice whenever I feel the urge to see a local game. That is, of course, not true of the games I go to in England, but they are worth the hassle.

As to your point, Adam, I think you're committing a sin that plagues most US soccer fans: we hope for a national support that the size and multivaried nature of our country will simply never have.

Allow me to elaborate:

US soccer participation is, from a brief perusal of the internet, roughly 20 million people. About 15 million of that is under-18. Now this is 6-7% of our country, admittedly, but in terms of gross numbers that participation level would put our raw numbers at a spot comparable to a Spain (if they had ~45% participation, which is probably high) or Italy or the UK (at about a 30% rate). The point is, our relative immensity is both boon and bane. We can churn out a comparably-sized talent pool with a fraction the participation, but we also can never expect a behemoth like ourselves to unify behind a single sport. Our national pastime, the NFL, gets about 40% of the country to watch its championship, so soccerheads can't expect our country to start cranking out 60% support at any point in the future. Only Brazil gets to be 150+ million strong and soccer-mad. Freaks. Beautiful, talented, wonderful freaks.

I'm okay with that, btw. Not to get too Buddhist-y, but the agony and tragedy of an American soccer fan's aspirations can be mitigated if you simply remove the desire for the Single Minded Craze of Smaller European Countries.

I'm madly in love with the soccer-fan community and all its trappings. The people are smarter than your average bear, the passion is intoxicating (full disclosure, I'm a loyal member of Sam's Army), and there is enough of a culture now to really nourish our talent, which is dramatically improving in case no one noticed it. It's just going to take time. We're a nation of immigrants, and their love for The Beautiful Game will seep more into our fabric with their children (see: Altidore). As an aside, the anti-Lou Dobbsiness of soccer is amongst its highest qualities.

Now, if we want to spend some time griping about that traitorous Giuseppe Rossi, he of exquisite soccer talent, withholding his skills from his Land of Birth to give to the over-stuffed Azzuri, give me the time and place. I'll be there with torch and pitchfork.

But both basketball and hockey are faster, with more goals, shots, passes and changes in possession than soccer.

That being the case, the events, and especially goals have that much more import and so like you said, it's terrible when you turn away and miss something, but it also means a relatively low rate of important moments over time.

The people who play soccer in this country tend to be among the least athletic so that they have something to play and all the kids clump around the ball. We don't actually teach our kids real strategy about soccer because truth be told, for the most part we don't know any. Most soccer teams are taught by parents who also played as kids but don't know anything beyond how to run a few drills and the most basic of rules.

The most talented and athletic people in America will always play Football, Basketball, and Baseball first. Then Hockey. Then Tennis. Then Lacrosse. Then like 5 - 10 other sports. Then soccer. So while a large number of people play, there are not a large number of people who are among the most athletic and most people give up.

The truth is, you'd have a better shot with rugby. I've watched some of those matches and they're actually really exciting. I have a theory that there are 3 US sports and 3 parallel world sports:

Football = Rugby
Baseball = Cricket
Basketball = Futbol

It makes sense. It also explains why Basketball is clearly the best at spreading across the world. Baseball is king in the areas where America has acted as a colonial empire. Cricket it king in the areas where the Brits had colonies. And so on. I could go on about the commonalities in the games themselves, but that's not the point. The point is that we already have our soccer, except with a lot more scoring and with something as awesome as the Slam Dunk. Soccer cannot compete. So losing accomplishes nothing. Americans only like things we're winning at. No one cares about swimming, but oh wait, look there's Michael Phelps, now we care again. The only way America will truly fall in love with soccer is prolonged winning.

I grew up not watching any sports at all, except a bit of baseball and basketball casually (both sports which I played), and then in this order: Football (American), Formula 1 racing, soccer. It would help if we had a higher quality league in the States. As far as becoming popular, I think it's growing but rather slowly. International influence helps.

FWIW I think I'd enjoy the shit out of playing rugby. I've hardly seen any, and I'm not a real big guy, but I do love rough sports and running.

While the Confed Cup has been a boon, and today's game surely got good ratings. When casual sports fans hear things like "US in the final versus Brazil" they will watch because they know that Brazil is the be all and end all in soccer powers. It would have been nice to win, but we still have much to look forward to the next few soccer playing years.

I accept that there are subtleties that I am missing because I haven't watched the game all that much. Still, what strikes me about soccer is how much of the action is inconsequential. So many games end up with scores of 2-1, 1-0, and so on. Certainly, there are plenty of 1-0 and 2-1 games in baseball, and 14-7 and 10-3 games in football, but those two sports provide many more intermediate accomplishments such as first downs, field position, hits, baserunners, and so on. Obviously, the action in soccer is nonstop compared to those two sports, but very little of the action yields anything tangible.

Lest I be dismissed as a jingoist, I would rather watch soccer than hockey, and the worldwide aspect of soccer makes me wish that I liked it. But I just can't.

Maybe you're right about how tangible the piecemeal achievements are. But couldn't you say the same thing about hits in scoreless innings, or first downs that are part of a three-and-out; namely, that they're inconsequential to the scoreboard? (Okay, hits get recorded on the actual scoreboard, but you know what I mean.) It seems like a lot of the complaints about soccer here are related to its low-scoring aspect, the higher frequency of tie games; and I get that, I get why some people, especially Americans, will say "where's the beef?"

But to me, that actually adds to the excitement. It's not only exciting when someone scores, although a goal is the most exciting thing that happens - great runs, great set pieces, great shots, and also great saves are interesting as well, and beautiful to see. So is the way that a high-level team, such as those in European leagues and the national teams playing recently in the Confederations Cup and in World Cup qualifiers, moves the ball around. There's a lot of creativity and, to me, beautiful skill on display there. My biggest complaint about soccer is the diving and injury-play-acting that seems to be an accepted part of the sport. It's especially painful when I see an American doing it. (I'm looking at you, Donovan - you'd be hands-down my favorite otherwise.)

One minor note though, about soccer as "the world's game". Soccer is the undisputed king in Europe, South America, most of Central America, and Africa. But it's not a dominant sport by any means in the world's 2 biggest countries -- China (which seems to have latched onto basketball), India (where cricket is #1, and probably #2 and #3). In fact, although the English love football obsessively, many of their former colonies don't share the love. Not just India and Pakistan (also a cricket nation), and the US and Canada, but also Australia (which is still more of a cricket nation, no one can match Don Bradman in their sport pantheon) and the West Indies (where cricket, again, is #1).

And in Asia, I suppose South Korea is into soccer, but it's still behind baseball, I think. Same with Japan. And do any SE Asian countries follow soccer religiously, or have really popular leagues?

I think calling soccer "the world's game" and acting as if Americans are the only ones who don't follow it intensely is a sort of odd species of American exceptionalism.

There are tons of moments like that in soccer, if you know how to look for them, but most of those things aren't going to be tracked statistically by the news or sports media (but you can be sure that the teams track those things). I don't think that the fact that there are stats for x, y, z makes a sport more or less entertaining. In fact, I think it can hamper it in some ways. And I think that simplicity is on of the reasons that so many people in other parts of the world can get appreciate it in such wide capacity.

There are many things for which I find the U.S. wanting when compared to other countries but sports isn't one of them. The brilliant & diverse American sports imagination is simply too talented & complex to be caught up in a game like soccer with anything more than a passing interest.

Just as well. I appreciate the athleticism involved but the game does nothing for me. Give me the NBA over futbol any day of the week.

A google search on "Adam Serwer Arnold Kling reparations" found it for me on the first page, just for reference. I didn't follow the whole dust up a the time. Even in context that quote from AK still makes me twitch.

I don't know this name "soccer" - I hear it is an old English slang term for Association of Football. I know only futbol, football, fußball and American Football. One is played with the foot - the other one holding and throwing the ball with your hands? Europeans call American Football Handball or Rugby? Although it is played without protective cushioning - raw.

Rugby never made it big in Europe. Everyone loved the fighting spirit of Rugby - but there were never enough skills involved to make it a big play. You play games and don't only fight them. It has to be beautiful to be good.

That said. Football is a real sport. A holistic one. It involves skills, creativity, team spirit, strategy and tactics, endurance and power. It demands this of every player on the field for at least 90 minutes. Some commenters were seeking comparisons to other sports. As I have stated before - I too see the biggest similarity to basketball. It is fast and constant team sport that needs touch and skills. I am not sure how much spinning plays a role in basketball compared to football. My guess is that football needs a bit more spin-thinking but less than tennis or snooker.

The argument that it is all about the points - Americans need fast and frequent scoring - does not make much sense to me. What everybody wants is excitement and to see some otherwise unmatched skills. You always know if the score is close or not? 94:33 is more or less like 3:1? If it were not for skills and beauty - I could just stay home and play computer-games where it is all about frequent points.

It further does not make sense to me to emphasize the excitement via the frequency of the score - when popular US sports involves so much boring waiting. Who likes waiting and how does a high score make up for that? I mean - I have been able to enjoy live American Football, football, cricket, baseball, basketball, tennis, rugby, etc. And if you don't enjoy waiting or watching commercials and if you would rather talk to the cheerleader than watch them after a few minutes - than American Football, baseball and cricket are clearly not even an option for you. That is the case for me. I would have to get paid to watch live baseball, cricket or even American Football. I really enjoy the 3 minutes summaries after editing - but no high score on the planet can make up for waiting 95% of the time for action and skill. I have a day job and simply do not have the time.

Further - I feel so much fitter myself than most baseball player I see on TV. That's really makes me feel strange. Even with American Football - I sometimes get the feeling that the quarterbacks are the only fit athletes on the field. Most other players look as if they spend their days eating and going to the gym for fake muscle. Sufficient to say that nough has been said.

Football is more than a sport or game. It is olympic. It is transcending culture, countries, religion and skins and sizes and builds. The commenter above strikes a sensitive note when he points out that there are indeed some nations where other sports are pre-dominant like cricket in India and Pakistan and all kinds of sports in China. First of all - there are more Manchester United fans in India than there are in the UK as the famous Guinness ad shows us. Some nations need to be exceptional in their sports. On general however - there is no other game or sport or activity on the planet that reminds the average human on earth that we are all one and that we all share the same planet as does football.

Saying that you are not into football is ok. But on a global scale - it sounds like an American saying his is not into the NFL or NBA or baseball. It has nothing to do with frequency of scoring - it has to do with upbringing and culture and some other things. Careful - I am not saying that because the whole world likes football - you must too. I am just making the point that if you like it or not - there is no other game or sport or activity on the planet that reminds the average human on earth that we are all one and that we all share the same planet as does football. When your own boys play - support them. They are representing you one the biggest stage there is - if you like it or not.

If the real football experience were not global it would not exist. Unless you can lose and win against the whole world - it would not feel so much bigger than its parts. It would not bring out tears oh so often in grown man. It was only for football that the Nazis played fair and agreed and sticked to ceasefires during WWII. Nothing is being watched live by as many viewers as the World Cup. It is the biggest human event there is. If China, the USA or India like it or not.

I wanted to reach another point altogether. The point of self-confidence and self-image. As individuals but also socially. Something about bigger being merely bigger, more being more and better really being better. But that is for another time...

Great post. Thanks a lot.

If I remember correctly, the Dutch and Spaniards haven't won the world cup either...

I have to say that it is a beautiful game to watch..or maybe breaking 30 is making me a bit of a romantic cause I just decided a couple months ago that Basketball on HD is a beautiful game also. (I've always been a fan of baseball and football, never got into hockey or nascar tho.)